"What is in the sky?"
"The firmament. You can learn all about it or just accept that smarter people than yourself are passing on divine knowledge after studying scripture."
These dipshits will all claim to be atheist but don't realize they're in a cult and replaced God with science.
The males replaced God with science worship. The females replaced God with "the universe" and crystals.
"The universe wanted this to happen!"
"Trust the universe, it knows what it's doing."
"The universe is sending you a message, listen."
No such thing as an âAtheist.â They just replace God with themselves. They think they are gods.
What is this stuff?
What a sad coping nechanism...saying what you would like to see happen. Tsk tsk.
Well fiddle dee dee
Start holding judges and prosecutors criminally liable if they release a dangerous person out onto the streets and they harm someone.
Imagine a system where the logic is present, the structure exists, but none of the components are meaningful, or even executable, unless an external, time-sensitive, or unpredictable key is inserted that deciphers the role of each variable.
The system can't even remember how to be alive unless the key teaches it what its own parts mean.
L(t) = mt + b
price(t) = A * sin(Bt + C) + D
Hallelujah amen look at 'er go
Crypto is fighting back onward and upward today. Better get your buy in.
I believe marxism is a theology rather than a political ideology and it's leaked across a borderless internet from the far east. Collectivist attitudes too. Also this type of "shaming culture" that emerges more and more. All priming the pump for social credit scores.
I was push mowing my yard with headphones on a while back with a very small window of time before my son's bus. A car pulled up, rolled down their window and started talking to me. I made eye contact and then continued mowing just as I was. They acted pissed at being ignored and drove away. Some may think this is rude behavior on my part. But from my perspective, it's rude and entitled to expect a complete stranger to stop what they are doing to tend to whatever you want. People arenât background characters to your story. Now get off my lawn!
Benatar, D. (2006). Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. Oxford University Press.
Metz, T. (2011). The meaningful and the worthwhile: Clarifying the distinctions. The Philosophical Forum, 42(3), 319â338.
Frankl, V. E. (2006). Manâs Search for Meaning. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1946)
Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy. Basic Books.
Stern, A. M. (2005). Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America. University of California Press.
Roberts, D. E. (1997). Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. Vintage Books.
Kevles, D. J. (1985). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Harvard University Press.
Regis, E. (1980). A Philosophy of Misanthropy. Philosophy, 55(212), 109â114.
Routledge, C., & Vess, M. (2019). Exploring the Psychology of Meaning in Life: An Integrative Approach. Routledge.
https://betweentheshouldersblog.wordpress.com/2025/08/03/the-anti-natalist-death-drive-3/
The Anti-Natalist Death Drive:
[Why some choose not to reproduceâand why others want you to stop too]
In recent years, a quiet but increasingly aggressive ideology has started to take hold online: anti-natalismâthe belief that bringing new life into the world is inherently immoral. What once sounded like a fringe philosophical stance has evolved into something more dogmatic. Itâs no longer just a private decision. For some, itâs become a moral campaign.
It used to be enough to simply say, âI donât want kids.â Thatâs a personal decision, and it deserves respect. But something shifted.
Now, for a growing subset of activists and influencers, itâs not just about opting out. Itâs about talking you out of it. Itâs about shaming those who find joy in family, mocking children, and portraying parents as selfish or delusional. This isnât framed as a lifestyle choiceâitâs a moral obligation. They donât see children as possibilities. They see them as mistakes.
And while these arguments often wear the clothing of climate concern or ethical reflection, thereâs often something darker underneath. A resentment. A bitterness. A rejection of life itself.
When the Virtue Is Not Existing:
There are people who say they donât want to have children because the world is difficult. Thatâs fair. No one should be forced into parenthood. But thereâs a growing number who go further and insist no one should have children. And the reasoning they give can sound virtuous on the surfaceâuntil you stop and actually examine it.
Letâs look at the emotional core of some of the rhetoric:
âIâm enlightened enough to see how awful the world is, and noble enough to break the cycle.â
This is the performance of moral superiority. It frames the absence of children not as a personal lifestyle decision, but as a sacrifice for the good of humanity. Itâs not just âI donât want kidsââitâs âIâm brave enough to not continue the cycle.â
This logic creates a new moral hierarchy. In it, reproduction isnât neutralâitâs selfish. Life itself becomes a guilty act. And those who refuse to participate are elevated as the most ethical of all.
But this worldview isnât brave. Itâs cynical. It denies the possibility that life can be more than suffering. It assumes that pain is the default and that beauty, love, and purpose are illusions. It gives people a sense of superiority not by doing anything, but by withholdingâas if that alone makes them wise.
âI feel broken. The world feels broken. So letâs stop making more of it.â
This isnât a philosophical stanceâitâs a projection of personal pain. And it's everywhere.
Some people have suffered. Some feel isolated, depressed, or deeply wounded. Instead of healing, they turn that pain outward and call it clarity. âBecause I suffer, life itself must be broken.â
This leads to a false universal: the belief that the world is too cruel for anyone. That itâs better to never be born than to risk pain. But this isnât about compassion. Itâs about fear. Itâs about trying to prevent the experience of others by assuming their suffering in advance.
People who carry this belief arenât wrong to feel hurtâbut they are wrong to insist that no one else should try to build joy, to grow, or to hope.
âWhy should you get to feel joy and legacy when I only see decay?â
Hereâs where the mask really drops. This isnât about ethics. Itâs about envy.
Some of the online rhetoric isnât quiet despair. Itâs loud, bitter resentment. Hatred of children. Hatred of parents. Hatred of people who have the nerve to feel joy or meaning in a world they think is beyond redemption.
Children represent potential, innocence, and future. Families represent connection. In the eyes of someone who has lost connection to meaning, those things can look like insults. It becomes, âIf I canât have joy, you shouldnât either.â Thatâs not moral reasoning. Thatâs spite.
This is the emotional root of so much of the hostility you now see onlineâespecially toward women who choose motherhood, toward families who celebrate life, and toward anyone who believes the future is worth building.
But Havenât the Greatest Among Us Also Suffered?
Yes. And thatâs exactly why the anti-natalist argument falls flat.
Human greatness is not built in the absence of suffering. Itâs built in response to it.
Frederick Douglass escaped slavery and turned his pain into a lifelong fight for justice. Frida Kahlo painted through agony and made art that still speaks across generations. Joseph Lister was mocked for saying germs were real. He saved millions by refusing to back down. Stephen Hawking, imprisoned in his own body, gave us visions of the universe that changed the way we think about time, space, and existence itself.
All of them suffered. And all of them used that suffering to move the world forward.
Pain alone isnât what makes life meaningful. But what we do with painâthatâs where meaning is born.
The Desire to Create Is Not the Problem:
Human innovation is rooted in struggle. Fire, medicine, music, freedom, flightânone of these came from comfort. They came from tension, danger, fear, and persistence. If the world had always been safe and easy, we would never have built anything. We would never have needed to.
That doesnât mean suffering is good. It means humans are good enough to overcome it.
Thatâs something the anti-natalist canât acknowledge. To them, the existence of suffering invalidates life itself. But the truth is the opposite: the existence of life that pushes through suffering is what makes humanity worth preserving.
You Donât Have to Reproduce to Respect Life:
If someone doesnât want children, fine. Thatâs their decision. It doesnât make them less human.
But the moment that decision turns outwardâinto contempt, into scorn, into a doctrine that says, âYouâre selfish for hoping, youâre deluded for building, youâre blind for lovingââtheyâre no longer just opting out. Theyâre trying to pull others down with them.
You can live a childfree life and still love humanity.
You can choose not to bring children into the world and still believe the world is worth something.
But if your worldview requires everyone else to give up on meaning, on love, on legacy, or on the possibility that things can get betterâthen itâs not compassion youâre preaching. Itâs despair.
Ridicule is a tax paid by pioneers.
it feels like some people, especially on the left, treat language like a secret cipher, like they're in on some hidden knowledge and you're just too dumb to notice
When does the weight of evidence outweigh the desire for things to be otherwise?
What REALLY was "the whole Qanon thing"? I have a sort of theory of everything. Here it is.
------------------
The Coup That Didnât Look Like One:
What if Q wasnât the rebellion, but the pacifier?
Something happened in 2016 that wasnât supposed to happen.
The wrong man won.
He wasnât meant to be there. Not because he lacked qualifications, but because he wasnât part of the arrangement. He wasnât vetted, approved, or aligned with the right networks. He had no real loyalty to the bureaucratic class or its rituals. He was loud, improvisational, and hard to control. A symbol, to many, of everything the system was supposed to prevent.
To the people running things, it wasnât just a political loss. It was a crisis of legitimacy.
And they never really recovered from it.
What followed wasnât a response. It was a reaction. Deep, coordinated, and sustained. Call it a tantrum, but with structure.
The media that helped lift Trump in the primaries, thinking heâd be an easy kill for Hillary, pivoted instantly to containment. The intelligence community that had already launched surveillance under flimsy pretexts leaned harder into it. Russiagate became the scaffolding for four years of soft sabotage. Not to correct course, but to send a message: this wasnât supposed to happen, and it wonât happen again.
And then, right on cue, came Q.
Zoom out just a bit, and the theory writes itself. A bizarre online movement emerges, encouraging Trumpâs most loyal supporters to do... nothing. To wait. To âtrust the plan.â To believe, against all odds, that everything was under control and that secret forces were about to save the country.
It looked like resistance. But it wasnât.
It was sedation.
Q gave people riddles instead of roadmaps. Fantasies instead of action. While institutions quietly tightened their grip, the base sat back and watched, waiting for the arrests that never came. It may have been the most effective pacification op in modern political history. It never needed to convince everyone. Just enough to slow them down.
And while that was happening, Trumpâs administration was hollowed out. Disloyal appointees. Constant leaks. Bad advice. Impeachments. From the outside it looked like dysfunction. From the inside, it looked like a wall. Designed not to protect him, but to isolate him.
Then came 2020.
And with it, COVID. The perfect storm. Public fear, emergency powers, behavioral controls, and just enough justification to rewrite the rules. Lockdowns. Ballot changes. Months of voting by mail. And somehow, Joe Biden won.
It didnât matter that he barely campaigned. Or that he was visibly fading. He wasnât the candidate. He was the vehicle. The stand-in for the return of control to the people who thought it was always theirs.
Some of them never left.
If you see Biden as a figurehead, it makes sense to ask who is actually running things. And if you trace the names, the policies, the continuity, the answer is not hard to find. The Obama-era crew stayed active. Bureaucrats, legal minds, consultants, intel officials. They didnât need to win elections. They just needed to manage outcomes.
Meanwhile, democratic processes kept dissolving. The DNC hasnât had a real primary since 2012. Candidates are introduced, not chosen. Opposition is filtered, flagged, and reframed as extremism. The idea that someone outside the network could win again is treated as a threat, not a possibility.
So when they say âour democracy is under attack,â itâs worth asking: what do they mean by our?
Because to them, democracy means their control of the institutions. Their grip on the narrative. Their power to decide what counts.
Which brings us back to the start.
The real coup didnât happen on January 6. It didnât need to. It happened quietly. It happened through agencies, platforms, courts, and headlines. It happened through years of narrative scaffolding. It happened while people were told to âtrust the plan.â
And it worked.
#nostr #politics #usa
#Stoicism also helped me accept that people will do what they do.
You canât control others...they have their own thoughts, their own choices.
That realization made me a better communicator.
Instead of rambling like a nervous salesman trying to win someone over, I learned to just say what I meant and let it be.
Before, I struggled in social situations. Trying to manage every detail of a conversation takes a ton of mental bandwidth. Stoicism gave me some of that back.
Come on, man.
If a person costs more than they produce, socialism whispers: eliminate.
The state canât calculate the value of a single life, so it assigns averages.
But averages donât bleed. #nostr
Planned economies always start with promises of care.
But once you centralize power, compassion becomes a bottleneck.
#nostr
Technocracy pretends to be neutral.
But every algorithm reflects the fears of the powerful, and the expendability of the powerless.
Thereâs no such thing as humane central control. #nostr
The same mindset that tries to âoptimize societyâ always ends up sterilizing it.
Not literally, at first. But spiritually. #nostr
When the government pays for your care, it owns your worth.
When the government pays for your care, it owns your worth.
Watch what they do to the outliers.
Children who donât comply. Elderly who cost too much. Disabled who linger.
When language stops reflecting reality, power fills the gap.
In 1932, the USSR declared famine was ârural malnutrition.â
Today, mutilating a child is âaffirming care.â
Disband the FBI. Too much ideological rot.
It is SO MUCH easier to spot and filter political #astroturfing on #nostr
I really enjoy the flexibility of this app.
It was nice being alive with y'all.
