What is the difference between those two statements. You say one is "...adopting the behaviors endorsed by the dominant moral system of the day."
The real difference need not be so complicated. The first is a statement of fact. The second is simply a lie. Leftists lie a lot, for a lot of reasons. The transgender lie serves a lot of purposes. It is used by the left to get political power. If we want to oppose the left, maybe we keep it simple as this: The left's claims are lies. What do we do about that?
(Nice to see your work here. I miss watching your videos on Rumble.)
Yes, the right will continue to lose the culture war as long as they refuse to see this. Classical liberalism was too weak culturally, it socially tolerated things it shouldn’t have and allowed another ideology to take over. I don’t think we should go back to state enforced religion. I think we need to evolve into our next societal form, where the criminal justice system, the economic system, and the social system is strictly separated. They’ve played a trick where they Seller’s red church from state and then the secular ideology could take over and enforce itself upon everyone using the state. We need communities that are culturally homogeneous within and district from each other.
Exactly. It's a religion. It's pagan. You have to fight it as one - either convert the neo-pagans or punish them. Which means rejecting liberalism and embracing authoritarianism just as they are.
If your philosophical priors have no way to keep your way of life, then your way of life has no foundation. This has been true since the Enlightenment has been embraced and we need to reject it in the West.
They are creating child soldiers. They're ecstatic about it. They sing songs and dance about it. They want to do it to our children.
I agree that humans are indelibly religious and also conscious of status, but I would add that there are two kinds of religious paradigms, or 'visions' as Thomas Sowell put it. The first paradigm is based on the recognition that people are flawed, and acting morally is a constant struggle, doomed to persistent failure. The second paradigm, the one that the woke adhere to, is based on a division between the anointed and the benighted, with the belief that once one is among the anointed, one cannot be wrong, while the benighted can never do right. This vision also plays out in politics in the basic visions of left and right, and probably explains why the left is so comfortable with Islam.
While the woke don't struggle with their consciences, they do struggle with their status, as intrinsic righteousness must necessarily be overtly displayed so as to be acknowledged by their peers, or it doesn't exist. This is where the extreme virtue signaling comes in, and the arms race to be 'holier than thou.' It also explains why they can do the most evil acts with clear consciences. By contrast, people who adhere to the first paradigm see it as presumptuous and arrogant to attempt to browbeat others with their righteousness, and are horrified at using the tactics routinely used by the left.
It is not clear how to fight the anointed, but a first step is to recognize what drives them.
The West is verging on being a post-Christian society, while most of the third world is pre-Christian. Within the West, it is practically is a choice between Christianity or its retarded counterfeit. Those who reject the premise usually are the first ones to get cannibalized by the woke mob. Moderate conservatism, centrism, and libertarianism are not going to right the ship; the only viable candidate is Christian Nationalism. The only other thing that could happen is an Islamic takeover of a European country, but the muslims will support woke politicians until they are a dominant majority (and that is if their descendants aren't converted to wokeness first).
Watery Christianity, divorced from what the Bible says, will lead to wokeness. How you feel about Jesus being all love-dovey (ignoring the many times He says that you'll burn in hell if you don't repent) will inevitably lead to becoming woke. Not believing in anything at all will either lead you to wokeness, or you will get railroaded by the woke because you can't fight back meaningfully.
The old mainline Christian denominations have gone lite.
The protestant denominations which take the Bible seriously are mostly either into forced emotionalism or are home or hotel meeting room churches. The former drive out the intellectual elite. The latter aren't optimal for holding weddings, funerals, and whatnot.
I encourage you to watch (YouTube link below) or listen (Spotify link below) to Jordan Peterson's lecture series called the 'Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories'. I found them to be fascinating.
It is secular, but does not dismiss the mystical. The way Jordan looks at scripture through an archetypal, narrative of life made me see the Bible anew. These lectures made me curious about the Bible for the first time in 30+ years. Like, oh, maybe I didn't get it. Maybe there is some wisdom here.
It is not, nor am I, evangelical--mostly insatiably curious about stuff--but I am grateful that I've chosen to get a toe-hold on becoming more versed, and open to the deep wisdom & truth I've found within.
You write well, are articulate, and obviously quite well read. You may find these lectures scratch an itch you didn't know you had.
https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/p/the-right-was-wrong-about-virtue
"I have four children, two boys and two girls."
"I have four children, all are transgender."
What is the difference between those two statements. You say one is "...adopting the behaviors endorsed by the dominant moral system of the day."
The real difference need not be so complicated. The first is a statement of fact. The second is simply a lie. Leftists lie a lot, for a lot of reasons. The transgender lie serves a lot of purposes. It is used by the left to get political power. If we want to oppose the left, maybe we keep it simple as this: The left's claims are lies. What do we do about that?
(Nice to see your work here. I miss watching your videos on Rumble.)
Gnostics aren’t new, neither are Castration Cults.
Yes, the right will continue to lose the culture war as long as they refuse to see this. Classical liberalism was too weak culturally, it socially tolerated things it shouldn’t have and allowed another ideology to take over. I don’t think we should go back to state enforced religion. I think we need to evolve into our next societal form, where the criminal justice system, the economic system, and the social system is strictly separated. They’ve played a trick where they Seller’s red church from state and then the secular ideology could take over and enforce itself upon everyone using the state. We need communities that are culturally homogeneous within and district from each other.
The “not ‘whether’, but ‘which?’” dichotomy remains undefeated.
Exactly. It's a religion. It's pagan. You have to fight it as one - either convert the neo-pagans or punish them. Which means rejecting liberalism and embracing authoritarianism just as they are.
If your philosophical priors have no way to keep your way of life, then your way of life has no foundation. This has been true since the Enlightenment has been embraced and we need to reject it in the West.
They are creating child soldiers. They're ecstatic about it. They sing songs and dance about it. They want to do it to our children.
So what are we going to do?
The first step is waking up.
https://uncouthbarbarian.substack.com/p/wake-up
I agree that humans are indelibly religious and also conscious of status, but I would add that there are two kinds of religious paradigms, or 'visions' as Thomas Sowell put it. The first paradigm is based on the recognition that people are flawed, and acting morally is a constant struggle, doomed to persistent failure. The second paradigm, the one that the woke adhere to, is based on a division between the anointed and the benighted, with the belief that once one is among the anointed, one cannot be wrong, while the benighted can never do right. This vision also plays out in politics in the basic visions of left and right, and probably explains why the left is so comfortable with Islam.
While the woke don't struggle with their consciences, they do struggle with their status, as intrinsic righteousness must necessarily be overtly displayed so as to be acknowledged by their peers, or it doesn't exist. This is where the extreme virtue signaling comes in, and the arms race to be 'holier than thou.' It also explains why they can do the most evil acts with clear consciences. By contrast, people who adhere to the first paradigm see it as presumptuous and arrogant to attempt to browbeat others with their righteousness, and are horrified at using the tactics routinely used by the left.
It is not clear how to fight the anointed, but a first step is to recognize what drives them.
Nope, it really is a binary choice between Christianity and Wokeness.
The West is verging on being a post-Christian society, while most of the third world is pre-Christian. Within the West, it is practically is a choice between Christianity or its retarded counterfeit. Those who reject the premise usually are the first ones to get cannibalized by the woke mob. Moderate conservatism, centrism, and libertarianism are not going to right the ship; the only viable candidate is Christian Nationalism. The only other thing that could happen is an Islamic takeover of a European country, but the muslims will support woke politicians until they are a dominant majority (and that is if their descendants aren't converted to wokeness first).
Watery Christianity, divorced from what the Bible says, will lead to wokeness. How you feel about Jesus being all love-dovey (ignoring the many times He says that you'll burn in hell if you don't repent) will inevitably lead to becoming woke. Not believing in anything at all will either lead you to wokeness, or you will get railroaded by the woke because you can't fight back meaningfully.
The old mainline Christian denominations have gone lite.
The protestant denominations which take the Bible seriously are mostly either into forced emotionalism or are home or hotel meeting room churches. The former drive out the intellectual elite. The latter aren't optimal for holding weddings, funerals, and whatnot.
We need to revive church suitable for the contemplative class. https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/rule-7-market-christianity-to-college
How much of what you think of as "slave morality" is heresy dressed up in Christian terminology?
John,
I encourage you to watch (YouTube link below) or listen (Spotify link below) to Jordan Peterson's lecture series called the 'Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories'. I found them to be fascinating.
It is secular, but does not dismiss the mystical. The way Jordan looks at scripture through an archetypal, narrative of life made me see the Bible anew. These lectures made me curious about the Bible for the first time in 30+ years. Like, oh, maybe I didn't get it. Maybe there is some wisdom here.
It is not, nor am I, evangelical--mostly insatiably curious about stuff--but I am grateful that I've chosen to get a toe-hold on becoming more versed, and open to the deep wisdom & truth I've found within.
You write well, are articulate, and obviously quite well read. You may find these lectures scratch an itch you didn't know you had.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w&t=824s
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0iXuxsSURdRkyzKOoyf2dg?si=9x8XICttS4-rCeydTEiHbw
Have a great evening.
bsn