Make thinly veiled Religion, Economic, and book sperging while pretending it has something to do with Nick Rekieta

[Vect]

Lo! A Christmas miracle! Nick's found God and prayer... for today... on social media.

I'm not a Christian, but I've never been comfortable with how people like Nick describe God as some schmuck who's ready to listen to you, forgive and help out at your convenience no matter how badly you fuck up. I'd like to think if I worshiped an all benevolent supreme being I'd be respectful of his time.

It's just struck me as the kind of distantly selfish, faithless understanding of faith that comes from the zero cost of getting your self-absolution validated. "Yes, I ran over a hooker, shot up a school, have an apartment full of class-A substances and have 10 years worth of parking tickets but I know in my heart...God...will forgive me."

 

[LiquidKid]

I'm not a Christian, but I've never been comfortable with how people like Nick describe God as some schmuck who's ready to listen to you, forgive and help out at your convenience no matter how badly you fuck up. I'd like to think if I worshiped an all benevolent supreme being I'd be respectful of his time.

It's just struck me as the kind of distantly selfish, faithless understanding of faith that comes from the zero cost of getting your self-absolution validated. "Yes, I ran over a hooker, shot up a school, have an apartment full of class-A substances and have 10 years worth of parking tickets but I know in my heart...God...will forgive me."

The idea is that you’re always able to repent and make an honest difference and that god is always open for your repentance. But you need to actually repent, not just say “oops, sorry.” And while god is willing to forgive, he’s not willing to just let things go,
The prodigal son is the perfect biblical allegory for all of this.
Sure, the prodigal son was able to return home, was welcomed with open arms by his father, and was given a feast made of the largest calf. But he was also to spend the rest of his life as a servant on his father’s land while his younger brother who didn’t run off to be a degenerate was promised to inherit everything as a reward for not giving into the temptation.

Nick meanwhile just believes that saying “sorry” is a get out of hell free card that allows him to do whatever he wants because “God forgives.”
That’s the mentality that’s always made me dislike the agnostics. To me, an agnostic is basically just an atheist who wants plausible deniability should they be wrong. “Oh, god is real? Well, I never said he wasn’t, I just lived my life as if he weren’t so I could get the benefits of atheism but now I want the benefits of Christianity” that’s Nick in a nutshell

 

[Vect]

That’s the mentality that’s always made me dislike the agnostics. To me, an agnostic is basically just an atheist who wants plausible deniability should they be wrong. “Oh, god is real? Well, I never said he wasn’t, I just lived my life as if he weren’t so I could get the benefits of atheism but now I want the benefits of Christianity” that’s Nick in a nutshell

But...that's not how agnostics think. Agnosticism is a purely intellectual position (already a tall order for Nick) where the existence of God is impossible to definitively, objectively, categorically prove or disprove. We don't submarine as religious folk as part of a gambit to end up in an afterlife we don't spend time thinking about and go "Backsies! Christ is KANG!"

What you're saying sounds more like Pascal's Wager, which argues that a theistic (Christian) life offers infinitely greater rewards than a non-theistic one (Heaven), coinciding with a non-theistic life offering some earthly pleasures in return for infinite suffering (Hell), which essentially describes the calculation that Nick has made, except he's trying to have his cake and drug it too.

Nick knows too much about scripture and has spent too much time discussing his supposed beliefs to be agnostic or atheist, because the core tenants of those positions is mostly if we're not required to, then we don't care. If we take Nick at his word (already a dubious prospect) that he believes in God purely because it will absolve his sins and the core tenant of faith is "to be nice", then he's not agnostic, or even necessarily atheist, he's just a shitty Christian who believes that half attending church and quoting Biblical stories bails him out of damnation.

 

[AnOminous]

That’s the mentality that’s always made me dislike the agnostics. To me, an agnostic is basically just an atheist who wants plausible deniability should they be wrong.

That's totally wrong though. I'm agnostic because I don't know. Should I fake it and pretend I know? Because if God actually exists what would be the point? Should I lie to God? Would that possibly work? I don't believe in God but the God I don't believe in isn't that stupid and would be insulted by such a pretense.

That's why Pascal's Wager is fucking retarded. It's a suggestion to try to trick God. How disrespectful.

 

[Strix454]

If we take Nick at his word (already a dubious prospect) that he believes in God purely because it will absolve his sins and the core tenant of faith is "to be nice", then he's not agnostic, or even necessarily atheist, he's just a shitty Christian who believes that half attending church and quoting Biblical stories bails him out of damnation.

Nearly all of Nick's view's of Christianity are views are centered around the idea that whatever Nick decides to do is good, right and has no consequences. To Nick, the story of King David is important because in Nick's mind, god condoned and approved of all of David's sins because David was such a cool chad dude. Nick sees Christian grace not as a forgiveness of sins, but as approval to sin. Nick sees the Sermon on the Mount as approval for committing adultery.

I don't see him as really agnostic or atheist. I've always found him perhaps to be more of a Christian Nihilist than anything else. He generally uses what he was (poorly) taught in his college literature classes to deny all meaning in everything. There is no standard of morality to Nick and words mean whatever Nick chooses them to mean.

The other thing that informs Nick's Christianity is Ayn Rand. Nick is of course one of an endless number of talentless, uneducated and unaccomplished people who became convinced of their own special genius through reading the works of Ayn Rand.

 

[Vect]

The other thing that informs Nick's Christianity is Ayn Rand. Nick is of course one of an endless number of talentless, uneducated and unaccomplished people who became convinced of their own special genius through reading the works of Ayn Rand.

Err, how? I'm not aware Nick has ever read her. I'm no fan of Ayn Rand but she explicitly rejected hedonism and loss of self-control - in her view it was considered subhuman and unbecoming of Man. Objectivism was about Man taking upon himself to survive and look out for his own interests through any means necessary and achieve natural happiness, but never to lapse into madness, misery and self-destruction.

I think a better way to put it is Nick is of course one of an endless number of talentless, uneducated and unaccomplished people who misunderstood Ayn Rand.

 

[Strix454]

I think a better way to put it is Nick is of course one of an endless number of talentless, uneducated and unaccomplished people who misunderstood Ayn Rand.

That is what I meant. Nick does not follow the ideas of Ayn Rand or Objectivism any more than he follows Christianity. There are many people in my experience who superficially read Ayn Rand and end up convinced that they are among the creative geniuses of the world when they are most emphatically not. They are in fact often the sort of people she was most critical of.

 

[Law]

the spite he holds for his own religion.

If he doesn't want to be Christian can't he just. . . not be? People leave Christianity all the time.
Or is choosing to leave a religion you don't want to be a part one of the those normal people things, like cleaning your kitchen and not storing your cocaine where your kids can reach, that Nick is too cool for?
The trad-west/statue-twitter/krist-iz-kang grift has been dead for awhile, it can't possibly be lucrative for him anymore.

 

[JustStopDude]

There are many people in my experience who superficially read Ayn Rand and end up convinced that they are among the creative geniuses of the world when they are most emphatically not. They are in fact often the sort of people she was most critical of.

Atlas Shrugged is on par with Mein Kampf in regards to being a book that most people who have claimed to have read it, never have.

Ayn Rand is a fucking slog to get through and Atlas Shrugged, in particular, is hilariously bad. It's on par with Battlefield Earth.

 

[Captain Manning]

If he doesn't want to be Christian can't he just. . . not be? People leave Christianity all the time.
Or is choosing to leave a religion you don't want to be a part one of the those normal people things, like cleaning your kitchen and not storing your cocaine where your kids can reach, that Nick is too cool for?
The trad-west/statue-twitter/krist-iz-kang grift has been dead for awhile, it can't possibly be lucrative for him anymore.

He doesn't want to drop the veneer of Christianity outright because he wants to try and be seen a virtuous person. He knows that's what made him popular in the first place, and he wants to try and get that back (spoiler: he won't, because people now know who he is).

Look, I'll say this about Rand: She was, if nothing else, honest and upfront about her militant opposition to God and religion. Unlike Nick.

Nick is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Justify his behavior, while appearing to be Godly and righteous. He's trying to do what even Rand didn't try to do.

For anybody who wants to know why Objectivism is the enemy of Christianity, you can read this (it's Catholic, but it gets the point across):

https://ndcatholic.org/yourresources/editorials/column0611/

Rand is as much an enemy of Christianity as Marx and Mao are. Objectivism is super capitalist and individualist. Communism is super socialist and collectivist. On the issue of God and religion, they actually agree.

If any of you are an admirer of Rand, that's fine. I won't judge you. Just don't blow smoke up people's asses like Nick tries to do. I think that's the biggest problem here.

That said, to my mind, that John Rogers quote encapsulates Nick's mind perfectly:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Add drugs and alcohol, and look out.

Nick's likely response:

If you chose Tolkien over Rand you're a NERD.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

For anybody who wants to know why Objectivism is the enemy of Christianity, you can read this (it's Catholic, but it gets the point across):

As a system of government, I don't think this is true. It's also the mark that Nick misses. Objectivism (and capitalism) functions because it is stable when people are expected to operate in their own self-interest. It doesn't necessarily preclude altruism, it's just not required for the economic system to be stable. When government forces altruism through law (either as a religion led or communist led), they fail. Forced altruism is essentially taking from producers and giving to consumers and fails in the extreme Utopian religious examples and Marxist examples. Nick thinks that being a trust fund kid makes him a "producer" when in fact he is just the beneficiary of altruism. I do not recall whether Rand specifically talked about private altruism. Some forced altruism is obviously stable.

I think this tweet best expresses Rekieta's principles, and his religious beliefs by extension:

And this is what makes him a total POS. He's the person that screams about his inalienable rights. 1st, 2nd 5th, etc. Spews how they are God-given etc, etc. And then ignores that it's men of principle that make it happen. Having principles is necessary. It's not even a particularly religious thing. He's the dickhead that doesn't stand on a line of principle to protect something because his principles are on loan. By extension he's giving a big FU to the entire bill of rights. A complete waste of oxygen.

 

[Red Frida]

It's also the mark that Nick misses. Objectivism (and capitalism) functions because it is stable when people are expected to operate in their own self-interest. It doesn't necessarily preclude altruism, it's just not required for the economic system to be stable. When government forces altruism through law (either as a religion led or communist led), they fail. Forced altruism is essentially taking from producers and giving to consumers and fails in the extreme Utopian religious examples and Marxist examples. Nick thinks that being a trust fund kid makes him a "producer" when in fact he is just the beneficiary of altruism. I do not recall whether Rand specifically talked about private altruism. Some forced altruism is obviously stable.

You'd have to be either a queer or a retard to not want the government to be as limited as possible but in some cases forced altruism is necessary because if you have too much inequality the inequals will eventually outnumber the producers and then just take what the producers have. This is how Marxist leninists used peasants to zerg rush Russia and China. For someone whose life was upended by the Russian revolution, it's surprising Ayn Rand didn't seem to understand what kind of society provides a breeding ground for Communism.

 

[AnOminous]

Atlas Shrugged is on par with Mein Kampf in regards to being a book that most people who have claimed to have read it, never have.

I think most people who have "read" Mein Kampf, like I have, have read bits and pieces of it and found it too turgid and unreadable to get through in its entirety. It's much like Das Kapital in that way, in that it has a lot of "deep" ideology but it's obviously shit because these ideas have all been tried out and never ended in anything but disaster. (Actually Das Kapital is even worse about this.)

Too bad the actual Communist Manifesto was brief, concise, and came across convincing. That book almost certainly got more people killed than Nazis ever did.

 

[Captain Manning]

For someone whose life was upended by the Russian revolution, it's surprising Ayn Rand didn't seem to understand what kind of society provides a breeding ground for Communism.

Lenin was a fag, and Communism sucks, but the Romanovs royaly (haha) screwed up.

Too bad the actual Communist Manifesto was brief, concise, and came across convincing. That book almost certainly got more people killed than Nazis ever did.

I was thinking about making the same point, but was loathe to say anything even remotely complementary about Marx. You're not wrong though.

Atlas Shrugged is over 1000 pages.
Mein Kampf clocks in at over 700.

Marx wrote a pamphlet.

When it comes to trying to convert people to your way of view, the usual rule applies:


It's little wonder Nick failed to get his elected representative to read Rand. I imagine few want to.

 

[Swole McPole]

Marx wrote a pamphlet.

The Communist Manifesto is a pamphlet.

Capital is a three volume work of serious economics. His politics was somewhat off beam (though he couldn't have known that at the time -- the politics was speculative utopianism) but the economics were a serious contribution to the field.

 

[Desktop User2]

were a serious contribution to the field.

It ABSOLUTELY wasn´t... if you read any econ historiography, Marxism as an econ doctrine is a completely separate offshoot, it´s not even a branch, it didn´t spawn anything. What people retardly call marxism in econ nowadays - and only retarded people see marxist economical doctrine anywhere - is hardcore Keynesian theory (everything is Keynesian in some degree tho). His Value theory is completely whacky, marginal value is absolutely prevalent anywhere, and his formulas were tautologies.
His overwhelming influence is philosophical.

 

[N1bbaN3rd]

It ABSOLUTELY wasn´t... if you read any econ historiography, Marxism as an econ doctrine is a completely separate offshoot, it´s not even a branch, it didn´t spawn anything. What people retardly call marxism in econ nowadays - and only retarded people see marxist economical doctrine anywhere - is hardcore Keynesian theory (everything is Keynesian in some degree tho). His Value theory is completely whacky, marginal value is absolutely prevalent anywhere, and his formulas were tautologies.
His overwhelming influence is philosophical.

And that's only if you're comfortable with labelling outright sophistry as philosophy.
Like so many "thinkers" with an economic bent, he engages in retarded hand-waving and gross oversimplification, resulting in theories that are utterly useless on a practical level.
You don't hate economists enough.
You think you do, but you don't.

 

[Scalia OBGYN]

And that's only if you're comfortable with labelling outright sophistry as philosophy.
Like so many "thinkers" with an economic bent, he engages in retarded hand-waving and gross oversimplification, resulting in theories that are utterly useless on a practical level.
You don't hate economists enough.
You think you do, but you don't.

You described 97% of all economists

 

[N1bbaN3rd]

You described 97% of all economists

The only economist I have the tiniest shred of respect for is Steve Keen, and that's only because he spends so much time explaining why economists are full of shit.

 

[AnOminous]

This artificial thread is gay beyond belief, stay mad, tranny janny.

 

[#lurker]

Why does this thread occupy four slots in the forum list?