Is science just a religion for ugly people?

MarcusA said:
If it does, then the scientists just get censored, incarcerated, or shot, their "evidence" buried, their books and writings burned.

They can't "prove" something subversive is real when they're dead, ha ha.

Only the state and those of right-think, right-belief, and right-politics get to decide what's real and what isn't, scientists are subordinate to the state and national party, subversive, problematic and dangerous views promoted by their ilk won't be tolerated.

"The victor won't care if he told the "truth" - A. Hitler
Click to expand...

And that causes a society to become extremely repressive, which is part of what Fascism never works.
 
MarcusA said:
Notice how most idiots with an unhealthy and superstitious interest in science are usually very aesthetically repellent and challenged?
Click to expand...
Obviously, you have never set foot on a college campus. Some of the hottest chicks on campus were majoring in wildlife biology, ecology, marine sciences, veterinary sciences. Lot of head turners in geology too.
 
Cypress said:
Obviously, you have never set foot on a college campus. Some of the hottest chicks on campus were majoring in wildlife biology, ecology, marine sciences, veterinary sciences. Lot of head turners in geology too.
Click to expand...
Who gives a fuck - it's an ugly subject, and physical "beauty" is the lowest denominator of beauty to begin with, as opposed to higher-level aesthetics and mathematical beauty.

If these shit "jobs" were automated, maybe more of these "hot chicks" could become opera singers and help revive classical culture and art which the degenerate left and their ugly, postmodern "culture" has helped to destroy. Every fascist state was known for its progress in the arts, not just the pragmatic sciences.
 
Last edited:
StoneByStone said:
And that causes a society to become extremely repressive, which is part of what Fascism never works.
Click to expand...
Oh I just believe the end justifies any and all means, this is an idea that goes beyond "fascism", but is found in the likes of little idols such as Machiavelli, Alinsky, as well as true nationalists like Mussolini, Evola, and others.

Not to mention, a true nationalist is a globalist - the goal of nationalism is to expand and progress from nation to nation, until the entire world is ruled and dominated by 1 language, 1 people, and 1 culture - abandoning ethnic ties and forming allegiance with fascists and nationalists of other races and genders is totally fine if it helps to pave the way for total, global control and domination.

No true nationalist or conquerer, whether Alexander the Great, Ghenghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, or others would have ever stopped with 1 nation, like the cowardly isolationists who are afraid of asserting their natural might and right in the crushing and dominating of inferior cultures and peoples worldwide - as though they deserve any "respect" simply by virtue of their existance - as far as a fascist is concerned, only "might" makes right, and any foreign or "alternative" people, language, culture is simply a new conquest ripe for the picking in the road to global domination.
 
MarcusA said:
Oh I just believe the end justifies any and all means, this is an idea that goes beyond "fascism", but is found in the likes of little idols such as Machiavelli, Alinsky, as well as true nationalists like Mussolini, Evola, and others.

Not to mention, a true nationalist is a globalist - the goal of nationalism is to expand and progress from nation to nation, until the entire world is ruled and dominated by 1 language, 1 people, and 1 culture - abandoning ethnic ties and forming allegiance with fascists and nationalists of other races and genders is totally fine if it helps to pave the way for total, global control and domination.

No true nationalist or conquerer, whether Alexander the Great, Ghenghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, or others would have ever stopped with 1 nation, like the cowardly isolationists who are afraid of asserting their natural might and right in the crushing and dominating of inferior cultures and peoples worldwide - as though they deserve any "respect" simply by virtue of their existance - as far as a fascist is concerned, only "might" makes right, and any foreign or "alternative" people, language, culture is simply a new conquest ripe for the picking in the road to global domination.
Click to expand...

And what exactly is the point of all that? If it's to create a world with higher living standards, well that's generally not what happens. The societies with the best quality of life are all Liberal Democracies.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have a strong military for self-defense, but what is the point of Fascism and Imperialism?

And no, you don't have to be an Imperialist to be a true Nationalist. Nationalism is about preserving your own ethnicity.
 
MarcusA said:
Notice how most idiots with an unhealthy and superstitious interest in science are usually very aesthetically repellent and challenged? Why the f*ck would someone, such as an opers singer, philosopher, or aesthete ever want to be in an ugly, low-level "science" or "engineering" job unless they're just too uncreative or aesthetically inclined to find any more intellectually or aesthetically appealing work which couldn't be better off being automated by a computer program.

Example - this meme depicts what the average ugly atheist or "science fan" moron looks like and acts like; the irony being that the more aberrantly obsessed with, say, evolution one is, the more inversely proportional their actual "mating" odds are, to the point that even an ape is probably more adept at mating than the average 6th-grade reading level, emotionally-maldeveloped scientific freak of nature is, hence why these neanderthals often cross-over with the "incel" and "anime masturbatory" internet subcultures.

e0f.jpg


Thankfully, contemporary science itself, such as "Survival of the Beautiful" acknowledges that aesthetics or beauty is the ultimate aim, including the only ultimate reason or purpose for sciences themselves; so of course, a bunch of aesthetically challenged freaks who identify as atheists or "science" fans offer little or nothing to the universe at all but a source of aesthetic repellance and defectiveness which the rest of humanity would be better off without; with most of the natural sciences themselves being oudated, worthless holdovers from the 16th-19th centuries anyway, thankfully about to go extinct in favor of new informational and computational sciences.

So yeah, science or anything else which doesn't serve an aesthetic purpose is worthless and should be outdated, and hopefully eventually automated so that the only idiots who settle for such primitive professions (due to being unable to do anything more intellectual or creative than a calculator or computer could) will be automated and humanity will never have to taint or lower herself to that inferior or defective level ever again.

This is also one of the reasons why I'm a meritocratic feminist who supports divorce and infidelity; if a woman had to lower herself to settling for a trash marriage and future divorce statistic with some aesthetically or emotionally stunted freakshow against her and the aesthetic and evolutionary interests of humanity, that would be rather sad; hopefully, it being the 21st century, she'll realize she doesn't have to settle for such archaic 16-19th century arrangements and the trash "marriages" that result from it, and instead realize her legal rights and rational and aesthetic self-interest to dump said archaic and evolutionarily-redundant freaks and the outdated, quasi-religious arragements, stolen and culturally appropriated "mores", and archaisms in question and pursue arrangements with more aesthetic potential and benefit to the species.
Click to expand...

I'm more religious than the average Christian and I just don't get your extremely convoluted trolling. Whole lot of bologna that is beyond lame. True religious types aren't glorified by such talk. Such talk only belittles us. On top of it, you have an audience of maybe around 18 liberal regulars here, give or take.
 
MarcusA said:
"Religion" or anything else doesn't need defending.

It just needs to be forced on people by the virtue of might and state alone alone, with any dissenter or subversives who don't conform to it shot or incarcerated in concentration camps.

Then it becomes the facts and truth as dictated by those rightfully in power, which they will accept at gunpoint whether they like it or not; whether they "feel" they believe it or not - they'd bloody-well best pretend they do if they value their worthless existence.

To quote Voltaire "If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him" - religion, state-endorsed or otherwise is a wonderful tool of social and moral control, and a way for societies elites to consolidate their power and subvert the untermensch, whether or not there is a "God" or not is irrelevant to this virtuous end, which justifies any means to achieve, including the execution and elimination of dissenters who won't accept the natural right of elites to rule over and dominate them by the sheer virtue of force which nature invested in them
Click to expand...

What should this "religion" be called??

There are a few around already that are similar..... If you join or born in, you got one way out & your family isn't likely to waste money on your funeral or grave so you better makes planes for that if you decide to leave......
 
MarcusA said:
Why the f*ck would someone, such as an opers singer, philosopher, or aesthete ever want to be in an ugly, low-level "science" or "engineering" job unless they're just too uncreative or aesthetically inclined to find any more intellectually or aesthetically appealing work which couldn't be better off being automated by a computer program.
Click to expand...

The answer to your question is that science is fascinating in its own right. So is mathematics. Logic as well.

ibdaanimated_patriot_small_1.gif
 
MarcusA said:
"Religion" or anything else doesn't need defending.

It just needs to be forced on people by the virtue of might and state alone alone, with any dissenter or subversives who don't conform to it shot or incarcerated in concentration camps.

Then it becomes the facts and truth as dictated by those rightfully in power, which they will accept at gunpoint whether they like it or not; whether they "feel" they believe it or not - they'd bloody-well best pretend they do if they value their worthless existence.

To quote Voltaire "If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him" - religion, state-endorsed or otherwise is a wonderful tool of social and moral control, and a way for societies elites to consolidate their power and subvert the untermensch, whether or not there is a "God" or not is irrelevant to this virtuous end, which justifies any means to achieve, including the execution and elimination of dissenters who won't accept the natural right of elites to rule over and dominate them by the sheer virtue of force which nature invested in them
Click to expand...

If you need a dictatorial regime for your beliefs to be true they aren't.
 
StoneByStone said:
There are countries like North Korea trying this right now. How is it going?

We can get into how immoral Fascism and Totalitarianism are, but it's more than that. These ideas just don't create good societies. Society flourishes when people are free.
Even Nazi Germany, which I know you're a fan of, was a vampire economy. Eventually the living standards would have ended up just like every other Fascist country because vampire economies are essentially houses of cards.

You could say that you're not anti-science, you just want science to be totally controlled by the state. But what that leads to is a super repressive society where scientific progress is handicapped. Just look at your post. You'd have the government halt scientific progress if the science proves something "degenerate" is real.
Click to expand...

Eh, Nazis & Soviets had a lot of good tech.
 
StoneByStone said:
Yeah, but scientific progress was heavily restricted. That's part of why the Soviet Union was forced to change. And really, if you look at Democracies vs Dictatorships through history, there's no comparison.
Click to expand...

Soviets collapsed for economic reasons.
Rather than tech reasons.

Besides, Russia's arguably in worse shape now than 30 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top