So are you suggesting you can have aa great civilization without a moral framework? Or even more cringe that like a 4 horseman atheist you can be good without god? A civilization without an ideal of the good, the true and the beautiful Isn't a civilization it is a post modern hellscape. This is actually worse than siding with the pagans…
So are you suggesting you can have aa great civilization without a moral framework? Or even more cringe that like a 4 horseman atheist you can be good without god? A civilization without an ideal of the good, the true and the beautiful Isn't a civilization it is a post modern hellscape. This is actually worse than siding with the pagans who to quote The Big Lebowski "at least have an ethose." This is just nihlism.
Sorry but this is your weakest effort yet. Stick to long juicy video esaays about David Bowie.
You don't have to say them it is fully implied by rejecting the transcendence of having a god, or even gods as the scaffolding civilization is built upon. Humans left to their own devices decay into degeneracy very rapidly, in fact this is the central flaw of all forms of liberalism and the marketplace of ideas. Even a monarchy without the moral check of the church is likely to decay into enriching the royal family.
The claim that race is ontologically prior to civilization, which itself in turn is ontologically prior to religion (in essence, race gives rise to civilization, which gives rise to or adopts a religion), is not that same as a proscriptive argument for the abandonment of all that is transcendent in favor of some kind of atheism.
AA claims the former, yet you’ve characterized his claim as the latter.
I will note too that IMO your fanatical racialism is in turn motivating you and that is also IMO a thin reed to base a society on compared to an ideal of transcendending our base lot including the genetics of whatever racial group we are born to towards the good, the true and the beautiful. While your racialism doesn't offend and I don't think it should be surpressed IMO Christ > blood and soil.
First, regarding religion and its relationship to both Truth and our politics, there is a fundamental issue it poses for the Dissident Right, a religiously pluralistic group - who exactly has a monopoly on Truth and how do we figure this out? That is to say which religion is correct, and moreover, how do we make this determination without fracturing into isolated and ghettoized factions? Some parties in the DR wish to avoid talk of religion entirely, others fanatically proselytize their faith and would happily wage a crusade against other religions if given the means and opportunity to do so. As far as practical considerations go, it is best to leave that issue untouched until we, as a people, have secured our own existence and rid ourselves of our enemies, who wish to see us wiped off the map. I`m saying this as a religious person (wanted to point this out so that claims that I`m an atheist/agnostic with an agenda cannot arise out of my raising of this point about religion)
Secondly, Christ doesn`t make a black man white. Race is almost undoubtedly the sole dispositive factor in determining how a civilization will arise, expand, express, and preserve itself. We need not look any further than Christianity in Africa (a place where it has deep roots) versus Christianity in Europe to see that it is race, not religion, that gives rise to a civilization and determines its fate. As AA and our ideological forebears pointed out, a given religion that attaches itself to a given civilization is often chosen because it is compatible with that civilization`s ethos (or, at bare minimum, because it serves some practical purpose or confers some benefit on that civilization).
A) Pejoratively comparing someone to Hitler for being to the right of you politically in the year of our Lord 2022? Really?
B) Culture does not exist independent of race, but rather is downstream of it. This is true even of multi-racial/multi-ethnic states. The metaphysical exists independently of race (insofar as metaphysics are not contingent on race per se), although race and metaphysics do have a pretty strong relationship. This weird civnat “I wanna preserve Western culture but don’t think that we necessarily need to preserve Westerners to do so” nonsense is not only cringe, but also demonstrably stupid, seeing as you cannot have the West without the people who built it and gave it its ethos.
In practice it is the same, if you are not naive about psychology and look at motivation. The reason AA wants to downplay religion of all stripes is he is an atheist who sees it as unimportant and thus not worth fighting over. Yet it is the religious of all stripes who see that dismissing religion leads to vulgar materialism as the lynch pin of civilization, and this in turn leads to ruin. So perhaps religion is the only thing worth fighting over. Even Yarvin these days is looking for some minimal spiritual essence which we can all agree on which he calls animism. That is a thin reed IMO to scaffold a civilization on, but it is better than AA's nothing.
Note it gives me no pleasure to write this, AA is one of our strongest thought leaders and generous with his time. But fhe advantage of the right is the pursuit of truth at all costs and thus we have an obligation to call out our best when they make an error. Coddling error for the sake of unified identity is what the woke do and we are much better than that, we are moral people with an ethos which in turn is predicted on the transcendent over the material and base desires.
How can you believe that "The reason AA wants to downplay religion of all stripes is he is an atheist"? Did I read the same essay as you? AA wrote that...
"Christianity cannot be reduced to mere utility — it is more than whatever worldly ends we may have today and must finally resolve always in affirming salvation in the name of Jesus Christ."
He's one of you, a type of theist, and like you he's not ready to reckon with the fact that Western civ. is an incoherent mishmash. Its people are suffering from its internal contradictions, its absurdities (e.g. the USA's Declaration of Independence), and its history of worldwide busibodyism. No one ought to expect it to survive, and we would be fools to exhaust ourselves trying to extend its lifespan. It would be better to form small study groups to work out the fundamentals of a defensible ontology, a religion, and a way of life for new society and a replacement civilization which rejects most of the legacy institutions of so-called Western civ. Americans, for example, would be expected to repudiate the precious Constitution, which begins with an obvious lie, one which contradicts history and implies that absolutely everyone, even children and Random, has authority to rule.
Since you are theistic, let me give you one example of a starting point for such a study group. Suppose that you and AA insisted for the sake of argument that your god(s) can do absolutely anything at all, without restriction. Probably you would not believe it, as Muhammadists do, but let's say that you did. Then I would talk you down from that ledge by asking if the god exists necessarily. Assuming your answer that it does, I would remind you that the alleged necessity is a way of asserting that the god is NOT in charge of existence. Rather, there must be some law (or regularity, if you like) which detains the god and limits its willpower. So even if the god of Genesis 1 exists, it's a being which deserves much less reverence than is popularly supposed. After all, it has neglected to explain carefully all of its limitations in the scriptures attributed to it.
Those who don't believe in a god may not be satisfied with that starting point, so here is another. Let the nihilist declare his denial of truth. "There is no truth," he says. Well, fine, then it's not true that "there is no truth", but it's surely true that the nihilist claimed what he did. If he makes a face, then even he knows it's true you've trampled down his nihilism. The assertion entails its own refutation, and all who cannot or will not strike a blow for absolutism against it may be dismissed from the group as termites or driftwood. Any Muihammadist who expects to remain in the room will have to admit that the hand of Allah is somehow chained by brute facts of existence which no being can alter or abolish. So much for Islam, which looks like a sect of Christianity begun by a street barker who hated the Trinity.
Still another starting point for our planning commission can be found in Euclid's Elements and other mathematical texts. It's been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that √2 could never be written in the form a/b where a and b are integers. This is a truth of number theory, which we really ought to call numerology, to deprive superstition of a word it doesn't deserve. This truth about √2 is good at all times and all places, and it's another important reminder about the limitations upon willpower, the 2nd most important ontological principle of Abrahamic religion. (The first is egocentricity. See Exodus 3:14.)
And so it would go, working as quickly as possible through a number of basic topics until we have formed a concensus on enough material to start planning how to tutor children. They must learn about existence and their place in it. Along the way we would form some ideas about the liberal arts, including Capella's conception. An update to his list could read like this, I think:
(1) logic
(2) linguistics (not just grammar)
(3) rhetoric
(4) dialectics (as method and rules of discourse)
(5) mathematics (arithmetic, geometry, and more)
(6) physics
(7) astronomy
(8) harmony (the aspect of music and a way to teamwork)
I am going by the Distributist stating AA is an atheist and that, that effects his world view. I would love to see AA have a dialog/debate on this subject with AA. I am new to Christianity and The Distributist as a long time Catholic I am sure could state why an acive faith is neccesary for western civilization to flourish in a deeper and more informed fashion than I am capable of. IMO this dialog about whether faith is neccesary for a dissident right reinvigoration of western culture is neccesary can only be dffered for ao long.
One more thing, slightly off topic: Europe is being overrun by Muhammadists and subsaharans not only for cheap labor but also to crush resistance to the dominant Semitic ideas about existence. A free, knowledgable Europe would be an existential threat to Israel. European science and philsophy have completely discredited the excuse used by Israel since ancient times for Israel's chauvinism, its malice, and its parasitism. Even the alleged captivity in Egypt has been exposed as a defamation, which erodes its utility as a victimology for crybully Israel.
When deprived of its god and heaven, Israel, which was reduced to only Judah, is left without an excuse for appointing itself as the brahmins of all humanity (Exodus 19:5-6). This insult against the chosen could not be allowed to stand. So we are living through the Maccabean reaction to reality all over again, but it's on a much greater scale and is mostly outside the socalled Holy Land.
Maybe The Distributist is just being hyperbolic? I suppose he might also call call AA a Christian of the road, the rocky ground, or the thorns and brambles, not a Christian of the good soil.
You don't say which sect of Christianity you chose, but I'm guessing Catholicism (in which I was raised and clung to until about my 30th bday) or one if its derivatives. I think that all of them, possibly even Calvinism, would agree that the Ascension is the concluding work of Redemption. (Hardon, S.J., in "Modern Catholic Dictionary".) Arrival of Jesus' body at heaven, therefore, concludes the ascension and hence the redemption.
The ascension is not some mystical experience; it can't be waved away as a figurative event with a complaint about literalism. So a few questions naturally arise: How far away is heaven, first mentioned as the firmament at Gen. 1:6? How long did it take the body of Jesus to travel there? What about problems like radiation above the atmosphere? and the bends as air pressure falls to virtuall 0 psi?
If you've read Genesis 1, you've noticed the passage at vv.14-18. Verse 17 insists that the Sun and the Moon (not named there as such) were placed in the firmament (rakia) i.e. heaven (shamayim). Somehow they are supposed to move around while attached to heaven. This implies that the Sun and the Moon are almost exactly the same distance from Earth during a solar eclipse. This is a problem for Greek science, or for Israel, depending upon your point of view. Aristarchus of Samos, who lived before Caesar, showed that the Sun is much farther away then the Moon. I think he calculated a factor of 100; the corrected figure is close to 400x. Aristarchus was nonetheless correct in principle about the relative distances, and his discovery is one of the great achievements of the ancient world.
Another problem for Israel is that this shamayim does not exist. If it did, it would touch the Earth, forming a seal to keep out the waters (mayim) above it. It would be a navigation hazard for aircraft, and satellites would be impossible, for they would crash into heaven and fall to the Earth. Nevertheles, Gen. 1 states that the firmament was installed in deep waters (1:6), then the water below heaven drained (1:9). So heaven would be a protective dome under which we are living right now. The astronauts of Apollo 8 would beg to differ, which is ironic given that they read the first ten verses of Gen. 1 while in orbit around the Moon in December 1968. Anyhow, if any heaven exists, it must be very far away. If more than 2,000 light-years, Jesus hasn't yet arrived and so it would be fair to say that redemption remains incomplete.
Check out "My Encounter with the Firmament" by a Jewish MD who was educated in a yeshiva where they taught Genesis as it was understood and believed in ancient times. It includes a small amount of Hebrew text, but translations are provided. https://www.thetorah.com/article/my-encounter-with-the-firmament
P.S. If a religion promises bodily immortality, it's probably just a form of cryptosecularism disguised with spiritism. And you are correct that a dialogue about belief is necessary. It ought to begin with ontology and cosmology, more or less as Genesis 1 does.
Conflating indifference to Christianity with indifference to morality is retarded. As though the Egyptians, Chinese, Romans, Greeks, and innumerable others just never existed.
That is a list of things basically you don't want to see and quite honestly reeks of Nietzsche's last man. What positive constructive things do you want to see and what metaphysical basis justifies them.
I don't need any of that. I live, I die, and while alive, me and the groups I belong to should have political power and create a society that benefits us most, easy as.
So a society with literally no positive content or transcendent aspirations? That is basically just what we have now minus forced diversity and will decay soon enough back into forced diversity without a transcendent moral framework to keep the cultural Marxists at bay.
Societies decline because people want too many freedoms and there is no corpus to regulate deviancy and hedonism.
You're overcomplicating this and making it about temples, pyramids, opera and whatever dumb shit colonial empire numba 5 or 6 did.
Nation, borders first. Deviancy second. We'll see after that. Don't struggle for the details, learn to set aside your petty grievances to accomplish the important stuff first.
You are just as low brow as the woke crowd. You need an aristocrats to stare down his monocle at you and set you straight about why western culture is great, and no it isn't last man comfort it is having a transcendent framework that enobles the beast within and encourages striving for excellence.
You are literally ignorant, through the Renaissance the aristocracy was a patron of the arts and building cathedrals, and in turn was kept in check by a stern powerful clergy. There was nothing progressive about it and your ignorance of history is appalling.
You are at baee a lowest common denominator man ie a commie just minus the forced diversity. But still a racialialist commie is still a commie and lacks the nobility of soul and the discernment ie ability to engage in judgment and sort the high from the low that is necessary to create a great civilization.
So are you suggesting you can have aa great civilization without a moral framework? Or even more cringe that like a 4 horseman atheist you can be good without god? A civilization without an ideal of the good, the true and the beautiful Isn't a civilization it is a post modern hellscape. This is actually worse than siding with the pagans who to quote The Big Lebowski "at least have an ethose." This is just nihlism.
Sorry but this is your weakest effort yet. Stick to long juicy video esaays about David Bowie.
Where did I say any of those things?
You don't have to say them it is fully implied by rejecting the transcendence of having a god, or even gods as the scaffolding civilization is built upon. Humans left to their own devices decay into degeneracy very rapidly, in fact this is the central flaw of all forms of liberalism and the marketplace of ideas. Even a monarchy without the moral check of the church is likely to decay into enriching the royal family.
The claim that race is ontologically prior to civilization, which itself in turn is ontologically prior to religion (in essence, race gives rise to civilization, which gives rise to or adopts a religion), is not that same as a proscriptive argument for the abandonment of all that is transcendent in favor of some kind of atheism.
AA claims the former, yet you’ve characterized his claim as the latter.
I will note too that IMO your fanatical racialism is in turn motivating you and that is also IMO a thin reed to base a society on compared to an ideal of transcendending our base lot including the genetics of whatever racial group we are born to towards the good, the true and the beautiful. While your racialism doesn't offend and I don't think it should be surpressed IMO Christ > blood and soil.
The issue is twofold.
First, regarding religion and its relationship to both Truth and our politics, there is a fundamental issue it poses for the Dissident Right, a religiously pluralistic group - who exactly has a monopoly on Truth and how do we figure this out? That is to say which religion is correct, and moreover, how do we make this determination without fracturing into isolated and ghettoized factions? Some parties in the DR wish to avoid talk of religion entirely, others fanatically proselytize their faith and would happily wage a crusade against other religions if given the means and opportunity to do so. As far as practical considerations go, it is best to leave that issue untouched until we, as a people, have secured our own existence and rid ourselves of our enemies, who wish to see us wiped off the map. I`m saying this as a religious person (wanted to point this out so that claims that I`m an atheist/agnostic with an agenda cannot arise out of my raising of this point about religion)
Secondly, Christ doesn`t make a black man white. Race is almost undoubtedly the sole dispositive factor in determining how a civilization will arise, expand, express, and preserve itself. We need not look any further than Christianity in Africa (a place where it has deep roots) versus Christianity in Europe to see that it is race, not religion, that gives rise to a civilization and determines its fate. As AA and our ideological forebears pointed out, a given religion that attaches itself to a given civilization is often chosen because it is compatible with that civilization`s ethos (or, at bare minimum, because it serves some practical purpose or confers some benefit on that civilization).
Is that you Adolph Hitler? Your schtick didn't work before and we have moved beyond it into the realm of culture and metaphysics. Nice try though...
A) Pejoratively comparing someone to Hitler for being to the right of you politically in the year of our Lord 2022? Really?
B) Culture does not exist independent of race, but rather is downstream of it. This is true even of multi-racial/multi-ethnic states. The metaphysical exists independently of race (insofar as metaphysics are not contingent on race per se), although race and metaphysics do have a pretty strong relationship. This weird civnat “I wanna preserve Western culture but don’t think that we necessarily need to preserve Westerners to do so” nonsense is not only cringe, but also demonstrably stupid, seeing as you cannot have the West without the people who built it and gave it its ethos.
In practice it is the same, if you are not naive about psychology and look at motivation. The reason AA wants to downplay religion of all stripes is he is an atheist who sees it as unimportant and thus not worth fighting over. Yet it is the religious of all stripes who see that dismissing religion leads to vulgar materialism as the lynch pin of civilization, and this in turn leads to ruin. So perhaps religion is the only thing worth fighting over. Even Yarvin these days is looking for some minimal spiritual essence which we can all agree on which he calls animism. That is a thin reed IMO to scaffold a civilization on, but it is better than AA's nothing.
Note it gives me no pleasure to write this, AA is one of our strongest thought leaders and generous with his time. But fhe advantage of the right is the pursuit of truth at all costs and thus we have an obligation to call out our best when they make an error. Coddling error for the sake of unified identity is what the woke do and we are much better than that, we are moral people with an ethos which in turn is predicted on the transcendent over the material and base desires.
How can you believe that "The reason AA wants to downplay religion of all stripes is he is an atheist"? Did I read the same essay as you? AA wrote that...
"Christianity cannot be reduced to mere utility — it is more than whatever worldly ends we may have today and must finally resolve always in affirming salvation in the name of Jesus Christ."
He's one of you, a type of theist, and like you he's not ready to reckon with the fact that Western civ. is an incoherent mishmash. Its people are suffering from its internal contradictions, its absurdities (e.g. the USA's Declaration of Independence), and its history of worldwide busibodyism. No one ought to expect it to survive, and we would be fools to exhaust ourselves trying to extend its lifespan. It would be better to form small study groups to work out the fundamentals of a defensible ontology, a religion, and a way of life for new society and a replacement civilization which rejects most of the legacy institutions of so-called Western civ. Americans, for example, would be expected to repudiate the precious Constitution, which begins with an obvious lie, one which contradicts history and implies that absolutely everyone, even children and Random, has authority to rule.
Since you are theistic, let me give you one example of a starting point for such a study group. Suppose that you and AA insisted for the sake of argument that your god(s) can do absolutely anything at all, without restriction. Probably you would not believe it, as Muhammadists do, but let's say that you did. Then I would talk you down from that ledge by asking if the god exists necessarily. Assuming your answer that it does, I would remind you that the alleged necessity is a way of asserting that the god is NOT in charge of existence. Rather, there must be some law (or regularity, if you like) which detains the god and limits its willpower. So even if the god of Genesis 1 exists, it's a being which deserves much less reverence than is popularly supposed. After all, it has neglected to explain carefully all of its limitations in the scriptures attributed to it.
Those who don't believe in a god may not be satisfied with that starting point, so here is another. Let the nihilist declare his denial of truth. "There is no truth," he says. Well, fine, then it's not true that "there is no truth", but it's surely true that the nihilist claimed what he did. If he makes a face, then even he knows it's true you've trampled down his nihilism. The assertion entails its own refutation, and all who cannot or will not strike a blow for absolutism against it may be dismissed from the group as termites or driftwood. Any Muihammadist who expects to remain in the room will have to admit that the hand of Allah is somehow chained by brute facts of existence which no being can alter or abolish. So much for Islam, which looks like a sect of Christianity begun by a street barker who hated the Trinity.
Still another starting point for our planning commission can be found in Euclid's Elements and other mathematical texts. It's been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that √2 could never be written in the form a/b where a and b are integers. This is a truth of number theory, which we really ought to call numerology, to deprive superstition of a word it doesn't deserve. This truth about √2 is good at all times and all places, and it's another important reminder about the limitations upon willpower, the 2nd most important ontological principle of Abrahamic religion. (The first is egocentricity. See Exodus 3:14.)
And so it would go, working as quickly as possible through a number of basic topics until we have formed a concensus on enough material to start planning how to tutor children. They must learn about existence and their place in it. Along the way we would form some ideas about the liberal arts, including Capella's conception. An update to his list could read like this, I think:
(1) logic
(2) linguistics (not just grammar)
(3) rhetoric
(4) dialectics (as method and rules of discourse)
(5) mathematics (arithmetic, geometry, and more)
(6) physics
(7) astronomy
(8) harmony (the aspect of music and a way to teamwork)
I am going by the Distributist stating AA is an atheist and that, that effects his world view. I would love to see AA have a dialog/debate on this subject with AA. I am new to Christianity and The Distributist as a long time Catholic I am sure could state why an acive faith is neccesary for western civilization to flourish in a deeper and more informed fashion than I am capable of. IMO this dialog about whether faith is neccesary for a dissident right reinvigoration of western culture is neccesary can only be dffered for ao long.
One more thing, slightly off topic: Europe is being overrun by Muhammadists and subsaharans not only for cheap labor but also to crush resistance to the dominant Semitic ideas about existence. A free, knowledgable Europe would be an existential threat to Israel. European science and philsophy have completely discredited the excuse used by Israel since ancient times for Israel's chauvinism, its malice, and its parasitism. Even the alleged captivity in Egypt has been exposed as a defamation, which erodes its utility as a victimology for crybully Israel.
When deprived of its god and heaven, Israel, which was reduced to only Judah, is left without an excuse for appointing itself as the brahmins of all humanity (Exodus 19:5-6). This insult against the chosen could not be allowed to stand. So we are living through the Maccabean reaction to reality all over again, but it's on a much greater scale and is mostly outside the socalled Holy Land.
Maybe The Distributist is just being hyperbolic? I suppose he might also call call AA a Christian of the road, the rocky ground, or the thorns and brambles, not a Christian of the good soil.
You don't say which sect of Christianity you chose, but I'm guessing Catholicism (in which I was raised and clung to until about my 30th bday) or one if its derivatives. I think that all of them, possibly even Calvinism, would agree that the Ascension is the concluding work of Redemption. (Hardon, S.J., in "Modern Catholic Dictionary".) Arrival of Jesus' body at heaven, therefore, concludes the ascension and hence the redemption.
The ascension is not some mystical experience; it can't be waved away as a figurative event with a complaint about literalism. So a few questions naturally arise: How far away is heaven, first mentioned as the firmament at Gen. 1:6? How long did it take the body of Jesus to travel there? What about problems like radiation above the atmosphere? and the bends as air pressure falls to virtuall 0 psi?
If you've read Genesis 1, you've noticed the passage at vv.14-18. Verse 17 insists that the Sun and the Moon (not named there as such) were placed in the firmament (rakia) i.e. heaven (shamayim). Somehow they are supposed to move around while attached to heaven. This implies that the Sun and the Moon are almost exactly the same distance from Earth during a solar eclipse. This is a problem for Greek science, or for Israel, depending upon your point of view. Aristarchus of Samos, who lived before Caesar, showed that the Sun is much farther away then the Moon. I think he calculated a factor of 100; the corrected figure is close to 400x. Aristarchus was nonetheless correct in principle about the relative distances, and his discovery is one of the great achievements of the ancient world.
Another problem for Israel is that this shamayim does not exist. If it did, it would touch the Earth, forming a seal to keep out the waters (mayim) above it. It would be a navigation hazard for aircraft, and satellites would be impossible, for they would crash into heaven and fall to the Earth. Nevertheles, Gen. 1 states that the firmament was installed in deep waters (1:6), then the water below heaven drained (1:9). So heaven would be a protective dome under which we are living right now. The astronauts of Apollo 8 would beg to differ, which is ironic given that they read the first ten verses of Gen. 1 while in orbit around the Moon in December 1968. Anyhow, if any heaven exists, it must be very far away. If more than 2,000 light-years, Jesus hasn't yet arrived and so it would be fair to say that redemption remains incomplete.
Check out "My Encounter with the Firmament" by a Jewish MD who was educated in a yeshiva where they taught Genesis as it was understood and believed in ancient times. It includes a small amount of Hebrew text, but translations are provided. https://www.thetorah.com/article/my-encounter-with-the-firmament
You can find the entry for Ascension at http://therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm
P.S. If a religion promises bodily immortality, it's probably just a form of cryptosecularism disguised with spiritism. And you are correct that a dialogue about belief is necessary. It ought to begin with ontology and cosmology, more or less as Genesis 1 does.
Conflating indifference to Christianity with indifference to morality is retarded. As though the Egyptians, Chinese, Romans, Greeks, and innumerable others just never existed.
I already said I'll take pagans over atheist nihlists as at least they have an ethos. Perhaps you should slow down and actually read what I wrote.
The moral framework is blood bonds, heterosexuality, family, sanity, land, and political power.
Sounds more like national socialism than a basis for high culture that will raise cathedrals and give us musicians at the level of Bach.
Live cozy life with as little deviants, foreigners and conflict as possible
That is a list of things basically you don't want to see and quite honestly reeks of Nietzsche's last man. What positive constructive things do you want to see and what metaphysical basis justifies them.
I don't need any of that. I live, I die, and while alive, me and the groups I belong to should have political power and create a society that benefits us most, easy as.
So a society with literally no positive content or transcendent aspirations? That is basically just what we have now minus forced diversity and will decay soon enough back into forced diversity without a transcendent moral framework to keep the cultural Marxists at bay.
"If religion were a thing that money could buy, the rich would live--and the poor would die. All my troubles Lord, will soon be over."
Easy as equals simple minded and not thinking at why socities decline in the first place.
Societies decline because people want too many freedoms and there is no corpus to regulate deviancy and hedonism.
You're overcomplicating this and making it about temples, pyramids, opera and whatever dumb shit colonial empire numba 5 or 6 did.
Nation, borders first. Deviancy second. We'll see after that. Don't struggle for the details, learn to set aside your petty grievances to accomplish the important stuff first.
You are just as low brow as the woke crowd. You need an aristocrats to stare down his monocle at you and set you straight about why western culture is great, and no it isn't last man comfort it is having a transcendent framework that enobles the beast within and encourages striving for excellence.
We should eat the elites and aristocracy for dinner.
Lmao, imagine mercy for elites, regardless of provenience.
None shall be given. All elites are liberal and socially progressive.
You are literally ignorant, through the Renaissance the aristocracy was a patron of the arts and building cathedrals, and in turn was kept in check by a stern powerful clergy. There was nothing progressive about it and your ignorance of history is appalling.
You are at baee a lowest common denominator man ie a commie just minus the forced diversity. But still a racialialist commie is still a commie and lacks the nobility of soul and the discernment ie ability to engage in judgment and sort the high from the low that is necessary to create a great civilization.
I don't live in the West, and not planning to.
You guys should consider fixing things.
Would love to see AA debate The Distributist on this topic.