Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 25, 2026, 07:36:06 pm »

Continuing from:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/jews-have-nothing-in-common-with-us!/msg32540/#msg32540

The more I read up on Galloway the more despicable he becomes:

https://www.today.com/parents/scott-galloway-parenting-teen-depression-rcna332381

Quote
Galloway takes issue with what he calls “concierge" or "bulldozer" parenting.
...
we clear out the obstacles for them. We make their life as frictionless as possible,"

Actually, the correct way to prevent friction is to not give birth to them in the first place. But given that you have already made the mistake of doing so, reducing their friction (so long as doing so does not increase the friction of someone else who never asked to be born) is your duty.

Quote
"There’s no bullying at schools anymore. There’s a lack of it, I should say.

Galloway positively wants bullying in schools. (This attitude is actually the pre-Counterculture-era Western norm.)

Quote
And the result is this princess and the pea syndrome.

I suggest imagining how much better the world would be if the Pea Princess were the ruler. Imagine how much more quickly she would have noticed global warming, for example!

And for those who want to dismiss my point by saying she is fictional, here is a historical figure who was a product of bulldozer parenting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Renunciation

Quote
Prince Siddhārtha's father and rāja of the Śākya (Pali: Sakya) clan Śuddhodana (Pali: Suddhodana) did not allow him to see death or suffering, and distracted him with luxury to prevent him from worrying and becoming interested in the religious life.[21][22] The early texts and post-canonical biographies describe in much detail how the raja's son lived in great luxury.[23] Śuddhodana provided him with three palaces in Kapilavastu (Pali: Kapilvatthu) for the summer, winter and monsoon, as well as many female attendants to distract him.[24]

The result:

Quote
During his childhood, the prince had his first experience of meditation sitting under a Jambu tree during the Royal Ploughing Ceremony.[25] In some later texts, this is extensively described, explaining how the young prince looked at the animals on the courtyard eating each other, and him realizing the suffering (Sanskrit: duḥkha, Pali: dukkha) inherent in all existence.

Of course Galloway does not want more people reaching this conclusion. Back to first link:

Quote
"If you really want to be successful, if you want to punch above your weight class economically and romantically, then I would say, then get out a big spoon and get ready to eat s---,” he said.

And if everyone behaves like Galloway recommends, everyone's increased competitiveness cancels out so that no one is more successful, but everyone has eaten ****.

Quote
“But here’s the thing, every time I lost, every time a woman said no to me at 6'2'', 140 pounds of bad acne, to go to the movies, I was upset, and then the next day I was a little less upset, and then the next day, by day three, I’m like, ‘I’m fine, I’m OK.’ And you develop calluses, and you develop the skills to endure rejection,” he said.

You become like Galloway instead of like Siddhartha. And that is supposed to be an improvement?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 31, 2026, 01:58:43 am »

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EsZZB4skMlY

I don't care when people choose for themselves to eat, because they are the ones choosing. What I am strongly opposed to is parents/compulsory schools setting fixed times for children to eat, and in effect preventing children who want to eat when they are hungry from doing so.

I do not dispute that some children, if allowed to eat whenever they want to do so, may become unhealthier than if only allowed to eat at fixed times. What is important ethically is not their health but that violence is not initiated against them.

What I predict will actually happen if all children are allowed to eat whenever they want to do so is that the racially superior will be healthier while the racially inferior will be unhealthier than if all children are only allowed to eat at fixed times. The actual motive of those who support initiating violence against all children with regard to eating times is to artificially keep the racially inferior as healthy as the racially superior.

Gentile blood memory comment:

Quote
Our ancestors for thousands of years only ate when they were hungry, they never had set meal times.

Your ancestors, to be precise. Meal times go back to the Neolithic Revolution to fit into daily farm schedule:

https://theconversation.com/our-ancestors-didnt-eat-3-meals-a-day-so-why-do-we-250773

Quote
Permanent agriculture led to the production of a surplus of food. The ability to stay in one place with food on-hand meant the time it took to cook no longer mattered as much.

It quickly became common to eat one light meal early in the day, followed by a larger hearth-prepared meal later on. The specific timings would have varied between groups.

This is why Aryans will spontaneously eat at fixed times even when allowed to eat whenever we want. What I am against is trying to get non-Aryans to follow our rhythm, which (besides initiating violence against those who would rather not) also if successful makes it harder to distinguish non-Aryans from Aryans.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 18, 2026, 02:33:29 am »

Quote
The core-family literally is/was a replication of an absolute states force onto children and women by the dominant male.

No, the absolute state is what is required to prevent the dominant male from exerting force onto children and women (and women from exerting force onto children also).

Quote
most people will have to relearn how to live together WITHOUT enforcing power structures.

They will not. (If they did learn, they would start by voluntarily refraining from reproducing.) Which is why the state is needed.
Posted by: rp
« on: March 18, 2026, 01:29:28 am »

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/g1apf4/hierarchies_in_families/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/g1apf4/comment/fnefxat/
Quote
The word family literally is rooted in the latin word "famulus", which translates to slave.

The core-family literally is/was a replication of an absolute states force onto children and women by the dominant male.

A love couple is fine as long as there is no power (physical and psychiological) is involved. That said, most people will have to relearn how to live together WITHOUT enforcing power structures.

Edit: spelling
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 23, 2026, 08:16:32 pm »

So you are saying a non-machinist Westerner would find children sharing rooms unproblematic, but a machinist Westerner would find it problematic? If so, why?
Posted by: rp
« on: February 22, 2026, 11:08:13 pm »

"Please elaborate"
For example, children sharing rooms is considered to be  a failure of parents' responsibility in Western countries today, even if children do not object to the set up.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 22, 2026, 05:11:16 pm »

"machinists would probably classify consensual activities among non machinists as "tyranny"."

Please elaborate.
Posted by: rp
« on: February 22, 2026, 09:48:50 am »

"Unless you mean a machinist would find parental tyranny by non-machinist parents intolerable, but parental tyranny by machinist parents tolerable?"
This. Also the fact that machinists would probably classify consensual activities among non machinists as "tyranny".
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 21, 2026, 08:46:34 pm »

I started by assuming you meant non-machinist tyrannical parents would be stopped by other non-machinists. Nevertheless, you said:

Quote
Eventually this would lead to a scenario where capitalists/machinists (mostly "Whites" btw) end up getting away with parental tyranny while the poor/non-machinists (mostly "non Whites") do not.

The part in bold suggests that a machinist who is also a tyrannical parent would use a machine to prevent their own door from being penetrated. But another machinist could penetrate their door.

So if non-machinist tyrannical parents can be stopped by machinists and non-machinists, whereas machinist tyrannical parents can be stopped by machinists, machinist tyrannical parents can still be stopped provided anti-parental-tyranny people include some machinists. For the part in bold to be true would require no machinists to be among anti-parental-tyranny people. But if so, from where comes the machinist stopping the non-machinist tyrannical parents (whom you have just clarified exists)?

Unless you mean a machinist would find parental tyranny by non-machinist parents intolerable, but parental tyranny by machinist parents tolerable?
Posted by: rp
« on: February 21, 2026, 07:29:44 pm »

"In theory it is surely possible for a machinist to be against the tyranny of a non-machinist parent and use a machine to get through the door?"
Yes. This is what I tried to get at with my post. Did it suggest otherwise?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 21, 2026, 04:59:22 pm »

"Eventually this would lead to a scenario where capitalists/machinists (mostly "Whites" btw) end up getting away with parental tyranny while the poor/non-machinists (mostly "non Whites") do not."

In theory it is surely possible for a machinist to be against the tyranny of a non-machinist parent and use a machine to get through the door?

"What about in the future where have an Aryan imperium, when the entire world is under Aryanist control."

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-true-left-breakthrough-anti-whiteness-3248/msg31037/#msg31037

"I assume euthanasia would be legal?"

Yes, except for those in the middle of a task which they have promised to complete first, whereupon euthanasia would be desertion.
Posted by: rp
« on: February 21, 2026, 03:26:20 pm »

"What about those who do not want to live under such a state? They can choose to leave whenever they want, provided their reproductive potential is surgically removed first. Anyone concerned about parental tyranny, even those themselves not intending to reproduce anyway, should agree to this, since they would be aware that without this others would leave and then reproduce and then practice parental tyranny."
What about in the future where have an Aryan imperium, when the entire world is under Aryanist control. I assume euthanasia would be legal?
Posted by: rp
« on: February 21, 2026, 03:17:11 pm »

"Everyone would then start reinforcing their doors to withstand battering rams. And then everyone would have to keep explosives to overcome the reinforced doors. And so on."
Eventually this would lead to a scenario where capitalists/machinists (mostly "Whites" btw) end up getting away with parental tyranny while the poor/non-machinists (mostly "non Whites") do not. Which is why "Whites" (including Jews, such as Chomsky as the OP mentioned) support anarchism.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 21, 2026, 02:25:42 pm »

The critical commenters are trying* to become consistent anarchists. But even if they themselves do so, how do they deal with those who do not?

(* A genuinely consistent anarchist would not reproduce in the first place, of course.)

Quote
Should I be able to tell you what time to go to bed?

You should not. So if you have a child and do not tell the child when to go to bed, so far so good. But then you hear your neighbour telling their child when to go to bed. Now what? In a stateless society (which is what anarchists want), you would have to intervene personally. But what if your neighbour does not answer the door? Do you keep a battering ram ready for such scenarios? But if everyone has a battering ram, it would also become possible for anyone to enter neighbours' homes for unjustified reasons. No one would feel safe despite having a door. Everyone would then start reinforcing their doors to withstand battering rams. And then everyone would have to keep explosives to overcome the reinforced doors. And so on. Would it therefore not be less absurd to have a state, so you can just call the police instead (or better yet, the state provides alternative food/lodging/etc. for children in the first place)? This is why we are not anarchists. Preventing parental tyranny is most efficiently achieved by the state.

What about those who do not want to live under such a state? They can choose to leave whenever they want, provided their reproductive potential is surgically removed first. Anyone concerned about parental tyranny, even those themselves not intending to reproduce anyway, should agree to this, since they would be aware that without this others would leave and then reproduce and then practice parental tyranny.

Welcome to National Socialism.
Posted by: rp
« on: February 21, 2026, 09:23:56 am »

I saw this anarchist post on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/11azwcl/anarchocommunism_and_authority_parent_to_child/

Commenters calling the OP out:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/11azwcl/comment/j9wrgj9/
Quote
1.) Everyone, including those who are not anarchists, think that the authorities they support are justified. This is a terrible definition of anarchism.

2.) It's not absurd to suggest that child is entitled to autonomy any more than it would be absurd to suggest that adults are. Why should someone be able to "assign" duties to a child any more than I could "assign" you duties? Should I be able to tell you what time to go to bed? when and if to go to school? you give these examples as if it's just plainly obvious that children are the exception.

"it seems obvious" doesn't seem to be "justification" which is what you said you would require to have authority. You wouldn't allow someone to have arbitrary authority over you with simply "it seems obvious I should" would you? so why do you accept this in the case of children?