Papers PLEASE [680x542 - 57KB] | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (47).

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

I'll watch the video tomorrow, wife is sleeping

The video is text only. And yes, you too should be sleeping. Kek. Doesn't the bible say something like "thou shalt not stay awake 'til morning if thou doest not wantest to be trashest by thy hangover!"? Sinner.

An orthodox christian view of non-christian religions

Actually, that's very interesting. I'll have to look into that.

The god-shaped hole

I think, that you ignore every perspective that isn't monotheistic. As I said, this all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful, law-giving being, this singular thing, that's the only thing with the legitimacy to rule, is a monotheistic concept.

Despite my often quite staunch , I still consider myself to be an anarchist. And anarchy, when put into practice, is a polylegal system, e.g. a system that consists of entirely independent sets of laws and law-givers, that compete with each other. That's a perspective most people really don't understand, even though that what's been the default for most of human existence. I don't want to put the blame for this lack of understanding of something that should come natural on anything in particular, but I'd like to point it out.

Of course you may say, that even polytheistic heathens, like the romans, created a singular state, and, worse, that this singular state served as the blueprint for much of the abomination of law and statehood we're encountering today. Well, this may be true, even though one may point out, that the roman state soon became genocidal after monotheism became state-religion, but not before, or at least not to the same degree. One may also point out, that in reality, all we know about the roman state are the opinions of a handful of ancient writers, which leave many blanks. And when the roman state was used as a blueprint, those blanks were filled with contemporary preconceptions, so the roman state as a blueprint might have looked entirely different from the roman state as it really existed.

Chink's god-shaped hole

IMHO you can explain much of the non-western "worship of men" with them emulating the western approach after having been defeated by westerners. Asians still venerate europeans and their culture, and still go to unhealthy lengths when emulating it. You know, they wear european clothes, follow european political ideologies, see europeans as more sexually attractive when compared to their own race, travel to europe when they want to see great culture, see it as cultured to teach their children to play european instruments and european styles of music, and so on. No matter what they say, asians are the biggest fanboys europeans have ever had. See for some fanboydom. Asians hold european culture in higher respect than europeans themselves.

So maybe they follow the same patterns, simply because they're trying to impersonate westerners, and not because of some "god shaped hole".

> I'll watch the video tomorrow, wife is sleeping The video is text only. And yes, you too should be sleeping. Kek. Doesn't the bible say something like "thou shalt not stay awake 'til morning if thou doest not wantest to be trashest by thy hangover!"? Sinner. > An orthodox christian view of non-christian religions Actually, that's very interesting. I'll have to look into that. > The god-shaped hole I think, that you ignore every perspective that isn't monotheistic. As I said, this all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful, law-giving being, this singular thing, that's the only thing with the legitimacy to rule, is a monotheistic concept. Despite my often quite staunch [natsoc rhethoric](https://helicoptarianconstitocracy.org/swastikastrike/), I still consider myself to be an anarchist. And anarchy, when put into practice, is a polylegal system, e.g. a system that consists of entirely independent sets of laws and law-givers, that compete with each other. That's a perspective most people really don't understand, even though that what's been the default for most of human existence. I don't want to put the blame for this lack of understanding of something that should come natural on anything in particular, but I'd like to point it out. Of course you may say, that even polytheistic heathens, like the romans, created a singular state, and, worse, that this singular state served as the blueprint for much of the abomination of law and statehood we're encountering today. Well, this may be true, even though one may point out, that the roman state soon became genocidal after monotheism became state-religion, but not before, or at least not to the same degree. One may also point out, that in reality, all we know about the roman state are the opinions of a handful of ancient writers, which leave many blanks. And when the roman state was used as a blueprint, those blanks were filled with contemporary preconceptions, so the roman state as a blueprint might have looked entirely different from the roman state as it really existed. > Chink's god-shaped hole IMHO you can explain much of the non-western "worship of men" with them emulating the western approach after having been defeated by westerners. Asians still venerate europeans and their culture, and still go to unhealthy lengths when emulating it. You know, they wear european clothes, follow european political ideologies, see europeans as more sexually attractive when compared to their own race, travel to europe when they want to see great culture, see it as cultured to teach their children to play european instruments and european styles of music, and so on. No matter what they say, asians are the biggest fanboys europeans have ever had. See [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GifxbGICwCA) for some fanboydom. Asians hold european culture in higher respect than europeans themselves. So maybe they follow the same patterns, simply because they're trying to impersonate westerners, and not because of some "god shaped hole".

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

(edited )

In reference to this

So maybe they follow the same patterns, simply because they're trying to impersonate westerners, and not because of some "god shaped hole".

China is actually what I would consider a canary in the coal mine. They reached something akin to western justice sooner than anybody else. They devolved into central planning sooner than everyone else. Their philosophers predate ancient Roman/Greek philosophers despite having quite similar mindsets (Taoism/Stoicism, Confucianism/Plato). Buddhism represents a departure from all of these as the "state approved" religion, because it's godless (leaving plenty of room for the state), easily subverted, proposes a worldview in which nothing on the Earth fundamentally matters, which effectively sucks the fight out of a population.

Maybe you can make some contemporary comparisons, but that only applies to a very narrow window of time. After their entire culture has been erased.

But I do feel like you've glossed over the most critical aspect of what I was saying, that there's only two POSSIBLE outcomes. That was the whole point of the God shaped hole. It will either be filled with God, or with man (the state, the self, as God). I don't see how there's any alternative.

But you're the most intelligent and well read national socialist I've ever met (although, you say you aren't one? I'm confused about this part). I think this starvation has given me further biases against National Socialism. They never seem to be well-learned, they never seem to have any insights about history beyond the Weimar republic, or passions, or whatever else.

So I hear all of them talking out of one side of their mouth about the glory of the white race, yet in the other I just hear gibberish that's completely devoid of what they actually glorify the white race for. (And for the record I consider myself pretty stupid, I say idiotic moronic shit all the time, but I try to be cognizant of that and learn from that and be a better person as a result) I just have a romanticism for all of these things they take pride in, but never seem to be educated or even interested about.

This is the first time in years I felt like I wasn't speaking to a wall when talking to national socialists. We have overlapping beliefs and interests but it's usually pretty shallow.

It makes it feel incredibly hollow.

In reference to this >So maybe they follow the same patterns, simply because they're trying to impersonate westerners, and not because of some "god shaped hole". China is actually what I would consider a canary in the coal mine. They reached something akin to western justice sooner than anybody else. They devolved into central planning sooner than everyone else. Their philosophers predate ancient Roman/Greek philosophers despite having quite similar mindsets (Taoism/Stoicism, Confucianism/Plato). Buddhism represents a departure from all of these as the "state approved" religion, because it's godless (leaving plenty of room for the state), easily subverted, proposes a worldview in which nothing on the Earth fundamentally matters, which effectively sucks the fight out of a population. Maybe you can make some contemporary comparisons, but that only applies to a very narrow window of time. After their entire culture has been erased. But I do feel like you've glossed over the most critical aspect of what I was saying, that there's only two POSSIBLE outcomes. That was the whole point of the God shaped hole. It will either be filled with God, or with man (the state, the self, as God). I don't see how there's any alternative. But you're the most intelligent and well read national socialist I've **ever** met (although, you say you aren't one? I'm confused about this part). I think this starvation has given me further biases against National Socialism. They never seem to be well-learned, they never seem to have any insights about history beyond the Weimar republic, or passions, or whatever else. So I hear all of them talking out of one side of their mouth about the glory of the white race, yet in the other I just hear gibberish that's completely **devoid** of what they actually glorify the white race **for**. (And for the record I consider myself pretty stupid, I say idiotic moronic shit all the time, but I try to be cognizant of that and learn from that and be a better person as a result) I just have a romanticism for all of these things they take pride in, but never seem to be educated or even interested about. This is the first time in years I felt like I wasn't speaking to a wall when talking to national socialists. We have overlapping beliefs and interests but it's usually pretty shallow. It makes it feel incredibly hollow.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

chinks

Did you know... During WW2, the Nipps (japanese, but they call themselves "nipponese", so let's respect that) occupied china, and tried to formalize a legal system for the occupied territories that matched the traditional chinese legal system from back then, because chinese merchants were everywhere, people were used to the chinese system, and it also seemed to be rather efficient. So the nipps send out a delegation to find out what those laws were, and they found out... That no such thing as chinese trade-law existed. Chinese trade was devoid of any legal framework. None. There was very little that prevented all kinds of fraud, theft, and no enforcement whatsoever.

The way chink merchants operated under those conditions was via self-enforcing contracts, e.g. they set things up in such a manner, that the party who's breaking some contract automatically has more damages than breaking the contract would be worth. And this proved to be very efficient, and was used as a model in the whole region. At least before WW2.

Having totally unregulated trade doesn't sound much like what's currently happening in the west or the east. It certainly doesn't sound as if the godless chinese from ~100 years ago, e.g. before their culture was destroyed, were big state-worshipers.

So I'm still not convinced. I understand where this thesis is coming from, but it seems myopic. Homo Sapiens has been around for about 300000 years, while the concept of a monotheistic god exists for maybe 3000 years. So for 99% of our existence, the idea of a Jehova didn't exist. The default-religion for humans, that springs into existence when nothing else is there, seems to be some form of polytheistic ancestral-ghost-worship, so I'd expect this to be the norm for 99% of human existence. Even 2000 years ago in judaea, most people still were polytheist. And they seemed to be perfectly content. No god-shaped hole there.

Anyways, IMHO the god-shaped-hole thesis simply says, that people will follow their urges, if they don't follow a higher authority. The state, with it's ability to punish and reward it's little lemmings, operates on those urges. God may be such a higher authority, and indeed, he really is a nice one, because he certainly acts as if he doesn't exists, and thereby gives those, who follow his higher authority, something that comes very close to true individual freedom and responsibility.

That's a really nice and useful trick to not become enslaved by some worldly powers. And such tricks and ruses really are what wins in an evolutionary contest. So I agree, that it's an important thing.

However, the shape of the hole is not the shape of god, but the shape of anything that's more important than common worldly powers and urges, and preferably still allows the individual to decide.

my National Socialism

I said in the text you've cited, that I see myself as an anarchist, not a NatSoc. I'm for hanging each and every politician and public servant, no exceptions, and the original NatSocs would therefore probably be for hanging me, or at least putting me into some SS-penal-battallion where I'd be allowed to clear minefields.

However, I'm friendly to NatSocs, and I want them to have their place, where they can put their theories into practice, and see how things play out. National Socialism, which should be called Race Socialism, appears to be the best possible socialism, because it organizes people according to their genetic similarity, e.g. race, into groups. The natural organization for humans are families and tribes, e.g. groups that are genetically interrelated to each other. Races - which btw were much more specific than just something like "white" back then - seem to be a continuation of this natural trend, and therefore appears to be more fitting to human nature, than just marxist "classes", or the modern democratic "whatever some public official says" bullshit.

Besides, as I said, if you want to put some common sense in the contemporary lemmings, you're trying to turn them into something they themselves would describe as nazis. So why not embrace it? It's not that the contemporary lemmings would accept anything that isn't socialist in nature, or even care what you say, if it's not what they want to hear.

> chinks Did you know... During WW2, the Nipps (japanese, but they call themselves "nipponese", so let's respect that) occupied china, and tried to formalize a legal system for the occupied territories that matched the traditional chinese legal system from back then, because chinese merchants were everywhere, people were used to the chinese system, and it also seemed to be rather efficient. So the nipps send out a delegation to find out what those laws were, and they found out... That no such thing as chinese trade-law existed. Chinese trade was devoid of any legal framework. None. There was very little that prevented all kinds of fraud, theft, and no enforcement whatsoever. The way chink merchants operated under those conditions was via self-enforcing contracts, e.g. they set things up in such a manner, that the party who's breaking some contract automatically has more damages than breaking the contract would be worth. And this proved to be very efficient, and was used as a model in the whole region. At least before WW2. Having totally unregulated trade doesn't sound much like what's currently happening in the west or the east. It certainly doesn't sound as if the godless chinese from ~100 years ago, e.g. before their culture was destroyed, were big state-worshipers. So I'm still not convinced. I understand where this thesis is coming from, but it seems myopic. Homo Sapiens has been around for about 300000 years, while the concept of a monotheistic god exists for maybe 3000 years. So for 99% of our existence, the idea of a Jehova didn't exist. The default-religion for humans, that springs into existence when nothing else is there, seems to be some form of polytheistic ancestral-ghost-worship, so I'd expect this to be the norm for 99% of human existence. Even 2000 years ago in judaea, most people still were polytheist. And they seemed to be perfectly content. No god-shaped hole there. Anyways, IMHO the god-shaped-hole thesis simply says, that people will follow their urges, if they don't follow a higher authority. The state, with it's ability to punish and reward it's little lemmings, operates on those urges. God may be such a higher authority, and indeed, he really is a nice one, because he certainly acts as if he doesn't exists, and thereby gives those, who follow his higher authority, something that comes very close to true individual freedom and responsibility. That's a really nice and useful trick to not become enslaved by some worldly powers. And such tricks and ruses really are what wins in an evolutionary contest. So I agree, that it's an important thing. However, the shape of the hole is not the shape of god, but the shape of anything that's more important than common worldly powers and urges, and preferably still allows the individual to decide. > my National Socialism I said in the text you've cited, that I see myself as an anarchist, not a NatSoc. I'm for hanging each and every politician and public servant, no exceptions, and the original NatSocs would therefore probably be for hanging me, or at least putting me into some SS-penal-battallion where I'd be allowed to clear minefields. However, I'm friendly to NatSocs, and I want them to have their place, where they can put their theories into practice, and see how things play out. National Socialism, which should be called Race Socialism, appears to be the best possible socialism, because it organizes people according to their genetic similarity, e.g. race, into groups. The natural organization for humans are families and tribes, e.g. groups that are genetically interrelated to each other. Races - which btw were much more specific than just something like "white" back then - seem to be a continuation of this natural trend, and therefore appears to be more fitting to human nature, than just marxist "classes", or the modern democratic "whatever some public official says" bullshit. Besides, as I said, if you want to put some common sense in the contemporary lemmings, you're trying to turn them into something they themselves would describe as nazis. So why not embrace it? It's not that the contemporary lemmings would accept anything that isn't socialist in nature, or even care what you say, if it's not what they want to hear.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

In reference to

The default-religion for humans, that springs into existence when nothing else is there, seems to be some form of polytheistic ancestral-ghost-worship, so I'd expect this to be the norm for 99% of human existence. Even 2000 years ago in judaea, most people still were polytheist. And they seemed to be perfectly content. No god-shaped hole there.

I feel like you are not doing your due diligence here to place yourself in a differing philosophical framework. Sure if you remove all theological progression maybe people default to worshipping the ghost of grandma or whatever else. And if you remove all linguistic progression people will use grunts and clicks again. That's not really the point. The point is language IS innate and over time languages WILL develop and become more refined.

Monotheism is what that refinement would look like. The same way grunts and clicks is not an alternative to our modern language, having 145 different gods to represent one thing, "the good" or more simply, God.

And equally, a lot of your views revolve around the idea that one day people wake up and just decide "hey, you know what? I'm gonna believe in some crazy supernatural shit today, and then just do that for the rest of my life".

It's really not like that. People have life changing experiences, they feel these things in the core of their being that there's something more, they think about existential shit. And it's not irrational at all either. You look at the micro-animal world for example. You have these organisms, with miniscule intelligence and perception abilities and whatever else. And they have no way of conceptualizing that they're part of something bigger, and that bigger something is part of something else, and something bigger beyond that as well.

Speculating that we aren't in some way in a similar situation is just as valid as speculating that we are, from a purely rational standpoint. It isn't the "logical" position. And say, we had the capabilities to modify or elevate this micro-animals abilities to perceive, eye sight or whatever else, some kind of sensory perception it either doesn't have or is otherwise dormant (the same way our pineal gland is considered a remnant of reptilian evolution, or whatever the fuck).

All I'm saying is that the possibilities are broad and vast, but there is this culture today of just confidently asserting that everything we perceive is all that exists, when it doesn't take much deliberation to realize that's all just a massive assumption, and everything else relies entirely on that one assumption.

There is nothing rational or logical about conjuring up a random assumption and then constructing an entire ideology based on that. There's actually more evidence from a religious standpoint for their beliefs, because they actually believe they experienced something. Whereas the alternate stance is based on the absence of that experience. It's as fallacious as saying, "well I've never been to Canada so it probably doesn't exist", or the flat earthers, "I've never been to space so I think it doesn't exist".

It's an incredibly close minded interpretation and I don't really see how or why it's the prevailing train of thought.

I could easily psychoanalys this behavior in the same way you psychoanalys religious belief, "well people feel the need for security and it provides comfort for them to see the entirety of existence right in front of them" or whatever else. It's just as valid because the epistemology behind it is entirely devoid of substance.

Besides, as I said, if you want to put some common sense in the contemporary lemmings, you're trying to turn them into something they themselves would describe as nazis. So why not embrace it? It's not that the contemporary lemmings would accept anything that isn't socialist in nature, or even care what you say, if it's not what they want to hear.

Do you honestly believe it would be easier to convert everyone to a National Socialist framework than a Christian framework?

In reference to >The default-religion for humans, that springs into existence when nothing else is there, seems to be some form of polytheistic ancestral-ghost-worship, so I'd expect this to be the norm for 99% of human existence. Even 2000 years ago in judaea, most people still were polytheist. And they seemed to be perfectly content. No god-shaped hole there. I feel like you are not doing your due diligence here to place yourself in a differing philosophical framework. Sure if you remove all theological progression maybe people default to worshipping the ghost of grandma or whatever else. And if you remove all linguistic progression people will use grunts and clicks again. That's not really the point. The point is language IS innate and over time languages WILL develop and become more refined. Monotheism is what that refinement would look like. The same way grunts and clicks is not an alternative to our modern language, having 145 different gods to represent one thing, "the good" or more simply, God. And equally, a lot of your views revolve around the idea that one day people wake up and just decide "hey, you know what? I'm gonna believe in some crazy supernatural shit today, and then just do that for the rest of my life". It's really not like that. People have life changing experiences, they feel these things in the core of their being that there's something more, they think about existential shit. And it's not irrational at all either. You look at the micro-animal world for example. You have these organisms, with miniscule intelligence and perception abilities and whatever else. And they have no way of conceptualizing that they're part of something bigger, and that bigger something is part of something else, and something bigger beyond that as well. Speculating that we aren't in some way in a similar situation is just as valid as speculating that we are, from a purely rational standpoint. It isn't the "logical" position. And say, we had the capabilities to modify or elevate this micro-animals abilities to perceive, eye sight or whatever else, some kind of sensory perception it either doesn't have or is otherwise dormant (the same way our pineal gland is considered a remnant of reptilian evolution, or whatever the fuck). All I'm saying is that the possibilities are broad and vast, but there is this culture today of just confidently asserting that everything we perceive is all that exists, when it doesn't take much deliberation to realize that's all just a massive assumption, and everything else relies entirely on that one assumption. There is nothing rational or logical about conjuring up a random assumption and then constructing an entire ideology based on that. There's actually more evidence from a religious standpoint for their beliefs, because they actually believe they experienced something. Whereas the alternate stance is based on the absence of that experience. It's as fallacious as saying, "well I've never been to Canada so it probably doesn't exist", or the flat earthers, "I've never been to space so I think it doesn't exist". It's an incredibly close minded interpretation and I don't really see how or why it's the prevailing train of thought. I could easily psychoanalys this behavior in the same way you psychoanalys religious belief, "well people feel the need for security and it provides comfort for them to see the entirety of existence right in front of them" or whatever else. It's just as valid because the epistemology behind it is entirely devoid of substance. >Besides, as I said, if you want to put some common sense in the contemporary lemmings, you're trying to turn them into something they themselves would describe as nazis. So why not embrace it? It's not that the contemporary lemmings would accept anything that isn't socialist in nature, or even care what you say, if it's not what they want to hear. Do you honestly believe it would be easier to convert everyone to a National Socialist framework than a Christian framework?

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)

(post is archived)

You can claim this sub in /s/subrequest