As the 2016 election moves forward, we are witnessing politics become increasingly polarized. On the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton continues struggling to solidify her status as the presumptive Democratic nominee against aging Marxist Bernie Sanders. On the Republican side, Donald Trump has effectively cemented his place as the nominee, though the GOP establishment shows signs of wariness at his unexpected meteoric rise.
In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion, psychologist Jonathan Haidt writes about why it is that people’s arguments about politics get so heated, and why people very rarely change their minds even when presented with clear evidence. We have all had political conversations with people and wondered why they are unable to just accept that we are right and they are wrong. We may dismiss them as naïve or stupid, but there may be something else going on.
Moral Reasoning Is Used To Justify Our Gut Responses
The book opens with a couple of interesting hypothetical scenarios:
“A family’s dog was killed by a car in front of their house. They had heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cooked it and ate it for dinner. Nobody saw them do this.”
“A man goes to the supermarket once a week and buys a chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it.”
In both of these cases, no one was harmed. Yet when Haidt presented these scenarios to people, they almost universally agreed that the individuals in both scenarios had done something wrong. When pressed to give a reason exactly why they were wrong, many people were unable to offer a clear answer. After doing research around the world, from universities to poor towns in Brazil, Haidt noticed that people often give gut responses to difficult moral questions, and when asked why, they provide a mishmash of responses that oftentimes they admit do not make sense.
This led Haidt to form his famous social intuitionist model of moral psychology: Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second. For instance, many college students would readily agree that as long as no one is hurt and there is no victim, people should be able to do what they want. Yet when Haidt pressed them to say who the victim is in the chicken scenario, they flounder about, unable to give an answer. This moral dumbfounding seems to suggest that people come up with an answer first, and then use reasoning to support their emotional gut reactions. Most moral reasoning is often simply a post-hoc justification for our intuitions.
Haidt also found that in non-Western cultures like India and Brazil, they have a “thicker” moral world. In non-individualistic societies, cultures broaden the moral domain to encompass and regulate more aspects of life. From what a person wears, how they eat, and who they have sex with, most cultures across the globe have much stricter moral codes than the relaxed ones familiar to Westerners, which center around harm and fairness.
Interestingly, his experiments found that the effect of social class is far larger than the effect of culture. Upper-middle class Brazilians, Indians, and Americans often reluctantly agreed that in hypothetical moral scenarios with no victim, even if they don’t agree with it or feel disgusted by it, there was nothing wrong with what had occurred. Yet for lower-class people across cultures, including poor people in the U.S., they were far less likely to endorse any disgusting act, even if it is completely victimless.
To expand on the social intuitionist model, the book gives a metaphor of the mind divided into two parts: The rider and the elephant. The elephant is your mind’s emotions, which are rapidly activated when making a political or moral judgment. The rider serves the elephant—whatever way the elephant leans, the rider assists with explaining why the elephant makes that decision. Think of the rider as a lawyer, backwards-rationalizing the elephant’s actions.
Another way to think about this is that your reasoning is like a press secretary, who automatically justifies any position taken by the president, your emotions. It is a mistake to think of moral reasoning as something people do by themselves to figure out a truth.
The book states that while we may think of reasoning as central to morality, it in fact plays a secondary role to emotions. For example, psychopaths are able to reason yet lack emotion. Babies, on the other hand, are unable to reason yet have strong emotions. Psychopaths are famously morally deficient. Yet when babies are presented with simple moral scenarios, they show signs of morality.
The book also offers an interesting way to look at how people come to conclusions when presented with evidence: Can versus must. When we are presented with evidence that we want to believe, we ask ourselves the question: Can I believe it? Often we’ll find that the answer is yes.
Conversely, when we are shown evidence that goes against what we would prefer to believe, we ask ourselves the question: Must I believe it? Often we’ll find that the answer is no.
Morality Is About More Than Just Harm And Fairness
The book lays out the six foundations of morality that each individual holds to varying degrees. The six moral foundations are:
1. Care and harm. It makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need.
2. Fairness and cheating. We vigilantly look for signs of cheating, in part because fairness helps us form cohesive communities.
3. Liberty and oppression. Centers around people’s desire to be free from external constraints.
4. Authority and subversion. It allows us to forge a social hierarchy and build relationships.
5. Sanctity and degradation. We have inherited sensitive disgust receptors to identify signs of impurity. It makes it possible for people to invest objects with irrational and extreme values.
6. Loyalty and betrayal. It makes us sensitive to signs that another person is not a team player, and want to punish those who betray our tribe.
As you might imagine, liberals tend to view the first three moral foundations as supremely important, while neglecting the other three. On the other hand, conservatives value all six foundations roughly equally. This is a major source of disagreement between both tribes. Liberals tend to think that if no one is being harmed, an action is fine. They also think that if a person is being harmed, that is the worst possible thing. For conservatives with a wider variance of morality, they are also sensitive to loyalty to one’s country, and the sanctity of certain institutions.
One reason why liberals are so unable to understand conservatives is because of this very point: There is more to morality than harm and fairness. It’s not just Western conservatives who value loyalty, authority, and sanctity. If you travel to any country outside of the West, you will find cultures value place enormous importance on those three foundations. The idea of harm and fairness being the only center of morality would be completely alien to most cultures.
Morality Strengthens Our Tribes, But Also Blocks Our Ability To Think Clearly About The Beliefs Of Others
The third principle of moral psychology is that morality binds and blinds. Humans are social animals, and we need common moral standards to rally around to increase trust in one another. Communities form in part by establishing moral standards. If a person violates the tribe morality, they are punished.
Once people join a political team, they get ensnared in its moral matrix. They see confirmation of their viewpoints everywhere and it is often impossible to convince them that they are wrong. We saw this during the mainstream media coverage of the meetup outrage back in February.
Think about one common moral code on college campuses today: feminism. If a college student were to violate the shared moral matrix by saying aloud that feminism is a false idol, he would be banished from the tribe, perhaps literally removed from campus if enough students rally together and shout loud enough. In the past, Galileo questioned the moral matrix of his day, the Catholic Church, by saying that the earth revolves around the sun. Thus, he was punished.
Today, if a college student says that women would be better off as wives rather than careerists, he would be punished. Punishing such heretics allows the moral tribe to reaffirm their faith in their moral matrix and feel better about ridding themselves of a violator of the moral code, never thinking whether the code is true or false. Morality binds and blinds.
My only complaint with the book is that it does not delve deep enough into status signaling and its role in morality. He touches on it briefly when describing how moral tribes form, but I would like to have seen him explore it further.
The Righteous Mind is a fascinating book filled with interesting information about how morality evolved and its relationship with politics. It also teaches you how to speak with someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum and find common ground. It offers some useful tools to think about liberal and conservative morality, and how some cultures have a “thicker” moral matrix with many moral codes, and how others have a “thinner” moral matrix with few codes outside of harm and fairness.
It will broaden the way you think about politics, reasoning, and people. Highly recommended.
Read More: The Real Nature Of Politics
US Politics is mostly Team Jew vs. Team White but you can’t say that in the media.
Hit the nail on the head here Jack.
Look up “the coverup of zionist organized crime,” it gives you an idea of how jews actually control society. for example, murder Inc. was a mostly jewish affair. Though i think the show “boardwalk empire” really shows how organized crime developed and the role the jews played is an unbiased way.
Except most of Team White do not know anything about Team Jew.
The question is why the jews do this. They have to know they will not survive annihilation, as this strategy has always lead to their wholesale slaughter. Degenerate people, even if they keep it private, influence others subtly through suggestions and body language. I said in the post above, they hurt themselves and then lead others to hurt themselves. People become isolated, cold and uncompassionate. All of this is disseminated through the media and reaches everyone through cell phones. The jews hurt themselves, but why.
Tinfoil hat time.
I think demons are real. I think Solomon summoned them, they tricked him, influenced him, and through the ages influenced their group as a whole. This is the exact sort method of influence we are warned about in the bible. I think this is the reason that Isreal’s symbol contains 6 points, 6 triangles and a 6 sided polygon. In fact, it used to be printed on cubes and worn by string on the forehead and wrists, and it was for worshipping Saturn and several other dieties. It is called ‘David’s Star’, but it came into being during Soloman’s time. Many ‘normal’ jewish people protested the flag decision and wanted a menorah on the flag insted. I think the jewish elite don’t care if 90% of their people that they lead astray are slaughtered as long as they remain ‘in the wealth’.
The elite want people to starve, suffer and die. It’s their religion. The bible is in some placed taken literally, but most of it is allegory designed to warn us.
Tin Foil Hat analogy excellent. By the way, I read about a similar story of Solomon with a ring of power. I often though that inspired Tolkein.
I tend to go back and forth in believing Israel is evil and/or the chosen people. Paul refers to the fraudulent “those who call themselves Jews”. But the Bible also refers to the nation of Israel coming back in latter days. The extreme right wing folks who say European Jews are not even genetically Jews and point to some conversion of an Asian tribe 1000 years ago are convincing. But the tragedy of the Holocaust and persecution of Jews is also convincing as made by pro-Israel evangelicals.
I simply cannot wrap my head around it all. Biggest thing that bothers me is that modern evangelicals will go out of their way to support Israel, liberals go out of their way to say we should support oppressed gays in Russia, but nobody gives a crap about Christians being massacared.
It makes sense in biblical terms, which describes the demonic as one who brings pain to oneself while convincing others to do the same, resulting in pure destruction. The Jews have been doing this since the time of Solomon, destroying countries while bringing about their own people’s destruction.
Of course, the wealthy jews are being decieved in thinking they will keep their wealth as they rationalize leading their own to their deaths. Demons always lie and they don’t share power. Tolkien hated allegory, but I still think he was trying to communicate this. I think Sauron is Satan, and Saruman is a metaphor for Solomon, who foolishly thought Sauron would share power with him.
The Holocau$t? Come on man, either take the full red pill or don’t take any at all. And if you’re on the fence about Israel, check this video out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28aW9tGiicQ
I know about these things. But they are master deceivers. But the cunning could be god given. I do not like Israel, Islam or any of them.
But I do not know the divine blueprint. I think there is a Talmud that originated in the evils of the Golden Calf. And a Torah that traces the divine lineage of our salvation. Hebrews bear both impulses.
Highest levels of good and evil present in Hebrews.
so you know they’re master deceivers, and you still believe in Holocaustinity?
I think that the Jews caught pure hell in WW2. I am also aware how some Jews well tied into international finance bought up lots of prime assets after WW1 for pfennings on the mark.
Jews were victims, but the Germans were right to be pissed. History is shades of gray.
I also know from my trips to New York that making fun of stupid goyim is a popular Jewish pass time.
But there is something there. Light casts shadows. The brighter the light, the more the shadow is pronounced. Cunning and deception are tools of war just like tanks and bombs.
Jews are just better at it. That does not mean I intend to be their sucker as are many Christian conservatives. I know that Israel is willing to “fight to the last American” in all its wars. Jews control and brainwash the goyim through banking, Hollywood etc.
I do not like the culture they are creating for the stupid goyim. But if they are successful at putting us down, maybe they have the Lord behind them.
True Christianity is the only way for goyim to recover their dignity. I am happy to see that with the internet, a sort of grassroots Christianity is emerging that is less under the wing of the top down zionist controlled neocon evangelicals. We were co-opted around 1980. That is why Christianity has both declined over 30 years (from Reagan’s time) as it was silmultaneously used as an ideology to prop up wars for Israel’s benefit.
That being said, I do not see clearly how Jews fit into the the cosmic blueprint. But they are at the center of it. Both for good and evil.
Okay, regardless of whether “Jews caught pure hell in WW2,” even though 70 million some gentiles killed, often in the most gruesome ways imaginable, Jews most certainly were not exterminated in gas chambers, and certainly 6 million Jews did not perish, and therefore we can no longer call it a “holocaust”
There was an article in le Monde, leading French newspaper, that exposed in the 80’s how it was mathematically impossible for that many people to be killed in the way we learn in history books. I was living in France, read the article the day it came out, did not think much about it. I learned aftferwards it had caused on uproar, predictably, Le Monde backed down. Sometimes truth is offensive to those in power.
(I was not aware at the time of the almost almighty Jewish lobby !)
But on the otherhand, I knew an old Jewish man in the 1980’s. He had been in a concentration camp and still had the tattoo code on his arm. Poor guy. He was the grandfather of a Jewish friend of mine.
Jews are using the propaganda deftly to attain power. I do not celebrate this fact. God is perhaps with the Jews, but he is also for truth. It is a miracle that the culture was kicked out of its homeland and stayed together and kept its cultural identity though its religious texts. Sociologically, it can also be explained. As they were not tied to land, they had only their spirit (feeding wit, cunning etc. to sustain them.) Lack of a homeland allowed them to refine these abilities as a culture. Even the abuses of this talent reveal one thing. Their homeland is their cunning. And the acquisition thereof is likely the Lord’s blessing. I do not like how the use of their power affects me. But I acknowledge the divine origin.
Truth is all we have. If you try to sugar-coat it or twist it for political purposes, it cannot work its magic. And the Lord works in mysterious waays
Team Jew won a long time ago. Money is the root of all evil as they say. Team white in politics is now a collection of subservient Israel worshipping sycophants.
Yup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28aW9tGiicQ
Well, one reason not to say i9t would be that it is not true. Jews are indded members of the elite, but by no means the majority. This is a pattern that has repeated itself endless since the replacement of Rome with Feudalism Jews could count, and they determined it was easier to please one man than the majority of the demos. So, they always identified with the local aristocratic elite. Take a well document case, the Swiss uprising in the 13th century. As part of their victory, the Swiss banished all Jews. The issue they had with the Jews was not religious, or even economic, but rather Jewish support of the Hapsburgs. Indeed, it was said of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that succeeded the Holy Roman one, the only two loyal groups were the Germans and the Jews.
Till you get the distinction between “the jews are the source of all misfortunes” to “the Jews have become, post WW2, a member of the elites, you will not correctly understand the political dynamics driving this country. As the Jews assimilate, those that remain are increasingly religious and definitely not liberal in politics of lifestyle. Watching this unfold over the next 20 year will be interesting.
PS
Anti-antisemitism is the socialism of fools.
Well-written summaries and insights here. I’ve noticed that when you’re up against two or more people with views that oppose yours, it frequently does not matter what the truth is because the combined force of their convictions (even ill-informed ones) will drown you out and “win.” This is also why, when it comes to gender politics, it’s dangerous to think you’ll win a court case against two women who decide to lie together — it doesn’t MATTER what the truth is at that point…you lose.
Yup, people always decide with their guts first then look for rational arguments after to defend what their gut feelings tell them is “right.”
http://www.theprimalmale.com/irrational-spirit-behind-ideologies/
I’ve been in a psychology lecture where I was told that differences in political opinions have to do more with how a person’s emotional brain is wired than any other social factors like race, sex, income, background, and so forth.
But let’s get to the real reason why people are so politically divided. Yes, people always had differing opinions, but the divisions have become augmented by the globalist elite’s divide and conquer strategy. The masses are divided between Left and Right, white and black, as well as the recent men vs. women flamed by the feminist movement. The more the people are divided the more they rely on government and corporations to solve their disputes and problems, and the less likely they are to unite against the real enemy who rule them like a farmer does with his chickens.
As much as I despise the feminists and the SJWs of the “Left,” I know they’re just distractions; I who the real threat is.
The judgments of others tends to water down the message in any topic related to morality or politics. I find solace in the thin slice of the population who sit back and wait intelligently for rationality, logic and a proper adult examination of facts to distill into a detached, unbiased meaning/truth. Most people are too impatient for this to come about. And who am I to judge what is rational, logical or proper? You can go around in circles forever on this…but there are still independent thinkers who will “split the ticket” at the voting polls based on scrutiny the issues alone (as opposed to blind party affiliation, which is causing US Republicans huge anxiety right now). These people hold the potential to validate the equilibrium of the rational middle ground, and may hold the key to unifying polarized factions from the left and right. I don’t carry a lot of hope for that idealized outcome, but there is a glimmer.
Another aspect of it is that the government has grown so large and intrusive, we are not just fighting over who is right. We are fighting over who gets to deputize the State to enforce their opinions.
“Yes, people always had differing opinions….” and as long as there is no question of forcefully implementing those opinions onto those who don’t share them, everyone can be a little more chilled out, respectful and thoughtful about it.
For example, “a transgender person should be able to use the bathroom of the sex they identify as” is an opinion. In a free society, a business who shares that opinion should be able to adopt that practice if they choose. Those who don’t share it, don’t have to. But the president has declared from on high that this opinion shall be fact and coercive state power will be used to make it so.
That’s why the Tea Party is more right than Occupy. OWS is downstream while the Tea Party is at the wellspring. Drastically shrunken government would solve the majority of our problems. That is, less fighting over who gets to deputize the government to enforce their opinions.
Morality is a script of behaviours that allow us to know each other and, or better yet, allow us to know anything at all.
Partisan politics make me sick. I know whether a “red pill” writer walks that talk or not by the way he handles men who don’t kowtow to his cherished opinion and that’s all I’m going to say.
Plato touched on this, but unfortunately men of the red pill must participate in politics or you will find yourself be ruled by lesser men and women (as in the west today).
Beg to differ here.. not only does one not have to participate in politics, I would say it is even more futile if one is a redpill guy, I mean then you really realize both parties are such bullshit. How would a redpill person honestly participate in politics? Modern day politics that is?
Politics hasn’t changed, but unlike in the distant past we commoners have an opportunity to challenge how we are governed. We are bounded by civic duty, but today we are regressing to the point no one could be bothered
Men seek truth, not advantages.
This is why I believe we should severely restrict voting. The vast majority of the populace is too stupid and swayed too easily so that they void those in the minority whom have intelligence and foresight’s vote.
Women without property or who collect public welfare should not be allowed to vote.
Any man who is veteran, or pays income taxes, or owns and maintains properties and businesses shall be allowed to vote.
I agree with your principles, but personally I’ve always liked the model set up by Starship troopers whereas one had to have served the country, but no longer be in the government. I think if you receive any money from the government whether it be from entitlement or income, you should be forbidden from voting or contributing to a candidate.
It’s a lot simpler than Haidt wants to make it, though I do give him some credit for evolving from a typical academic liberal to someone who is at least aware of the fact that conservatives have “broader moral sense” than liberals, to quote a Times piece about him from a few years back.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/26/righteous-mind-author-haidt-conservatives-have-bro/?page=all
That broader moral sense stems from Christianity and the fact that the west was built on it. Because of the fact that I’ve studied the Bible extensively, there hasn’t been a single instance during my life where there was any ambiguity between right and wrong. And I’m in my mid 40s. I’m not saying that I always made the right choice, but I always knew what the right choice was. Christianity gives that clarity, which is perhaps why it’s so fashionable to reject it, and why it is so diametrically opposed to modern leftism.
Take the chicken fucker example from the RoK article. The author claims (falsely) that no one is harmed, and thus frames it as a sort of moral dilemma. But there is no dilemma. The chicken fucker himself is harmed because regardless of the fact that he’s not hurting another sentient, he’s hurting himself by doing something expressly forbidden by the Christian God.
That’s an excellent reply. It also shows how the law is written on everyone’s hearts, where people will almost universally find something detestable, but can’t put a finger on exactly why.
Meh. ‘Forbidden by the Christian God’ sounds corny, even when those instructions may havd truth to them.
Well said. I was thinking the victim was the chicken fucker himself for debasing himself and peforming an act that would not be a social norm anywhere let alone violating religious doctrine.
People say. “Why not Homo marriage? Why not Transgenderism? Why not NAMBLA? Why not Bestiality? Why not Abortion? Why not this or That, nobody is being hurt”.
When a Man does not believe in God, he cannot give a credible answer to combat those questions.
When a Man does believe in God, he gives the only Correct answer and the only answer needed. Because God Forbids it.
“The author claims that no one is harmed.”
The chicken himself may have a few things to say about that.
The biblical Christian sees everything in the Perspective of GOD’S WORD (King James Version Holy Bible [KJV]).
Anything that conflicts and is contrary to the Perfect, Holy, Righteous, PURE, Good Character and Law of Almighty God in the Person of Lord Jesus Christ and His Word is SIN and EVIL. Amen.
Ephesians 2:8-9. A life of sin and deathbed conversion it is for me, then!
NO. If you are “saved” a believer of the Lord Jesus Christ you won’t use your “free gift” of Salvation you’ve received by GRACE through FAITH on the Son of God, Lord Jesus Christ to live a life in sin. That’s WICKED! You know that’s not right. Please do the right thing man. Amen.
You missed the ‘deathbed’ part of my conversion. Since I won’t be saved till I’m nearly dead, your assertion that a saved person wouldn’t live a life of sin doesn’t affect anything.
I understand. You already know of God. Trust on Him and don’t “wait for a deathbed conversion”. Nothing’s guaranteed. God LOVES you. Be saved. Amen.
A deathbed conversion is no guarantee of salvation. John 6 alludes to what is necessary for salvation. One might point to the thief who was crucified with Christ as evidence of a deathbed salvation, but remember that he was right there, with Christ Himself, to both confess and atone for his sins, and Christ Himself accepted him into Heaven. The rest of us have to prepare for a holy death while we are able, if we are able, and if you are able, God will not be fooled by false conversions.
So we have a problem, because the KJV has some serious translation error, and is not a reliable source of the Bible text.
Haight never asks the question, ” is it true?” He assumes no morality is true because he is an atheist. I think there may be some more moral foundations than the six he cannot see because he is part of team materialist. He has been bound and blinded.
I strongly suspect leftists are a biological suicide cult, like a forest that catches fire when it grows too wild.
Their base instincts are destructive and basically suicidal. My only problem is they want to take the normals down with them
Indeed, liberalism and its stepsister nihilism spring up whenever a society shifts from being rural intuitive to becoming urban and overpopulated, uprooted from nature as Spengler put it. Every human civilization has followed this model.
Liberalism, suicide cult that it is, develops from a war between New and Old ideas, economics and theory vs. tradition and religion.
And it is horrible for the normals to be pulled down with them.
That’s a very interesting perspective. Liberalism can only survive in the most luxurious of environments, and yet liberalism is paradoxically predicated on milking the suffering of this group and that.
Liberals themselves, even the high IQ ones, are extraordinarily anti-logic, anti-human, anti-science (except where science benefits their cause directly like in surveillance, media and abortion).
I really fucking hate them!
that is absolutely true, which is why when they bring in immigrants, nobody can really fully integrate with them … and terrorists, gangs, etc exploit rebellious youth who rejected their parents’ thick moral framework to fit in, and tried the thin progressive framework and that didn’t work and are now confused
When Europe was stronger and had a more alpha approach to the Yugoslavia war, Bosnian Muslims integrated very well. The problem is the left’s suicide cult creates and releases other cults and takes lots of people down in other countries too. ISIS have a much higher per capita recruitment in Europe than anywhere else.
Well, when you think about it the only things that are ‘progressive’ in nature are those leftoids and cancer-both are destructive and need to be eradicated.
I always considered righties sociopaths who will stop at nothing (including destroying the world committing to ignorant beliefs) to maintain an ideal lifestyle which only works from their personal perspective. Conservatives are the definition of the drones who try to control and enslave everyone.
I thought you were sticking with white people being the people who try to control and enslave everyone. The only drones around here are all the failed cultures and civilisations that had rather more pigmentation than stability or sense.
I’m like Ali getting stripped of the title. Because he wouldn’t fight the white man’s war.
” In the past, Galileo questioned the moral matrix of his day, the Catholic Church, by saying that the earth revolves around the sun. Thus, he was punished.”
Please…. just stop…. you do not help by pandering to false myths about the past.
Please explain. I was unaware that this was a myth.
Galileo was just scolded. He wasn’t tortured or killed.
Lifetime house arrest for holding a (correct) opinion.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Go to hell.
Socialtal and historical revelance of the times.
You make “go to your room” equivlent to death camps.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
So, in other words “it happened a long time ago” and this means it is OK.
You first, but before you visit the pit of fire: Galileo was judged not because his theory but because he taught it as a fact, A fact that he hadn’t proved, thus violating an agreement he had made with the Church earlier. It’s ironic that someone like Galileo is honored while the geniuses behind the engineering revolution of the Middle Ages and many of the mathematics concepts from which later thinkers could develop their ideas are ignored.
But the theory was correct. He wasn’t convicted because he couldn’t prove something or other. He was convicted because the church thought his theory went against the bible.
Maybe he did violate some agreement with his employer; so, a fireable offense, I guess.
If you don’t understand that sentencing someone to a life-sentence because of their beliefs is wrong then there is something wrong with you.
I am not justifying, I am just saying that when he was condemned he was unable to prove his theory, which at the time was not corroborated and Church told him that unless there was a proof, no change of the official interpretation would be made. There is a book, “God’s philosphers” in which the affair is explained in detail.
Short summary:
-Galileo told the Pope about his theory.
-Pope said, could you wait until there is more proof for your theory?
-In his arrogance (because Galileo thought he was right, and couldn’t wait), Galileo wrote and published a mockery of Pope.
-Galileo got jailed because he was an arrogant fool who, like a 2-year old, had to have his candy NOW.
You want to measure past actions on present norms? Good luck wiht that. IIRC Galileo was punished for a number of reasons, but his theory had little do with it. I do recongnize it gives the catholic bashers ammo to feed their contempt of the catholic church. Am I right?
Interesting exchange. Learned something new about Galileo
Yep, he made a parody of the pope, calling him “Simplicio”.
Yes, the Pope was made to feel the emotion of sadness because someone made fun of him. That totally warrant’s a life-sentence.
If you think someone deserves jail for mocking someone else you are a post-modern sjw.
Yes, I don’t care what the Current Year was. It’s wrong to punish and imprison someone for positing a theory.
A theory that was correct, yet.
As for bashing Catholics, I’ve got better things to do.
And no one needs look to the past to do so.
That modern faggot, Muslim-loving Pope is doing more damage to Catholicism any criticism of mine.
If you challenge the authority of TPTB, you shouldn’t be surprised of TPTB come after you.
My ancestors had to run for their lives because the English king didn’t like the way they worshiped God.
My particular ancestor had to sneak abroad the Mayflower (unlike everyone else) because he set up a printing press mocking TPTB.
Actions have consequences: grow up, and enter the real world.
Fuck you jew-whore. I don’t give a fuck about your ancestors.
If any of it is true, it should make you more sympathetic to Galileo, instead of making excuses for what happened to him.
Actions have consequences: who knew?
“Fuck you jew-whore”
Actually those were the Brownists, otherwise known the Pilgrims. Take a history class, boy.
“it should make you more sympathetic to Galileo”
I don’t have a problem with someone who can make a rationale argument , instead of carrying on like a contentious women, which both you and Galileo have in common right now.
The only person acting like a SJW on this comment thread is you.
I’ve made plenty of rational arguments. I just don’t consider you worthy of them.
I was perfectly reasonable at the outset, til you told me to grow up because I disagreed with you.
Jew-whore is an insult. Not meant literally.
Sperg.
He was punished.
Galileo was originally supported by the Church… people need to read more on this situation, rather than saying the Church suppressed science – it is nonsense.
In 20 states, sex with an animal is a state felony described as ‘a crime against nature’ in some law texts. Only 12 states have no ruling against beastiality.
Most states have laws against necrophilia. Only 3 states have unclear ruling on the practice: Kansas and Louisiana have murky laws, Massachusetts has no law against sex with a dead human. (In Massachusetts, there is a law against sex with a dead animal.)
The man getting his willies off with a dead chicken would receive two state felony charges where I live. He has committed animal abuse and acted inappropriately with a dead corpse. The chicken is certainly done a dishonor.
A strong moral conviction is a trait of a good judge. I would gladly endorse any legislation, judge, or lawyer that/who prosecutes a person who decides to have sex with a dead animal corpse.
I’m sure the book is quite compelling, but that 2nd one is a poor hypothetical situation.
The weakness of Haidt is that he makes the assumption morality is constructed and has no transcendent basis.
This is circular reasoning. You are merely agreeing with the author’s point that one makes an emotional decision first (screwing a chicken corpse is bad) and then tries to reason or justify it. I’m not sure what an unevenly enforced law has to do with any of this either. Are you trying to imply that a law makes something morally right or wrong? Guess it’s moral to have anal marriage then, cuz that’s the lawwww. And drone striking of American citizens who have not committed a crime, also legal (and therefore moral?)
Good moral judgement is a trait of a good judge. If a judge lacks morality, then the laws become immoral.
In my state I have the law on my side in the argument that the chicken is the victim. These people described in the story seemed to have a problem admitting if chicken was the victim or if anyone was hurt in the matter which is preposterous to me.
Good sense of morality helps determine who was hurt in a situation and if that pain is justified or not.
I’m saying the chicken is the victim.
You’re saying the dead corpse of a chicken (an inanimate object at that point) is the victim.
Yes. It is the victim.
Did I stutter?
An entire generation that is thoroughly controlled is coming. The TV and cell phones condition you to think you are surrounded by like minded people, and stop you from having to consider the opinions of others critically using hivemind like compliance. Every one who wakes up, finds himself surrounded by enemies who called themselves friends. They are addicted to loose women, excessive consumption and a false sense of belonging. Even immediate relatives react violently to attempts to red pill them, even subtly.
My brother thought his religious girlfriend, who I admit was a 7, was just being difficult as a woman. He called me crazy, along with my entire immediate family joining any, saying I was just ‘hateful’. After a fight I informed him he could get her gmail password reset, and use that to reset other passwords. She had been looking for and running around with ‘rich older guys’ for months on match.com. I told him she was doing this by reading her body language. Tried to explain she was turning him into a beta orbiter. He thoroughly denied it and thought that having muscles meant this couldn’t happen to him. She often said ‘Act like a real man like (me)’, and told him that I ‘frightened her’ when I spoke of any politics. The matrix was correct: People will literally destroy themselves fighting you to protect the system that robs them of life.
I don’t think there is any fixing this without violence. People are reluctant to go againt their gut even to survive, but at the same time think deviant behavior is victimless. It is not. That person is harming themselves when they act that way. Subtly, they start to influence other people, who then hurt themselves the same way. The man who had sex with the chicken would be messing up his wiring for loving another person. The dog would have a similar neurological outcome. Virtue is more than just prudishness; it’s the only recourse against nature that works with nature, thus making us more aware of ourselves. Our ancestors knew this. We have been influenced by these sick individuals to become sick ourselves, and it happens faster than ever thanks to television and the media. Any organism that has been deluded into thinking itself the master of nature and opposes it wholesale rather than understanding and working with it is destined to go extinct.
Even so, you got through to me. This is where my red pill path started, and your other website. I would like to thank you guys. I could have been him 15 years from now at 40, and have lost everything, destroyed upon the elite altar of consumption. You saved my life, a bunch of people I have never had face to face conversations with. Where every ‘benevolent authority’ in society failed me, medicated me, you guys saved me. With everything I have I thank you.
Thank GOD, He loves you. Amen.
Families can be real hotbeds. I’ve got some conservative family and some shitlib as well. Some of the conservative side gets real clammy and closed in to outsiders and I always wondered why. An inlaw bitch, crazy as hell lives like a crazy cooped up chicken, totally dysfunctional, but there’s always a reason. She’s a shitlib trapped in a conservative enclave, always causing strife with good neighbors.
I always try to preach red pill whenever I visit conservative family and of course I spew it like it ain’t my house whenever I’m at the shitlib’s place. No manners? Excuse me for being right. The shakiest most nervous chicken cooped up woman I ever saw though was a shit libber from the shitlib side of my family. The bitch near had a breakdown while on the way to a family gathering in rural USA where there might be ‘guns’ and conservatives. As soon as the bitch got comfy, she started spouting deviant shit to try to cause discord with the families in attendance by saying shit like ”wars, strife are because of the patriarchy”. The only time she opened up was when she was soap boxing against trad culture. Otherwise she was insecure or neurotic.
SO what I learned was that if you live in a conservative enclave and some female is nippy, snappy, neurotic and doesn’t cook well or juggle the duties with a smile and conviction, then eject her at once. She’s nervous for a reason. She’s a pariah like the nourotic/femboob relative mentioned that had a drive to disrupt good family structure whenever she encountered it. Way back when, they were called ‘witches’, women who would go from village to village encouraging other women to become discontent with their spouse and persuading them to abandon their nests. That’s really how the old ‘witches’ supposedly caused crop failure – by breaking up the farm of course. BACK THEN they were ‘witches’. TODAY they’re ‘feminists’. They’re basically the same.
I live in Indiana and good women are a rarity. The women who are miserable try to make other women miserable as well. I agree it is very satanic behavior. ‘Witches’ is a good word for them.
“d running around with ‘rich older guys’ for months on match.com. I told him she was doing this by reading her body language”
What was her body language ? How was she acting that gave her away?
Article was good, but I liked your piece just as much. I have also had distance placed between me and my family. I live in a liberal world, am the only conservative.
nice post.
It really ties back into what I call ‘perception regression’: These kids (and generation x to a certain extent) are making ubiquitous the inability to tell personality from work ethic. In business, this will manifest as a tendency to promote people based on how likeable they are and ignore the guy who performed 5 times better than the rest of the company but has a silent or ‘off’ personality. We see this alot already, actually. I see it as an opportunity to outcompete people by starting my own businesses, but a lot of these people who believed in NAFTA and things like that at the behest of ‘golden personalities’ are really going to get hurt. These ‘golden’ people will cut labor to increase free cash flow instead of reducing waste, because reducing waste tends to make enemies and is hard work.
Women have been taught to do the same thing, and the first generation of women that did this are trying to pass on their failed ideas that brought abortion, single motherhood, miserable women and outright slavery as the norm. A lot of older guys I know simply won’t believe women behave the way they do now, and if they do, they don’t understand. I always ask them if they have ever asked 18-22 year old women how their dating life is going; they’d find these women believe men want a career girl, and if they dug deeper they would find it is single mother, abortion addicted career girls who taught them this.
How true. Then you have the problem of Muslims. When Europeans weren’t cucks and helped Bosnians in the Balkan – they integrated very well, and Bosnians looked up to them.
Now the family is broken…we want to intregrate but we cant integrate into progressive society when we recognize their moral framework is broken. Meanwhile progressives convinced immigrants conservatives who have everything in common with them that we are the bad guys and convinced us that conservatives are the bad guys. At the same time, I just am afraid to have kids … because what if they have teenage rebellion than it fails – they become vulnerable to ISIS.
I think the only solution to survive is for red pilled people of all backgrounds to get together because you are all right.
Is it any wonder that the cultures with the largest (cultural)life-span are monarchies (or a derivative thereof)?
People are capable of making decisions, but most of them do not have the introspective faculty to overcome biases and make good decisions.
Particularly true with long term decisions / consequences.
True morality is tied into actions that are based on general metaphysical concepts like truthfulness, honor and goodness regardless of religion or creed. When people use their own religion or political ideology to compel people to be good like them, well, that’s where all the trouble with morality begins………..
That is the crux though isn’t it? I simply want to be left alone to earn, worship and live without interference. Most would accept that me thinks. I noticed years ago the similiarities between the left and islam (or radical islam if your prefer) as they require you to submit and if you defer they will attempt through compulsion and not on your own volution. As they both exist in their present form it ensures there will always be conflict.
very similar time period to the late 1850s. Everything is narrative based and thats where confirmation bias comes in to play. When speaking with someone with an opposing view you wont believe how often they are “shocked”…”You must be a rare conservative”, “Thats not how conservatives usually act”. People dont speak to each other but merely yell. We “hang” with who we belong and amazingly enough with a country of 330 Million we seem more isolated within ourselves than usual.
Its all a large racket pushed on by the easy communication we have. Those crazy devices, the ease we have for getting our latest news…all designed to have us get pissed off in a certain direction.
First of all, I have to clear up a myth. Galileo (I can’t believe I have to do this over and over and over again) was not punished for “questioning the moral matrix of his day, the Catholic Church.” He was not punished for his heliocentric theory. He was not even punished. The problem with Galileo was that he couldn’t fully prove his theory (which was largely wrong in various aspects), and anyone who dared to point that out he would castigate, thereby leading him to insult the Church leaders and insult their authority when many of them, very good scholars, did not accept his findings. He then tried to assert that he should edit holy scriptures to fit with his theory, something that not even the Pope has the right to do.
Secondly, there is a difference between justice and fairness. Justice is about giving to each what they are due. Fairness is about equal treatment. To give an example of the difference, when I was in grammar school, I was given a set of pens with my name on them from my father, and I took them to school. One day, I opened my desk to find them all gone, and I saw another student was using one of them. So I went to Rob, the student, and demanded my pen back. He dared to say that it was his. It had my name on it, and I never lent them out, so he was wrong. We got into a minor scuffle about it, when our teacher, a woman, came to find out what the commotion was all about. When I explained, and then Rob countered with his false narrative, in spite of the evidence, the teacher decided to take the pen away, so that neither of us would have it. That is an example of fairness, but not justice. If the teacher wanted to be just, she would’ve given me back the pen.
True morality doesn’t blind, but allows you to see things clearly and rationally. Morality is truth, and false morality is a contradiction. The problem with liberals is that they don’t believe in truth. They want to believe whatever makes them feel good about themselves at the moment, and are willing to contradict and deny the contradiction mere moments of each other. They also want moral superiority on the cheap through social proof; merely by taking a position that seems morally superior without really doing much more than caterwauling about some perceived inequality in order to believe they are somehow better than those who may hold truly moral and traditional views. They don’t do much thinking as a result. Indeed, they don’t think, because thinking requires discriminatory thought, discerning between things that are good and evil, right and wrong, and better and worse.
“I’m going to rub your faces in things you try to avoid. I don’t find
it strange that all you want to believe is only that which comforts
you. How else do humans invent the traps which betray us into mediocrity? How else do we define cowardice?”
The Preacher, quoting Muad’dib (Dune)
Isn’t this pen fable a Steven Crowder story? I’m sure it’s a tale we can all relate to.
Another interesting point he makes though is that it is so much harder to prove anything under the “fairness” doctrine. It becomes guilty until proven innocent, not only because people who want fairness over justice are spineless cowards,but because the two are mutually exclusive.
You either choose justice or you choose injustice with a nicer word.
I naturally value the 1st 3 like a liberal. But I am conservative because many of the “disgust” and “purity” related things are related to the DNA programming of the Creator. So I follow it as best I can even if some of the things at first glance appear not to do others harm.
But lack of purity, conventional, sexual morality is harmful. It degrades our species, our DNA etc. This burden of sexual morality should be born by women more than men, as men are saddled with other burdens.
However, decadence has reached such a level that the “‘out of Egypt” mentality of ancient mystics is beginning to make sense. If most women are becoming worthless sluts, it is possible that Roosh should re-consider welcoming MGTOW here.
I admit I feel a an aversion for aspects of MGTOW. Just as I have doubts about the “pussy-getting” aarticles.
As they do violate my morality but are also a rite of passage. Women, perhaps rightly, feel an aversion to a man who lacks the ability to get laid. But at the same time, I sympathize with the dudes who just want to leave all the feminist “slut march” types behind.
World is not simple, no easy solutions.
”The idea of harm and fairness being the only center of morality would be completely alien to most cultures.”
SJW’s, shitlibs, femboobs, they all rest upon the premise that they must all gang up as an ad hoc ‘higher authority’ that goes stomping around in some judgement game. The bureaucrat parasites and the justice shitmobs feed off each other. They scratch each other’s backs. Bureaucrats claim that in a perfect bureaucracy any person is guilty of commtting an average of ten felonies per day if the law were to be perfectly enforced. The two, justice shitmobs and bureaucrats spell a shitstorm of tyranny that feeds off itself and burns endlessly like a tire fire over any complacent culture of sheeple. An sjw bureaucracy is a cancer and the slumber of the sheeple is the phlegm and phlagia that accompanies the cancer.
Take a deep breath of fresh oxygen. Gather up that phlegm, get that super loogie on your palate and . . ”HOCK-TOOEY”. Our culture SPITS THEM OUT. We expel the scourge. Our instincts to survive and our auto reactions like sneezing and hacking up nasty stuff will be our saving grace.
Ready, set, aim, ”HOCK-TOOEY”
One of the major problems with this is the fact that morality presupposed an authority to make the rules and it is the obedience or disobedience to the rules that determines what is moral and what is not. When there are competing claims of authority, we can use logic and rational thought to determine which is the best system, but there is ALWAYS a source of authority presupposed with the use of “morality.”
The available choices are the Law of God or the Law of the Jungle (might makes right). As Mao said “all political power emanates from the barrel of a gun.” Either something is right or wrong based on God’s Law, or it’s right or wrong because a sufficiently powerful enough group told us to do things their way. Evidence that God truly did give His law was pointed out by commenter David earlier, in that God has written His law on our hearts. We know right from wrong because God has informed our consciences, which his how we know the dog isn’t food and sex with the chicken is bestiality.
Leonard Sax (MD, PhD) likes to ask teenagers the question: “Why is it OK for girls to be bisexual or homosexual, but not boys?” As with the question about eating the dog or fucking the chicken, they don’t really know but they know it’s wrong for the boys but not for the girls. And, even though the church says differently, there is actually nothing in the Bible that says women having sex with women is wrong. In fact, the incest statutes in Leviticus 18 that are specific to polygyny presuppose that the wives in a polygynous marriage will have sexual contact (verses 17-18).
People know what right and wrong is but most are simply too ignorant to understand why they know. When it comes to morality there is God’s Law or there is the Law of the Jungle (might makes right). Don’t believe me? Any argument of morality that doesn’t cite God’s Law as the basis of authority (or derive from Gods Law) is going to fall into inferior religious belief or (usually) it devolves to “the will of the majority” or something like that, which is might makes right.
The most relevant of these moral issues all revolve around sexual morality and believe it or not, even the above average Christian has no idea what marriage is, according to the Bible. Because it certainly isn’t what the Church teaches. In fact, of all the stuff the church teaches about sexual morality, about the only two points that agree with what the Bible actually says are that a Christian having sex with a prostitute is wrong and a woman having sex with any man other than her husband is adultery. Past that, they’re either partly wrong or completely wrong.
It always seemed to me that politics and religion are so contentious because we don’t have any solid, workable answers regarding human organization. We know how to engineer a bridge, but we don’t know how to conduct a meeting.
Politics and religion are to society what alchemy was to chemistry.
It all comes down to human nature and human behaviour
This was a thought provoking article. Two points:
(1) Upper-middle class Brazilians, Indians, and Americans often reluctantly agreed that in hypothetical moral scenarios with no victim, even if they don’t agree with it or feel disgusted by it, there was nothing wrong with what had occurred. Yet for lower-class people across cultures, including poor people in the U.S., they were far less likely to endorse any disgusting act, even if it is completely victimless.
What conclusions can we draw from this? Is it bad or wrong that the powerful classes are more likely to allow abberant behavior which harms no one? My initial thought is “wow, it seems that the lower classes are more moral than the upper class” but I also think “the lower classes are dumber and are worrying about things that don’t matter. The upper class is wise and practical.”
(2) Consider the 6 points. I don’t necessarily agree with the 4 & 6 (which could label me a liberal, which I would have considered myself prior to the last decade). For example, authority vs subversion: I think a lot of times the authority is wrong, and I pull for the little guy. My emotional side ‘likes’ the ideas of individualism and freedom and aversion to authority. But my intellectual side sees how breaking from authority causes social breakdown.
Loyalty and betrayal I don’t think blind loyalty is of utmost importance. The line attributed to Ronald Reagan about the 11th commandment being “never speak ill of a fellow Republican” always struck me as utter bullshit. So what if you’re a member of club R, that somehow makes you immune from criticism? No way, Jose. I view people like Ed Snowden who put his principles and values above his loyalty as acting more moral than those who blindly follow orders. I suppose one could argue semantics here, though. IE on the one hand he betrayed his employer, the feds, but he was really remaining loyal to the American people who were the ones he was working for anyway, as a public servant.
I will certainly give conservatives #5, sanctity and degradation, as we can see where our degenerate culture has lead us over the past 50 years. I am fully on board with that one. Interesting food for thought here. And the guys article / book is available free on his Wikipedia page.
People desire to control others. Those who control the state control people.
The state itself is cancerous. It turns neighbors into enemies as the political process allows one to control his neighbors and take from them. Absent that ability people can be much more live and let live, they don’t have to be, but without a process to the legitimizes doing it few people will even try or think of it.
the “raped dead chicken” example is ridiculous. it doesn’t matter if anyone was or wasn’t harmed. it’s just a huge red flag that something is wrong with the person – and he better be watched one way or another. just look up what Jefferey Dahmer started with.
You mean Jefferey?
lol yeah… corrected. still got the first two letters right though!
I’m not sure why, but it reminds me of a video about prank calls, where the caller had the guy yell out the name Anita Godfreydumpf
“One waits in vain for psychologists to state the limits of their knowledge.” — Noam Chomsky
“We have all had political conversations with people and wondered why they are unable to just accept that we are right and they are wrong. We may dismiss them as naïve or stupid, but there may be something else going on.”
——————————
No, the leftoids really are naive and stupid.
They’re not just stupid because they disagree with us.
They really are stupid! They are the perfect useful idiots.
Very obviously the elites are trying to vector cheap labor into this country under the cover of tolerance and diversity. It is the golden handcuffs on a mass scale.
Anyone that criticizes this is conveniently silenced with accusations of racism.
Many of the very people adversely affected by this ARE the poor, black idiots you see at Trump protests and blocking highways at BLM rallies.
The elites have summoned all that is young, naïve, black, Hispanic, and female against all that is old, wise, white, and male.
All that is old, wise, white and male that is not also elite that is.
A global third world community completely under their control because they did away with all the other whites.
“Leftoids” perceive themselves as the recipients, or potential recipients, of the states’ largess. Transfer payments naturally polarize people into recipients and donors, or makers and takers. Those who perceive they’re on the long side vote for more free games and prizes. Those who perceive that their labor and capital have been confiscated vote against more transfer payments. Being a fiscal conservative is tiresome because the left brands one a racist, a sexist, an agist, and the absolute worst, a child hater. I found more honesty with the mugger who told me “I won’t hurt you long as I get paid.”
Politics brings out the worst in people because they are arguing about who will have to coersively live under the rules instituted by their opponents’ policy beliefs. They are literally talking about how to subjugate each other.
That is why I think libertarianism provides the most moral foundation for human interaction. It is the crazy notion that coercive force over other people is morally and ethically wrong regardless of how many people vote that It’s ok. People can say what they want about libertarians and anarchists, but I have noticed a distinct lack of obnoxious aggression from them like you do from statists on the left and the right, as libertarianism seeks the solutions to social and economic problems through voluntary means without the complicated organization rituals of coercive force.
Voters are morally inferior to non-voters for this reason. Non-voters don’t seek to force their views on others while voters do. So let the justifications and rationalizations for organized mob rule begin because obviously we need roads, welfare, domestic spying, a police state and an empire of tax farms to pay for and of course absolutely MUST force nonparticipants to fork over their money to cover it.
Very well said and also why I don’t vote.
Thank you…I don’t vote either. I will not be responsible, even by proxy, for the damage done by a group of psychopaths.
I think democracy is fundamentally oppressive and an abomination. I’m almost 40 now, and I have only ever voted for one thing. For Sweden to stay out of the EU. Much good that did, I left Swedenistan a long time ago in disgust. I’m also no longer a national.
To me it’s very simple how a truly fair society should operate, and it has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. You and I and everyone else can agree on the basic rules primarily of non-aggression. Beyond that everything should be volontary.
Not one person on this planet will ever be able to come up with a valid argument for why under threat of force my property should be confiscated and arbitrarily given to those who have not lifted a finger to gain it. No rational person can defend democracy without being a gigantic hypocrite.
I agree. To rationalize “taxation” one must rationalize theft and the coercive aggression necessary to secure the fruits of other’s labor.
I haven’t been able to make those rationalizations myself.
I’m not necessarily all-the-way Libertarian, but I’m a “South Park conservative”. I believe in freedom and honor and not controlling my fellow man. My conservative counterparts seem to still be stuck on controlling other people. See weed, sex, drinking, cursing, etc.
Though I don’t think that taxation will be ruled as theft, I think that’s the correct attitude you should have. Question any authority. Why are they an authority in the first place? It’s your life. Liberals seem to never question the state and trust that it knows what’s best for them. Which is so much more dangerous that my conservative counterparts….they only want to control your personal life.
In other words, liberals are loyal only to their own pathetic, worthless selves, refuse to be bound by any human law, and think the Bible is a book of fairy tales. They only take Islam seriously because Muslims are not above killing people who refuse to take Islam seriously.
Morality? Liberals don’t know what it means. To them it’s all good till the free-for-all starts inconveniencing them personally. Even then their first instinct is to simply walk away and let someone else clean up the mess. They’re always the last to notice the stink when they’ve fouled the nest. They’re always the first to fly away.
the best article to explain why immigrants have trouble integrating in the west, and why it leads to gangs and terrorism – freaking progressives. In fact if you look per capita ISIS is far higher in Europe than middle east by 4 or 10 times. This is why.
When Muslim youth try to fit in, leave their parents’ complex moral framework for the simple liberal one that only works for privileged elite and not always, then it doesn’t work … now they destroyed the old framework and rebelled and rejected the new one and are a mess.. they become easy prey for gangs and terrorism. Their parents’ aren’t role models because they are as new to the culture as the kids are.
A great reason why mass migration can cause problems: progressives
Chicken Fucker!
Wow this is very insightful. It has opened my eyes. Thanks for that
Here’s something I wrote on the subject a while back:
Here is my theory why the debates for this particular election are more heated than ever. This election isn’t about who will run our country – It’s about SURVIVAL.
Recently there was an article published that stated that the stronger a person is, the more likely they are to swing to the right. I didn’t think much of this until I looked at the average lefty. My saying is that the more left-leaving someone is, the more they look like someone I don’t want to hang out with. Visually speaking, most of them are ugly. The women are masculine battle axes and the men are effeminate pencil necked dweebs.
Western society today is the safest, most comfortable place the world has ever known. We have vaccines to create immunity from deadly diseases and we have cures to countless other diseases that used to ravage society and kill whole villages. Infant mortality is also basically non-existent, meaning that people who probably should’ve died in childhood are allowed to exist. Look at the anti-Trump protestors in the video below (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3vcvGpALQ) – Do they look like they could’ve survived a harsh winter 300 years ago? Meanwhile, what does the Trump supporter look like? Aside from the black guy who shows up, he’s easily the closest thing to our idea of a man that’s there. Skrillex there is an adult but his voice cracks like he’s a teenager.
Then look at the policies – Trump is all about self-determination and looking out for ourselves. A strong person should be able to take care of themselves. But what do the Bernie supporters want? People to take care of others (AKA themselves). Deep down they probably know they’re one generation removed from having died in childbirth, so they’ll take any help they can get. Most lefties are completely unable to support themselves or live without outside help, usually from the government, so anything that gives them more resources will help them to survive.
If all welfare/government grants were cut off tomorrow I’d imagine the left-leaning population would slowly die out. This election has some of the most extreme candidates we’ve ever seen, so based on the survival theory this is why the two sides are more at odds than ever before.
Well said, the ironic thing is they don’t care about long term survival of our society, just themselves in their little niche. As the takers become more common and are promised more and more resources, we are reaching a tipping point. They are getting to the point that they do not need to produce anything, and we see that the society as a whole is dying.
Personally, I have always advocated a Libertarian government. Not only because I have no right to dictate what one can do with their life, liberty, and property (so long as it does not harm someone elses) it also seems that it would help promote a stronger family unit by removing many of the safety nets that promote single parenting. Also, I love freedom and self responsibility. I don’t want anyone to take credit for my successes or mistakes. And I certainly don’t believe the government can do anything better than the private sector anyway.
Great article, but please do not perpetuate the mythology about Galileo. He was not punished for his position on astronomy and his error (and thus censure) was not on heliocentric theory. His ‘punishment’ was house arrest in a palace and the publishing of his subsequent works without his theories about tide (moving the moon etc). Cheers.
You really think thoughtcrime liberals base their morality on harm? That’s as laughable as saying conservatives support a free market.
Politics is polarizing because it’s nothing but a bunch of nitpicky capricious and vicariously violent cowards arguing over whoch peaceful people shoud be abducted at gunpoint into a rape cage.
When someone casually, smugly and self-righteously advocates legislation that will threaten violence against you or yours, a violent reaction is perfectly understandable. It’s as defensive as it would be against someone who said they intended to take out a hit on you.