>>14"Your" people?
Yes, my people. Not my problem if you don't understand a simple concept like that. It's normal to want to be a part of a group -- family, friends, local community, and race. Modern globalists are trying to cut our bounds to our people. They want us to be raceless, tribeless drones who are unable to rise up and overthrow elites. They want us to have no identity so that they can dictate our entire lives -- what to eat, what to buy, what culture to partake in, who to vote for, and so on.
Why?
I have traveled to racially homogeneous countries. They were not white, but there was still something special about them. I obviously didn't fit in, but I think racial homogeneity is best. Multiculturalism breeds secret resentment, hostility, fighting, and it just doesn't work except in some utopian pipe dream. Blood is thicker than politics. Blood is thicker than the constitution.
The religion that tells you to follow the laws of the realm as long as it does not go against it?
What's wrong with a moral compass and rules? Do you want anarchy and amorality or immorality?
"Oh no, he had sex before marriage! Murder!"
I've gotten laid and I'm not married. It doesn't have to be Amish levels of tradition. But I don't want the world to be as degenerate as it is now. And it's not just how things are right now -- it's where they're headed. You know how you can differentiate a function to tell the slope of the tangent line? You can see where it's headed, not just where it is right now. And it's not just that things are bad now, but they're changing to be even worse in the future. Sure, maybe it will be better for some people (namely, globalist elites). But things will be significantly worse for me in the future if current trends don't stop.
Explain please.
Family values:
Gender roles, marriage, having kids, raising kids well instead of letting degenerate public school or iPads or whatever determine their world views, staying together instead of getting divorced, faithfulness, love, care, community involvement, and overall being a good person.
Anti-family values: drugs, degeneracy, negligence, abuse, single parents, divorce, raising your kids on degenerate stuff like video games or liberalism, etc.
"Pleasure is badlol."
Pleasure should be a motivational reward, not something you live for all the time. If you look at Geert Hofstede's 6 cultural dimensions, one of them is indulgence. Most countries are nowhere near as indulgent as the west. This is, of course, partially due to poverty, but I think the west has a different kind of poverty: cultural and moral poverty. Western civilization is becoming increasing gluttonous and disgusting. There are many people who only live for leisure. Bread and circus is their reason for putting up with the daily grind. There should be more to purpose than that.
The Greek version or the shit version
???
I just mean emotional maturity, basically. Not being consumed by your emotions, not falling for media manipulation of emotions, and so on. Being in control of the way you feel and being able to maintain composure. Not having useless emotional outbursts. It's okay to feel things, but be in charge.
Bad, you should make a robot harem instead.
I'm being serious here and you're just joking.
Explain then, what if a woman wants to become a programmer and never marry?
Why not become a programmer and still marry? Or why not be a stay-at-home mom? People are shaming stay-at-home moms, as if it's a bad thing. It is not. It's very respectable to do something difficult like raising a family. Modern parents don't raise their kids. They buy them Minecraft or iPads and then ignore them. They don't teach their kids values. They let public school poison their minds with statist ideas. They buy them fast food so they don't have to cook. That is somehow accept now. Being a stay-at-home mom is a full-time job. It is by no means easy, nor should people look down on it. It's hard but also very important. What's better for a family -- two parents with careers, neither of whom pays attention to their kids, or one breadwinner and one parent staying home raising the kids? What does extra money buy you? More consumer garbage? A new iPhone, a new Tesla, a more expensive apartment in the city instead of a cheaper place to live? Once you have enough, does extra money enrich your life? there's more to life than income, so long as you have enough. The only times both parents should work is if they can't make ends meet. But that's a symptom of bigger societal problems, which are exacerbated by mass immigration and other poor policies that keep poor people poor.
What is wrong with that?
I know millennials and gen Z are marketed to by corporations in such a way that they're convinced they're the center of the universe, but really, there's more to life than just you. There's more purpose to my own life than just me. I want to have a family, continue to be a contributing member of multiple local communities (friends, software development, church, etc), and I think humanity needs goals. Not just individual goals like getting a job or saving for retirement. I mean, as a species, what are we going to do? I think we should move to other planets and explore the universe. I want to know more about what we are, what else is out there, why we're here, what else we can do in existence, and things like that. You might think that goes against religion, but not in my book. I am less interested in deities and more interested in community and morals (moral absolutism), even if that means sort of pretending to be Christian even when I'm not traditionally Christian. But it's still important to me. You wouldn't understand. I am interested in existentialism and having the human race explore the universe and all that jazz, but I also think religion helps keep us stable. Maybe that will break down later down the line, but for now, its purpose is pretty important: keeps families together, discourages degeneracy, and gets people to partake in a social community at least once a week.
No man is an island. We need to bond with other people. But it has to be selective. In-groupers and out-groupers. Accepting any old person, such as people who might subvert your group and support things that go against your own best interests (or the interests of your family/friends), is really bad. If you have a web server for a website with a form, would you accept any old input (which could potentially be malicious), or would you validate it first and discard bad data? Treat communities the same way.
>You can enjoy yourself while helping society.
Also, the second is not a freedom.
It's true, you can enjoy yourself while helping society. But that satisfaction is more than what a lot of degenerates do. Degenerates drink, smoke weed, play games, watch Netflix, and overall, just concentrate on escapism. It says a lot about society when people are so upset with their lives that the only thing they enjoy is fantasy or physical pleasure. But life should be more meaningful than that. I have a strong sense of purpose. I have goals. There are plenty of things that need to be done.
And the second thing is indeed a freedom. Ultra emphasis on individuality goes against the emphasis on the group's best interests. There are emergent properties at different scales. Individuals, who are separated from groups, only want to serve their immediate interests and desires. People should not have the freedom to waste their lives doing useless shit. People should not have the freedom to be lazy or be useless. We should all be contributing towards greater goals of society. Right now, everyone is polluting the world. No one individually seems that responsible, since our problem is divided among billions of people. But collectively, it's a problem.
If we privilege individuals over the group, we will all die. Pollution, capitalism, relaxation, hedonism. Our goal should be sustainability, harmony, purpose, advancement (not "progressivism" because that's actually harmful newspeak that doesn't mean what it sounds like it means), saving the earth, and moving to other planets in order to continue to exist.
What is moral? Why is hedonism bad? Why do you want to dictate what the others do when it does not affect you?
Morality is doing the right thing. Do what is right. Just because you can do something bad doesn't mean you should. You need to survive, continue the existence of your kind, and find out more about the universe. Degeneracy goes against that. Welfare states mean laziness and plateauing. Mass immigration threatens people's livelihoods, which makes it hard to continue. LGBT discourages people from continuing their lineage. On the one hand, I know the world is overpopulated, but on the other hand, degeneracy encourages people to be exceedingly selfish and useless. It's easier to point out these problems than it is to solve it. After all, we have billions of people and no one has fixed these issues yet.
Hedonism is bad because of the hedonic treadmill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmillPleasurable things only feel good in contrast to regular or bad things. If you do pleasurable stuff all the time, it just becomes the norm. If you never smoke weed and then get high once, the contrast to being sober is what makes it feel good (but it also makes you lazy and useless and degenerate). But someone who smokes weed everyday doesn't feel the same. It just becomes routine, not as special as the first time you got high, or not as special as the feelings someone gets if they only smoke or drink on special occasions. What I am saying is that the brain is very good at adjusting to pleasure and then being bored with it. But in addition, there is more to life than feeling good.
People have responsibilities, and pleasure should only be a reward for when you've done something right. Not a daily thing. You get a "runner's high" after working out. That is your brain's system of rewards thanking you for doing what is right (being fit is very important). Sex feels good because reproduction keeps your species going on. We are continuing to find ways around this system of motivation in order to just feel good without ding anything important.
I encourage you to read Amusing Ourselves to Death.
What is wrong with these?
I already explained above.
Only someone who can't think for himself would claim that Nihilism is a bad thing.
I used to be nihilistic, back when I was more depressed and felt like nothing mattered. But now that I have a strong sense of purpose, I think nihilism is self-defeating, since you feel like you shouldn't even bother if everything is pointless and meaningless. You can try to intellectualize it, but at the end of the day, it is highly demotivating. It also makes some people think it's okay to be immoral.
Nihilism is a lazy way to think about existentialism. I suppose you could describe me as a curious agnostic, and it's that existential curiosity that keeps me going. I am not really monotheistic per se, but Christianity is still a useful tool in societal functions. And Christians are nice. Conservative Christians at least don't hate my demographic. How can I support nihilistic/atheistic liberals who want to replace me and my people with immigrants?
Being a virgin is somehow bad now?
There is a difference between being a virgin and being an angry loser whose entire identity revolves around that fact. Incels are pathetic.
"Yeah, fun sucks!"
Think of how much more productive young generations could be if they didn't waste time on pointless things like video games. Besides, modern games have aspects of gambling incorporated into them. It's a cash cow. It's just another capitalist industry that wants to suck as much money out of people as possible. Capitalism is a plague on society. Video games are escapist, are they not? How about we fix society so that people actually want to partake in it, instead of resorting to fantasy to try and pretend that they're not here?
Lastly, the "fun" thing goes back to my writing about hedonism/gluttony/bread and circus.
Globalism is great
What a naive thing to say. Globalism is more than the internet. I'm not even going to bother going into that because of how ignorant that comment is.
Globalism creates a few winners and many losers. Pointing to the successes and ignoring all the people who are marginalized as a result is completely idiotic.
I guess I should specifically say capitalist globalism, since there are things we as a species need to accomplish. But elites just want money and don't care about greater purpose in society, aside from their own political agendas to push.
The internet, being a way for non-elites to talk to each other, is nice and all, but that's like saying a prison is okay because prisoners can talk to other prisoners in different cells. We are all trapped in the capitalism Ponzi scheme system that is setting itself up for failure in the future, though elites just hope that future generations will figure out magical solutions to problems such as overpopulation or climate change. Or maybe deep down they know that they're fucking everything up and they just don't care because they'll be dead before it affects them.
Sure, the unbalance caused by it is bad, what would you suggest instead however?
You think immigration solves poverty? Is this a joke?
Brain drain makes countries people move away from even poorer. You think it's good and progressive to have all the doctors and engineers move away from a third world country to America? Have you ever wondered what happens to that country? No skilled workers stay there. Then what? It's just a downward spiral. Sure, some people send money back to their home country. But that isn't enough to offset the negative effects of everyone leaving.
Additionally, mass immigration makes poor people in western countries stay poor, or even get poorer. There will never be $15/hour minimum wage like some liberals preach about, if mass immigration continues. There is an increase in competition for jobs in order to keep labor prices down.
(post 1 of many)