Atheism and darwinism comes from father deprivation

Interesting Zig Forums thread here.
8ch.net/pol/res/12875297.html

Atheism and darwinism comes from father deprivation
People like Sigmund Freud, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, … They all have something in common…

They all had a defective, weak or absent father.

And I mean it's pretty much obvious that if you don't have a healthy relationship with your father, then he won't pass you strong and healthy moral values…And then, people ask themselves "what's the purpose of life ?" and then, they fall in meaninglessness, moral relativism and thus degeneracy..Why do you think that there is so much degeneracy, liberalism and atheism in places like Reeedit ? Because they had very poor parental development in their critical childhood phase and in their teenager phase, and it makes them weak and vulnerable to this society that promote (cultural) Marxists values like "God does not exist, Religion is the opium of the people…There are no objective moral, no objective truths, it's all relative, it's all meaningless, just have as much degenerate fun as you want, play your video games all day, watch TV all day, masturbate all day and watch porn all day, life as no meaning anyway".
When you think about it, it makes total sense.
Many famous Atheists/Darwinists have daddy issues. It feeds their irrationality.
See here between 33:35 - 45:00 .
youtube.com/watch?v=JntmuKyj1KU

I've never liked darwinism for the simple fact theres no much neccesity of it the truth of evolution is for everyone to see. Zig Forums fixation with evolution and racialism will lead to another form of materialism (racial materialism?) wich is a shame since I the original goal of the fascist of old was/is class collaboration. Despite the early success of hitler and his volkisch doctrine that too failed since the germans started to hava a paranoid obssesion of "who was more aryan" and this inevitable lead to another war between the classes instead of unity.

Attached: lxus0mdv0ly01.png (2400x3428, 1.59M)

It already does leads to philosophy of biological materialism.

I don't like evolution denial in God's name especially when He uses selective breeding in the Bible. I also don't trust EMJ too much. He reminds me too much of Peterson. You're tingling my spidey senses, op.

10 min video: EMJ says that atheism is the foundation of the anglo-american ideology.

I've never liked it for… the implicit message of elitism of how it teaches that single parts can change the whole. EMJ's psychological angle is interesting though.

As for what I mean by eltiism - it pushes the power of the "one" over the "whole". Even when you break it down to small levels like the evolution of organs. An ear, for example, isn't a thing unto itself. If the "shape" of the ear mutated in a certain direction, that doesn't guarantee a whole new range of abilities. The ear is part of a whole range of functions governing fluids, blood, brain/nerve interaction, and even sinuses. These all would have to "mutate" along with it or nothing really changes. But evolution would us believe that only one part of this could mutate and then change the whole system.

This scheme becomes more troubling once you move up to whole species, and subspecies. This is where you get the elitism of single races driving the destiny of all.. or even the whole planet (basically Zig Forums tier thinking).

I dislike Darwinism. And I agree with that racial materialism is never the answer. And if those pol/acks really read something of Zig Forums books they would see that some prominent thinkers reject evolutionism and darwinism completely.
EMJ makes an interesting point.

However…I do not trust the guy. After reading "libido dominandi" the overall tone was a misdirection. Like…blaming "WASP" for everything. I am sorry but "WASP" does not own media and porn industry. Also I see that EMJ avoids revisionist history by discarding everyone he does not like as "pagan revival" while ignoring Rexists/iron guard/falange and others. I would not mind if he did not talk about them on his own merit but in the interview when he was directly asked about them he made a general no good answer, running around it, answering nothing just saying "well there were economic problems all right". It was a sleazy, dishonest answer. Also in Libido …describing it as if Hirschfeld was the main reason of the political change is laughable.
Tl dr. I liked the guy, I still like some of his stuff but I do not think he is being honest. puts it well. my guts feel something wrong about the style of arguing when it comes to certain heated topics.

I was thinking about reading that book, but if he doesn't mention the jews at all then it's no good. Thanks for the cliffs notes on it.

I’d read it anyway even if he does not mention them in that work; he often points out their trickery in his speeches and if he doesn’t in one work I just need to keep in mind how they are the ones in control of media and pornography. He’s a man, he made mistakes as all of us; and obsession over the Jews is unhealthy: rebuke them, pray for them but does not always hate them. Hate their sins and fight them of course.

Why do you idiots have opinions on things that you willingly choose not to understand?