Fresh Poll on Degeneracy

Yes user and how many men do you think are actually married from the original sample population? I am fairly sure it oscillates around 8% as well.

Just a reminder that this is not the result of a mind probe, but an oral question. I'd say that some atheists at least admit their degeneracy.

atheism is dominated by liberals who swap god for the state

Are you retarded? The point of atheism is no religious beliefs. You could even follow jesus' philosophy without believing in any god. I find Jesus pretty cool, compared to christianity itself.

...

Do they do it themselves? Like multiculturalism, you know.

Noticing a lack of the crazy batshit 'religion' shitslam

The legit results could be "misused" by le ebul right wingers to stoke up "hate".

It's them every time. Pure coincidence, as they say.

Oh why is that, eh?

No; it just means lack of belief in a god. You need to doublecheck what your pastor tells you, Cletus.

No
Mormons abandoned polygamy after the US government told them to stop, they got a magical prophecy at the same time about it as well

Can't argue with trips

You know that muzzies would have been pretty much against everything said there.
Except maybe polygamy and death sentence, they are pretty okay with that.

Also, fucking jews.
They are pretty much crypto-atheists when it comes to morals.

Atheism just means you don't believe in any gods. It's not an ideological choice, just a logical conclusion. (you could choose to join a religion for cultural reasons, richard dawkins for example identifies as culturally christian, but most people who don't believe in gods won't change without proof)

Huh. Just taking the raw data by itself without trying to imply causation, that's a really interesting correlation between atheists and jews. I didn't expect that.

Nope. Death Penalty is proper justice according to God.

Been saying this for years

Jesus was a pretty comfy lad

2% of the population and their degeneracy has so much impact.

I'm surprised Muslims aren't on the chart too.

/thread

Old Testament God, not New Testament Jesus.

Death penalty is not acceptable under any circumstances, EVER.

Great normie-friendly redpill material. Shows that jews and atheists have the same moral values. This means that either jews don't believe in their own fables and are closet atheists, or it means that atheist morality has been heavily influenced by jews.

what is this cuckoldry

christian countries have carried out the death penalty for 2000 years

most "atheists" do in fact have a religion: liberal degeneracy
they simply traded God for a new, false idol

If there is no death penalty then Jesus can't die for your sins. Checkmate, christcuck.

There are a lot of ethnic kikes in the US, who say they aren't kikes because they are "non-practicing". It's a well known evasion of "are you a kike?" question. Kikes know they are a race, but they refuse to state it to the goy, instead saying that being a kike is all about religion.

The atheist and the kikes having exactly the same morals is blowing this illusion away, showing that both are interchangeable because in countless cases they are literally one and the same - ethnic kikes.

ATHEIST SHILLS BTFO

And for some reason the divorce one annoys me most. We kicked the English out over this and now we accept it.

Jesus Christ.

Is this just America? Not that I'm saying this is a cucked situation just in burgerland, call it curiosity.

Europe is even more cucked, godless and degenerate than burgerland. America has at least 1 healthy person for every 4 degenerates, eurocucks dont have even that.

There is nothing wrong with these things

The US has the highest divorce rate in the world…

get out abdul.

And yet it has proportionally less faggots and feminists than places like France and England, and many more nationalists than Germany.

Reminder that the US was one of the LAST countries to fall to the kikes, which already owned most of europe's economy by the beginning of the 19th century.

You mean the same US which fought WW2 for the kikes?

So normies and jews are the greatest degenerates.

I'll keep that in mind next time fedoras spew their shit here.

Why are you still posting on Holla Forums then?

morality is not objective, what you might consider horrible, a muslim in SA might consider to be moral.

Also what's wrong with cloning? I'm sick of science and truth being held back because of muh morality

that's subjective morality dipshit

no it isn't you cuck

No, in-fact, we need to speed up progress on this as soon as possible. We must make sure the next Fuhrer has hundreds of clones for protection, so he never dies.

it is the best thing we have in any country

only if the woman wants to divorce

suicide is an essential human right
the idiots will remove themselves from the gene poll without our actions

GAS
JUUUUDEENNNN

GAS THOSE WHO DO THIS!

GAS!

Seems like no one is safe with that regard

I don't think he's necessarily implying that cloning or doctor assisted suicide/regular suicide are degenerate, but rather the voting trends are degenerate.

Abortion harms Europeans and European descendents more than it does niggers, muslims and other assorted shitskins

Cloning for the fun of cloning is fine. Who would honestly pass up the chance to fuck themselves and harvest your own organs?

Euthanasia is necessary. It's unethical to drag out someone's life, often artificially, against their will.

Zika and retard babies should count as nothing more than pets. If you want to keep them you have to be fit to take care of them by yourself; you can buy some pet insurance but you definitely don't get to enlist them onto any health service made by and for humans. Their rights are extended as far as what any dog can expect.

Medical testing on animals should be avoided as much as possible. There's some things that are unavoidable right now but there should be a general aim to move away from it.

Abortion. I don't see a problem with killing babies. For the sake of a healthy and sustainable nation I would err towards a policy along the lines of everyone is entitled to 1 free abortion; everyone makes mistakes and if you're not fit to raise your kid then that kid is a drain on resources. Further abortions will be entirely at your own expense, if you cannot afford the abortion the state will provide the second one but your tubes will hence be tied. This policy will be flexible to suit the current climate of civilisation.

If we need humans you will be seen as an incubator, if you cannot raise the child yourself then the state will take it and provide for it.

Honestly I think having no child is better than having a child that is cucked at childhood by degenerate unfit parents.

They will all probably grow up to be leftists.

Yes it is, that femishit hobby is very degenerate indeed.

Christcucks making their own definitions for words like they always do.
Atheism means you don't believe in any god(s), that's it, it doesn't have anything to do with your morals or ideology.

Atheists subscribe to a materialistic view of things.

Without any spirituality to temper the natural philosophy, one becomes consumed by the idea that we are merely just another product of nature, and not risen above it.

Oy vey this Holla Forumsl is another shoah!

I'm just like you, goyim!

...

You're a faggot if you think that's all atheism implies. Specifically atheism is only about no gods, but in general it usually goes along with a lot of other liberal faggotry. I'm an atheist, but My atheist who doesn't acknowledge how cucked most atheists are and how degenerate the atheism movement and communities have become is a part of the problem.

I'm not about to abandon being a rational atheist, but atheists in general have got to be about one of the worst groups of people on the planet after Jews. Not so much because of their atheism, but because of why they became atheists in the first place and all of the other bullshit they tend to believe and spew.

Atheist apologists are just as bad as the degenerates who also happen to be atheists.

but any atheist

>>>Holla Forums

This is why I feel bad for atheists on Holla Forums. No one outside of this board even knows they exist, because they're exclusively viewed by the public as a bunch of hyper leftists.

Abortion is used mostly by femishits, who are you trying to fool?

It is degeneracy, at least in the sense that it belongs in OP's pic.

yeah nah if that was the case we'd only have healthy kids running around, which cleary isn't happening.

Most atheists here on Holla Forums are complete fucktards, especially the ones that hate Christianity for reasons unknown and parrot dumb lines from The Bible out of context because their equally stupid friends passed them on.

I think mandatory Bible study in school should be reinstated, not to spread the religion but to atleast do away with these fucktarded fedoras and have people who actually know what they're taking about instead.

That's what i never understood about 'atheists', they worship science and pride themselves on their knowledge, but then when it comes to Christianity they refuse to do their fucking homework and instead parrot lines from some retard who also didn't do his homework.

Can't disagree.
Abortion as a concept for removing undesirables is O.K. However, abortion as it is used in current-day society is degenerate.

prove the Christianity is true

Go ahead

Give it a shot.

If you're so sure you're right, then you should have no problem.

I'll be waiting.

Please don't drag a perfectly good thread into an argument over religion. The Jew laughs when you do so.

You seem to be forgetting or otherwise are completely ignorant of natural law, which does not need to be tempered by any semitic forces.

user pls

Why all the hate against cloning?

Natural law is not necessarily morally just.

We are more than the sum of our parts.

The issue is that people are just inclined to project onto the other posters what they see as being representative of certain groups.

As if the atheist on Holla Forums is like some dickhead on tumblr or as if the Christian on Holla Forums is the cuck with 7 adopted African kids

We all made it here, so we did something right.

1+1 = 2

1+1 = 42
how amazing and comforting it is to hear that!

Let's try making a rocket using that principle.. Oh wait.

because brains in robot bodies are way fucking cooler and clones are gay as fuck

When you try to rebel against nature, you come face to face with the very laws to which you owe your existence. The folly of man is to believe is to believe we will ever be above nature.

what does this even mean to you?

>Jews an No-Religions aka atheists consider Polygamy more acceptable than Mormons

other 92% are probably Mormons who got cucked by Chad Smith with 48 wives.

I doubt it's a surprise to any athiests here that your average person can't handle athiesm.

...

...

Yeah nah m8.

Matthew 7:2 (KJB)

You can certainly judge others, but you just shouldn't judge them for things you have done (ie being a hypocrite)

Agree with everything except abortion (for whites at least). IDGAF if some sheboon or spic aborts her children

Probably

Well you know, equality is a lie. =^]

Newton was a guy and he did a lot of good things.

Guess what else he was? A religious man.

You can have faith and hold to morality without letting your faith interfere with scientific progress.

If that is so, then nothing we do is against natural law, because we are just animals and thus our behavior is excused.

It means we are not just animals. We can't excuse degeneracy or failures of morality because we're all just animals and it's all nature.

We are more than beasts. We are Men. We are above such things. And as such, we must hold ourselves to a higher morality.

I'm not saying you should disregard natural law. It's a truth of the world just like morality is objective, and it serves its purpose.

But you mustn't also disregard morality in favor of natural law. You must hold both important.

Before the Enlightenment took over and "science" (perversion of natural philosophy) became the word used, a "scientist" was a philosopher as well. We've lost sight of that. We've lost sight that "scientists" were more often than not spiritual and studied esoteric fields as well as natural fields.

I've started to consider the position that atheism is the sort of idea only people over a certain IQ should even attempt to handle, but this leaves me feeling like a faggot because I certainly don't consider myself to be of any particularly high intellect.

A little over a century ago it was the sort of idea that would get you removed from society, and only academics even entertained it (at least in the Occident, the Arabs were toying around with the idea in the 9th century – and I suspect that before Constantine it may have had some prevalence in Europe, but very probably not. To my understanding of theological history everyone before him in Europe was a Pagan or some other sun/nature worshipper.)

The other important factor in my reasoning is that Christianity has been a staple of European thought for millenia – nearly everything and everyone from history who I admire was a Christian thinker. In this era, many people equate atheism with anti-religion ala Dawkins and /r/atheism, but I'm not opposed to Christianity in the slightest.

I also have some half finished thoughts brewing around about the importance of spiritual security in a state, and the importance of defending the Church. Nobody can deny the modern church is satanic and degenerate – the pope kisses rapefugee feet and livetweets it after all, but is this the fault of the church, or the society which has raped her? My bet is on the latter.

Anyone remotely interested in theological matters reading this post will of course be immediately familiar with the pseudo-Machiavellian view in which I'm toying with the idea of religion as a method for control here, so even still this line of thinking would probably be rejected by /christian/.

There is no middle ground with them. Which is an admirable trait. But once your safe space gets corrupted, then where do you go. The current pope is basically the anti-christ, so I imagine there's got to be an equally confused mess of logic from /christian/ to try and defend that obvious fact.

Look at that fucktarded shit. You're exactly the kind of fedora i was talking about. Thanks for showing up i guess.

Disgusting.

Get a load of this cuckold. Will you turn the other cheek and forgive the nigger that killed your entire family and got off on a technicality?

Abortion IS degenerate you fucking nigger.

It is notable that you didn't even try to actually address the point.

What exactly am I reading?

Nobody thinks this way. Well, I'm sure commie faggots do, but they're retarded in a kaleidoscopic way.

It is provable that man is a risen killer ape, we are neohominid Great Apes. Our behaviors and subconscious motivators all align with Ape-like behaviors. The difference between us and those animals is that we are a step above, otherwise known as millions of years of evolution selecting for intelligence, which gives us the ability to use reason and logic, and deduce something like God. In Aristotelian terms, we are rational animals. I take this a step further and say that we are religious animals, using the definition of religion that it is a memeplex, a complex set of ideas for understanding our reality and our place in it, including lofty philosophical ideas such as morality or ethics.

Natural law simply means property law, the only rights man has are to his livelihood and his property. When George "Pull my 9 at the welfare line" Zimmerman was acquitted, this was an example of natural law in action, and it was a moral good. There was no need for a higher power to intervene in that case, and no reason to believe that one did, though I won't insult you believe God Almighty caused the ZimZam to walk free.

This is one of the most commonly twisted scriptures out there that non-Christians like to use to state falsehoods about the faith. You must understand the context.

Jesus said: I did not come to replace the Law, but to fulfill it. The Law refers to the Old Testament law, and that includes the death penalty.
During the time of Christ, Israel was under Roman occupation, and the Romans made executions illegal unless done by the Roman authority.
The Pharisees (whom hated Christ from the very beginning) decided they were going to set Jesus up and have him arrested. They brought to Jesus a woman caught in adultery and told him to fulfill the law (ie. kill her).
Jesus outsmarted the pharisee kikes by saying the famous words: he who is without sin cast the first stone. This succeeded in avoided Roman arrest, shooing the Pharisees away, and not contradicting Moses' Law.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with unconditional love for all life that cucked out false Christians and atheists seem to think.

Atheists (many of them Jews, no doubt) and legit Jews are the most degenerate?

Truly, I am shocked.

I don't disagree with you on any particular part as far as your second paragraph goes.

Nor do I disagree that it's ridiculous to assume natural law means freedom to do whatever one wishes, but it's also the easier thing to subvert.

If you hold to the moral truth. If you rightfully defend that morality, beauty, good and evil, light and shadow (in the metaphysical sense) are objective concepts, with objective definitions, you are not so easily subverted as assuming natural law runs us.

Because natural law can always be stated to say that we, as animals, have our behaviors justified. Shift of the morality of society towards amoral individualism and materialism? Well that's just Darwinism in action! Evolution!

Again, disclaimer, I don't think that's a fair interpretation of natural law. But sure as hell is what the globalist kikes will sell you.

quads of truth

Isnt that still somewhat of an indictment against executions?

No it is notable that you;

a.) Didn't even make a point.

and

b,) Formulated your demand for proof like a complete fucking retard.

Meaning you fit the fedora stereo-type i just described like a glove.

Enforcing and promoting "Equality" is against natural law and will lead to our civilisation's destruction, to give one example.

We are animals, though. Just highly advanced animals who have reached a point in our cognitive development where we have the capacity to question our very nature as animals.

Not true at all. One can devise perfectly sound morals basing them on nature and evolution alone. We are tribal animals who have evolved to live in communities, so whatever morals exist MUST be built around preserving, maintaining, and furthering the interest of your community. "Degeneracy" as you would describe it, degrades ones community making it weak and decrepit and easily overran, and thus is unfavorable to have and in need of being prevented. I can arrive at this conclusion without having to quote baseless platitudes.

Yes. We are far more advanced animals than the rest of the animal kingdom, and capable of much more. It is thus our evolutionary goal to reach our full potential as a species and ensure our survival is guaranteed. Again, one can arrive at this conclusion without asserting we are "more" than animals in a material sense.

natural law determines morality. If natural law steers evolution, and evolution steers morality, then morality is an objective extension of natural law itself.

I am not the person you were initially responding to. Learn to read, nigger. The board has IDs for a reason.

Natural law and moral truth are not related.

Morality would exist were we not have walked this Earth. It is a part of creation just as nature is.

Funny how "no religion" and Jewish are so similar. Shows how much they influence our society, whether intentionally or not.

Do you have anything other than your own assertions to back that up? Why should I accept what you say to be fact?

hi newfag

They value animals over mankind cuz muh feelz

No, the moral of that tale is to not be autistic. The Pharisees were famously autistic in their literal interpretation of the law. Jesus was trying to teach them to follow the spirit of the law (ie. the subtext), not the letter of the law.

It's not an indictment against executions because God doesn't contradict Himself. If God was ok with death penalties in Moses' time, then God is ok with death penalties now and forever.

I disagree. Morality is a creation of humans as a means of co-existence.

Well yeah. Traits that lead to a lifeform's success would translate to being inherently virtuous. Which is why being a fag would be looked down upon, because it is effectively a block on reproductive success, and reproductive success is directly related to not only the success of a bloodline, but to the success of a species overall. And not only that, it is in spite of being otherwise capable of reproduction, as in not being sterile or physically disabled. In primitive times when shit was tough a fag would be a liability for a society. He would consume resources but would not contribute to the population growth of the community. I guess over time that translated into religious doctrine. Like the hypothesis of why Hindus value cows so much. A cow was valuable for a village. It was respected and treated well. Over time that became cow = sacred.

Because there are some aspects of natural law that aren't in the least bit related to moral truths.

Why do we worship/honor our ancestors?

Why, when faced with death or acceptance of an unjust law or unjust invasion, we fight? I don't see that happen in nature. Usually when a group of animals is attacked by another group (take chimps) they are easily subdued and absorbed into the winning group. And yet we hold that it is a moral duty to fight the good fight.

The concepts of fighting beyond hope of victory is a European (and also far eastern) concept that exemplifies pagan courage. It is also present in Christianity.

We hold matriarchies as fundamentally wrong in the moral sense, despite the fact that there are matriarchal societies in the natural world.

I'm sorry, but there is empirical demonstration of a separate moral truth.

Evola I think wrote things about this, but I'm not sure where. Perhaps in Ride the Tiger.

I got you, I took it to mean your personal thoughts on the matter at first.

You're right probably, I can see how its easy to subvert atheism into baseless materialism, but it seems nowadays that everything is baseless and unhealthy. What really boggles my mind is how the modern Church has become so subverted. I really despise Francis. I know not all Christians are Catholic, but I was baptized Catholic so I think that's why I pay more attention to Catholicism. I also think Monarchy is probably better for Europeans (and their diaspora) than Democracy, simply because our forebears had a really good run through history with Divine Kings, with Catholicism playing a bigger role in those periods.

I wonder what separated me from the fedoras though, long before I discovered Holla Forums I was never a follower of Dawkins or Hitchens for example. I suppose its possible I've just lost my faith, and I could get it back maybe, but as I've alluded to before – /christian/ isn't exactly a friendly place. I pretty much get booted out of there anytime I try posting there. I don't want to waste my time going to a church unless its headed up by Pastor Steven Anderson, based Jew basher.

I know from my own life that its possible to be moral in the absence of God, and without falling into replacing that worship with some other false idol like Progressivism… but these are the types of nuance which get lost in society.

It is for these and many other reasons why, though I myself am an atheist, I prefer a real Christian society. Its a proven and simple method for getting the masses of a society to behave in a more morally correct manner, and it gives many a reason for wanting to protect beauty. I also suspect that any real Holla Forums atheist feels similarly, which is why I consider "dead kike on a stick" posters to simply be D&C shills.

It is unavoidable, if you are a lover of Evropa, you must accept the Christian aspect of her great and rich history and people as well.

for the most part, many of the morals taught by religions can be arrived at non-religiously by finding out what maximizes the success, cohesiveness, and viability of a community/population. I believe that religion sprung out of these naturally-defined morals as a means of solidifying and legitimizing them in the culture of a community, but did define the morals to begin with.

Provide me with the framework by which you arrived at these moral truths.

Worshiping our ancestors seems rather irrational, but honouring them for their contributions to the success and survival of the community seems like a perfectly natural and understandable thing to do. By honouring those who have contributed to the survival of the community as a whole, you're providing role models for the current generations to emulate, thus ensuring whatever good and successful actions our ancestors made are repeated.

You seem to be just quoting a bunch of platitudes again. There's a very rational and evolutionary basis for fighting for the survival and independence of your in-group. To not do so would mean the evolutionary death of your people and bloodline.

I don't hold them wrong in some baseless "moral" sense, I consider them wrong in a practical evolutionary sense. Women did not evolve to lead society, and their inherent nature ultimately brings about the collapse of societies if left unchecked. It is for this obvious reason that I am opposed to women in positions of power or politics. If there really was no distinct biological and psychological difference between men and women, then these "moral" distinctions would have never evolved in the first place.

Such as?

Don't delegate your argument to someone else's book

We had that Christians/Pagans/Atheists thread and I said there I don't think it's health to be atheist, in the moral sense, but so long as you can maintain a moral compass that approaches the moral truth of creation, then it's fine.

Just temper yourself with spirituality.

I'm not sure if you're aware of Morgoth's archives, a mega folder with tons of esoteric shit. Read up on some stuff there. Perhaps it'll help.

So anything that isn't material to a man is just a spook amirite?

Personally, I guess I am an atheist, but I dont want to call my self that because there is now that strong link to fedora shit and it would just associate me with the r/Atheism types. I am just so disillusioned with everything at this point.

In all honesty I would prefer a religious society and I would just go along with it all because I know it is for the better. Would I be lying to myself if that were to happen? Is that virtuous? I would be upholding things I dont necessarily believe in for some sort of greater good.

I dont even know what the fuck to call it. When my grandfather passed away I got his Bible, rosary beads and prayer books. I plan on holding on to them and taking care of them until the day I die, and I wouldnt have it any other way.

I am a man of sustainability and efficiency but I'm also a man of compassion.

[COINCIDENCES INTENSIFIES]

Its as much of a coincidence as your trips :^)

What if those trying to absorb you are part of your kin? Look at lefties. Usually (not counting the kike upper elite), it's all Europeans doing the harm.

You're assuming moral truth derives from man. You're wrong. There is objective morality in creation. All we do is try to reach it.

Just as we try to reach understanding of the natural world through science/natural philosophy.

But their environment was different from ours. Their actions have no realistic application now.

We honor them for their morality and more importantly, we honor and worship them because they are our blood.

But there is no logic to that. It's more logical to honor future offspring than past ancestry. And yet we do it.

Because a moral truth of this world is respect for your ancestry, regardless of if their actions would be something you'd want to repeat in your current environment.

They would.

If we held to natural law there would be nothing stopping polygamy for example.

I gave you a few.

Another is honor in warfare.

Why do we to the best of our abilities try to at least honor our enemies? There is no logic to that either. But we try. It is only when faced with barbarism that we abandon that code.

Why should I not recommend a man that is admittedly more learned than I am on spirituality and esoteric writings, who also by the way was the foundation of both the third position (fascism, natsoc) and the neoreaction and neomonarch movements.

Thank you, I'll check it out.

you shouldn't take autistic /christian/ talking points at face value m8

And these people are promoting socially destructive ideas that harm the viability of our race. There is every rational reason to oppose what leftists promote without resorting to quoting platitudes.

prove it

Except our understanding of nature is based on empirical evidence which we acquire through observation.

Not necessarily. The character of a person can be timeless. You wouldn't honour a selfish person who sacrifices nothing for his community, but you would honour someone who does. It doesn't matter what era this kind of person lived in because their character traits are desirable regardless.

Yes, and as I've mentioned, morality is derived from what ensures the long-term survival and viability of community/civilisation. If an ancestor espoused such favourable morals, then it's no surprise they are honoured.

Bullshit. I've already given an explanation why any group of people would honour their ancestors. You're just ignoring my explanation so you can continue to spout platitudes

No. Not at all. Would you ever honour an ancestor who worked against the interests of your community? Of course not. You honour the ancestors who sacrificed themselves or gave something up so that the group could prosper. These people have certain moral qualities you want to emulate, and thus you honour them so that current and future generations have role models to look up to.

Because we recognise the sacrifice that our enemies make to better their own people?

But they are a group just as you are. You say it's self destructive, yet were we to remove shit like the refugee policy, it would STILL be a morally wrong position.

Even if somehow communism was pro European, it would still be morally wrong for many other reasons, including denial of property rights, forcing everything under the tyranny of centralization rather than decentralized locally ran communities (as is the natural organization of man), and encouraging infighting of rich vs poor.

All this exists without accounting the equality aspect

I am doing it as we speak

And so is this. Our understanding of morality and approaching of moral truth can be analyzed by verifying that which natural law does not explain within human behavior, the need to spiritually rise above. We are more than the sum of our parts, we are more than animals, we have long conquered are base natural instincts. Materialists would set us back.

Not necessarily. We often honor war heroes for actions or strategies that in this day we KNOW would be disastrous now, and these war heroes were in terms of character terrible people.
Their traits weren't desirable, their actions have no application now. It's in the past so honoring them is completely irrational, yet we do it.

And even then, that isn't what ancestor worship is necessarily. It's worship of ALL your ancestors down to the nameless ones. Why honor them? You don't know them, you likely never will, yet you honor them. You worship blood. Why?

And your ancestors believed in separation of moral truth and natural law. And they were right. So how's about honoring them in that too

You keep using that word, platitude. I do not think you know what it means. You are so obsessed with MUH SCIENCE that you believe morality has no meaning, that to appeal to morality is to appeal to baseless things. Yet that very point of view is what has is in this fucking state. It is objective fact the decline of the West started with the Enlightenment, with the abandoning of morality in face of materialism. With the "Enlightened despot" that thought he could make things "better" by forcing liberal ideology and upsetting moral truth.

I honor my ancestors, even the nameless ones. I can't know what they all did, nor do I need to. You worship blood, as I said. Perhaps you should read a bit into how pagans view these things before giving an opinion.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily a pagan, but that's how they did things (and do, in the case of those properly following the rites)

Why do we care though? They aren't our kin. They're our enemies. There is no logic to it.

Fucks sake even the Turks, despicable animals they are, have enough honor (or had) to erect a monument and give speeches in the name of their enemies (ANZAC cove).

You're really going in circles and grasping at straws now. I've clearly explained why leftists ideas are directly harmful to the viability of the in-group and are thus morally wrong. Easily explained if we base our understanding of morality on evolution.

I'd like to stop you right there and show you why you just proved my argument correct. Since I base morality on what maximizes the success, cohesiveness, and viability of an in-group, It's easy to see how communism is morally wrong using the very examples you've listed. Rich vs poor infighting does NOT make society more cohesive or trustworthy, in fact it actually degrades society internally. From this, we can clearly conclude that communism is morally wrong on an evolutionary level. Likewise, trying to go against "the natural organisation of man" is also destructive to the viability of the group, and thus can also be considered immoral.

No you aren't. Not even close. You keep just repeating moral platitudes and asserting I'm "wrong" without ever giving me reason to accept your argument. You haven't proven to me objectively that morality exists outside of humanity or evolution itself, you just assert it and want me to accept it as fact.

And yet without forming a material basis for why your morality is "correct", anyone can reject it outright. You cannot have objective morality without anything objective backing it up. The only objective thing we as humans know is the material world, and thus the only way we can accurately define morality is by basing it on the material world (as I'm doing right now). The biggest issue with this argument is not that we disagree on what is morally right or wrong, but how we arrive at our conclusions. I base my argument on objective reality, evolution, and the natural world, while you base yours on lofty statements like "we are more than the some of our parts".

Yet their contributions to the survival of the community are valuable and honourable nonetheless. How does this go against what I've said in any way?

For one, I don't worship any of them. Worship is irrational. Honouring someone and worshiping them are two different things. Like I've already stated ad nauseam, we honour our ancestors for their contributions both big and small, to the survival of our people and community.

I know exactly what it means. See Pic related. You're doing exactly that.

This is a complete bullshit strawman and you know it. I have clearly stated that morality is derived from nature and evolution, and thus cannot be meaningless, and must be objective. This is the opposite of what typical leftists spout when they claim that morality is subjective. Morality is what regulates and defines certain characters and actions that are beneficial to the survival of your group.

And many enlightenment philosophers asserted that morality was not objective. I do not. I have made it very clear that I view morality is objective and derived from nature and evolution itself. Liberal ideology is inherently anti-nature and tries to deny certain evolutionary principles such as inequality.

I honour my ancestors too for their contributions to the survival of my race and people. Honouring your ancestors and my position are not mutually exculsive.

Paganism has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion at all. Don't try to shoehorn it in here and then demand I "educate myself" before I give an opinion. You sound like some tumblr user.

None of my examples had anything to do with nature.

You know what, I concede.

My point still stands, fedora nigger. Both of you demonstrate perfectly fine why you are mongoloid-tier.

Fucking this, LARPagans are fucking COINTELPRO.

I knew it the moment they arrived with their silly 'iron pill' bullshit, which was clearly designed to be 'accepted' here because they thought that's how our maymays worked here.

Nice 15 word response

We should not cater to anyone's special feelings. There should be, and are (if you're Western) objective moral foundations that we live by based upon religious and non-religious ideologies.

The only reason the paradigm is shifting and Marxist oven feeders like you exist is because of Marxism's subversion of our moral righteousness.

God I'm so sick of you "moral relativism" fucknuts. "True equality" like what you're genocidally misguided stance entails involves a new pseudo-morality based upon your "not morality" moralities.

I'm sorry, why's that? Do pagans not have a moral code?

Are you kidding, the US had the largest Jewish population in the world by the early 20th century?

...

wew lad

What the fuck is Marxist about cloning? You can't hide ludditeism that easy.

...

Where are mudslimes in that? At least it shows how Jews are degenerate shit dumpsters.

Aren't those the same thing?

I give up! I honestly believe at this stage I can not convince you of what I believe, and I also understand that is much easier to offer empirical proof of natural law dictating morality rather than natural law and moral truth being distinct, as that requires one to read and to a certain degree accept theological and esoteric writings.

We live in a materialistic world too obsessed with the "scientific" method (or in other words that places sole importance on natural philosophy). All I can do is suggest you search for Morgoth's archives and read some stuff there, but I honestly am just not learned enough yet to rebut your position.

So I concede.

I do take offense to you saying paganism has nothing to do with this.

On a whim I went and checked reddit to see if OP got it straight from there, lo and behold it's right there on the front page.
Go and stay go.

No you don't, there are many things he said that you hate and wouldn't agree with. Also it is beyond retarded to be like "yeah what he said was cool, but god isn't real" when Jesus talked about God and being his son in the majority of what he talked about.

If you actually bothered to open the link you would of found the PDF at the bottom of the page full of sources

Does anyone know the name of the piece of music in this clip, by the way?

OY VEY

WHO LET THIS INFORMATION GET VIRAL

...

Thanks a bunch, man. o/

BASED MORMONS
A
S
E
D

M
O
R
M
O
N
S

Those were my thoughts when I looked at the data, too. Didn't realize Mormons were so… non-degenerate.

them being against gay and lesbian relationships is misleading. mudslimes are huge pederasts, but they shun it publicly. they're also fine with suicides or "suicides" to maintain honor.

fuck off abdul.

No big surprise here. Jews have always been considered a race, by both jews and non-jews alike, for the vast majority of their existence. It was only in the early 20th Century that they began to push the religion angle so that they could then push the bullshit about race being a social construct and America should abandon our ethnic identity. Things like bar mitzfahs and wearing the kike hats are more cultural things like brits drinking tea or germans wearing lederhosen.

There is no kike religion, only a slimy, mendacious race.

Why did none of you faggots check my quads?

I'm disappointed in you fam

Oh fug, checked 'em but fucked up the quoting.

Ignore as I suck cocks fam

ITT: No one thinks of the deep implications cloning has because everyone is infatuated with the genetic ubermensch/tech love meme of NatSoc Germany

Cloning is a complex matter. Actually most matters that will surface in the near future in terms of science meeting the human condition are not easy to answer.

cloning your organs/body parts is pretty cool, admittedly

there are dozens of prominent sci-fi and horror stories/movies that go into the moral implications of horror. retards may not have absorbed them or edgelords are doing what they do,

then again I was old enough that dolly was a yuge subject in school when talking about science and morality in school when I was little. I don't think there has been such a yuge cloning hysteria since then.

...

oy