sparrow

these "exotic" meats can be a bit more expensive, might be good for a treat now and then
 
plus I think possibly the cost would go down in the future if there was more demand and supply
 
might be something to get in to if people are interested in raising them too
 
I'm just interested in trying different things as well, sometimes people think there are so few things and options in the world
 
I was amazed when I first started becoming aware of things, to see yellow and purple carrots for example (I think?!) - it's a whole big world out there with true interesting "diversity" (rather than the forced leftist idea of "diversity", or destroying diversity and creating one mixed monoculture)

I think direct messages, instant messages, forum posts, etc. might indirectly replace some of email
 
a lot of email is spam tbh

it's hierarchical bro

DioPepe the Cynic

> Is some music intrinsically bad for society or the spirit?
 
Honestly in theory to me it sounds like something like mostly classical or acoustic or ambient are the only acceptable forms, in practice it seems a lot more blurry.
 
The steady beat of a lot of popular musics is thought to be carnal and inclines people towards base instincts, like that it can be hypnotizing and turn off the brain.
 
Some studies have shown classical music can help epilepsy, so I guess it can really have an affect on the brain: https://www.classicfm.com/composers/mozart/music-could-reduce-seizure-frequency-epilepsy/
 
The culture of a lot of these movements is also indecent. Electronica "rave" culture promotes drug use; rock music often promotes rebellion against authority. Rap can promote various criminal "thug" / "gangster" activities. The artists often also promote SJW initiatives. Lyrics can be offensive, blasphemous, immoral. Overall it just seems like a mess to avoid.
 
This has been a genuine puzzle to me which I am still trying to come to terms with as I am artistic and like music. I've tried to ask other questions like, what kind of music do we think God would want people to create or listen to? It seems like the answer would be religious music, so maybe that should be the top music for people to consume. Music can contain prayers or be a kind of prayer - perhaps this is the right way to make use of music, to make it in to a prayer?
 
There's a lot of other random issues with music in all its forms. Like it can be expensive to consoom music, concerts, and the like. It's nice for there to be a "canon" of music that people know and can sing together: nationalist themes, religious songs, educational songs (like the alphabet song) - to many random people making individualistic music can fracture a shared culture. I think it would be good to try to define or redefine a kind of "great canon" of musical works and for more people to consume them. There don't seem to be too many new classical achievements (maybe the film genre?) so people could look up old composers and their best works and listen to them.
 
> Share your favorite types of music
 
Vivaldi was a classical composer and Catholic priest, for example he composed the famouse "Four Seasons": https://yewtu.be/watch?v=g1hEszuZ4lo
 
Has anyone else had a similar reaction to modern music?

bros can we make a fork of this that can run on modern hardware?
 
I like that it's a public domain operating system, a lot of the other projects like linux are copyleft which is kind of like communist / socialist in licensing in my view, a lot of others like windows or mac are copyright which is kind of cringe capitalism to me
 
public domain is kind of sweet, you can share it freely (which they socialists should like), you can make money from it (which the capitalists should like), you can freely use it for whatever (which the lolbertarians should like), it's such a nice ideal I hope to see spread in the future
 
Terry was a talented madman to code this all himself

My post about an increase in middle aged white men taking their lives seems to directly relate to this question
 
I think part of the conflict is the extremes white men are being subject to, of being thought to be the "best" in society and being treated as such with certain rights and privileges, to being downgraded and treated with a lot less respect than in the past
 
Women are being given the privileges that really in justice are men's, so that they are able to lead a family. The wages of men are being cut in half, as well as the investment in their educations, all while women still in practice have the same traditional expectations of men that they are to be strong, make more than them financially and to provide for a family, and so on.
 
Plus there is the unfair divorce court and culture of divorce where women file for divorce on a 4:1 basis compared to men. So basically a ton of men, especially white men, are being overloaded with responsibilities and expectations that they have trouble living up to or simply cannot given the unjust structure of society. They fall in to drug abuse to cope. So a big thing would be fixing all these things, which we already know are issues.
 
Men should also look out for each other and have each other's back, like when a divorce happens.
 
Another big driver specifically of opiate use, I believe is when people are prescribed a legal opiate by a doctor, the prescription runs out, they still want pain relief, so they try some illegal drug, or become addicted and try to continue using the drug to cope. Either pain management without drugs, or continuing a prescription, or using lesser painkillers might help this issue. I guess some people have negative experiences with kratom, but this is an herbal painkiller that is much less intense in my experience, practically free of overdoses unlike fentanyl or heroin. It does reportedly have addiction potential for some people I guess, but I have used it moderately and experience no addiction (it has been a long time since I last had any).
 
So that's another possibility, is using drugs that are less harmful. Instead of people doing meth, they could use caffeine or nicotine (not cigarettes which can be more addictive but maybe gum or losenges now and then; the addictivity of nicotine also seems to vary). Instead of alcohol, maybe some valerian tea might be relaxing.
 
Social support is also important, like alcoholics anonymous or narcotics anonymous. Or just having friends to talk to rather than turning to a bottle. There has been a breakdown of social groups and socialization opportunities today and there is opportunity to organize men (or especially white men) to mutually help each other.
 
Pretty much I guess helping people to cope with stress is important.

exactly, I'd like to see this become acceptable in the mainstream also to trigger the libs
 
shouldn't be anything wrong with saying "white people can make some cool things and I like it better than the things other racial groups create"
 
apparently a lot of races feel this way when they move to white countries
 
it's not saying we hate other races or don't like some of the things they do (or doesn't have to mean this)

my conception of NRx is that it is anti-Darwinian, for example a genetic succession of kings would not have to be eugenic necessarily
 
the whole movement seems vague and malleable; the author says it is not like "fascism" and yet to me it seems like it would be close to it
 
I suppose I would question how Social Darwinism would be different from anarcho-capitalism which would just let the market free to do its thing to weed out people; is it implied that Social Darwinism requires an authority to do culling?

Today we also remember Building 7
 
This event was influential in waking a lot of people up to the possibility of alternative narratives or opinions being true as the government's "official story" of how the 9/11 attacks happened made no sense

ok so low IQ and means of survival, the latter I failed to consider and that seems like a fair reason

Today we also remember Building 7
 
This event was influential in waking a lot of people up to the possibility of alternative narratives or opinions being true as the government's "official story" of how the 9/11 attacks happened made no sense

I'd like to probe the "why" of this. was it abandoned as a wrong view? was it a fad? to me it just felt like pragmatic MAGA populism won out. Like "it would be cool to have a monarch with an aristocracy but for now I'll settle for triggering the libs"

hmm I would think a neoreactionary view to reject darwinism, so not sure how that fits. Darwin thinks the species evolved but this seems incorrect, God just created them as different. So I think actually the paradigm to incorporate is the anti-Darwinist "creation" insight; evolutionary theory limits thinking to incremental steps, rather than counter-revolutionary leaps against current thought. Applying it in practice to conservativism would mean supporting yesterday's incremental leftist views, rather than total rejection of them based on timeless truths from the ages. It would be like supporting gay "marriage" in rrsponsevto new transgenderist proposals, rather than outright rejecting both.

idk if currency needs to be backed by labor or precious metals, but it seems like it shouldn't inflate or be subject to interest on loan schemes

\> NAJALT

\> loser pride prius vs chad hate hummer

"not so great if they got erased, eh?"

https://infogalactic.com/info/Dark_Enlightenment

I've been thinking about this lately and I think the issue is defining "appropriate use". Like with other technologies, either the technology has certain bad features in itself, or there is an appropriate way to design it or use it: https://infogalactic.com/info/Appropriate_technology
 
I think maybe a lot of people are using the internet "inappropriately" but unknowingly, but I'm questioning for myself what "appropriate use" means. What does it mean to you? I don't mean just avoiding seeing indecent things online, but that is inappropriate as well.
 
Social media online may allow for the spreading of useful information, or it may simply lead to gossip and a race to the bottom of unrealistic social standards. The ability to share audiovisuals online can be useful for educational purposes, or could be used to share indecent media. Internet access is kind of neutral and just opens up everyone to all these uses whether they want them to be used in this way or not.
 
The internet feels like a lot of information I didn't ask for and maybe don't need. And maybe a lot of information a lot of people cannot handle. Maybe an "elitist" argument can be made that the internet cannot be handled by the average person, they start using spyhardware and spysoftware and willingly become technoslaves in walled gardens, and may be better off without using the internet as much (I would hesitate to say at all).
 
Is it possible the internet and certain technologies might be good for the body, but harmful to the soul? While many people see technology as a liberating force, the internet requires an enormous amount of dependence on an interconnected web (literally and metaphorically) of techno-industrial manufacturing processes and development.
 
What's your assessment of the impact of the internet?

I did nazi this post coming
 
> Nazis didn't use the media to promote abortion
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/24/germany-scraps-nazi-era-abortion-law-that-criminalises-doctors
 
"Majority vote ends law banning doctors from offering information about abortion procedures"

distributism generally is for property being more widespread, and people owning the means of production or being able to be their own small business
 
mutualism is a little more leftwing version of ancap, but they oppose things like interest on loans because it doesn't produce anything (I would delete some of the leftwing things in mutualism but I think in a free market people wouldn't necessary be capitalist but they might be kind of "socialist")

thoughts on (anarchist) mutualism and distributism?

fifty shades of moral decay

so how is socialism different from capitalism as hitler defines it? could you just be a "conscious capitalist" and it's the same thing?