More from the ongoing "Christian" vs video games drama
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
You're using the logic of libertarianism and individualism. Both are failed philosophies, that say that any form of collectivism (grouping up) is inherently wrong, or doesn't exist. We do group up, for numerous reasons (survival, marriage, family, community, towns, jobs, hobbies, governments, peoples, nations, militaries, church, etc.), and grouping up is justified and reasonable, using the logic that we, as imperfect, finite, mortal creatures, can achieve more together than we can apart. Your argument also relies upon the suggestion that environmental factors don't affect us, which is false. This is plainly seen in the never ending pursuit of "freedoms" that the left and hedonistic right (under libertarianism) is pursuing, wanting ever more new hedonistic pleasures, pursuits, pathways, bread and circuses, comforts, and they label them as "rights" or "freedoms" to justify their constant need for new dopamine hits in the confines of socially acceptable discourse (i.e. freedom = good).
We have the right to have our own nations, people, and laws. Christians have these same rights, and nothing in the Bible bars them (us) from political life, or action, or collectivism, or making laws. It doesn't look like it right now, given how eroded Western civilization has become against the Christian domination of the White West that was prevalent up to 100 years ago, which we were pushed away from by incremental pushes and acceptance of sin by blatantly evil people, people who are now openly advocating for satanism, and have always been anti-Christian. What's happened since the move of Western civilization away from Christianity?
We're currently living in the "utopia" that libertarians and satanists want. It's just that they forever want more. Drugs are freely available everywhere, and the ability to get and use them is being increasingly advanced. Porn, adultery, prostitution, whoring, scantily clad women, and temptations toward lust are everywhere and freely available to anyone. Sexual degeneracy (like homosexuality, transgenderism, and now pedophilia) is rife and everywhere, and much of it is accepted, even in the mainstream Christian right. Junk food is everywhere and cheap. TV, movies, video games, and mindless entertainment (bread and circuses) are everywhere and freely available to anyone.
What has all this "freedom" resulted in? The degradation of society and its people. The more enticements to sin you surround and subject people to, the more likely they are to sin. It's a direct correlation.
As Christians, the 2nd commandment of Jesus is to love our neighbors as ourselves. Neighbors aren't just the people living right next to us, but our people in our nation (if they weren't being subverted via open borders and mass immigration). If we truly love our neighbors, we wouldn't subject them to an endless parade of enticements to sin. We would try to protect our brethren from harm, because we love them. Similar to why we don't throw drugs at our children and act surprised when they start using drugs, we don't throw porn and coomer bait at our fellow men, because we love them. Porn is used to control people. Just ask the Palestinians what the Israelis did when they gained control of Palestinian TV (free porn broadcast on TV). Scantily clad women (coomer bait) achieves the same thing. It entices men to sexual sin, to lust after women that aren't his wife. Men must have a high sex drive to perpetuate the species. Why then, would we subject men to a mountain of lustful temptations, if we love them?
Lol, "we love men". Right up until we need them to die for Isreal.
I'm not advocating for that. The people in power hate us, and I actively tell any man to not join the military or police, and to deny the lies like "Israel is our greatest ally". Men should not partake in corrupted groups. In this context, they should root out the corruption, or form their own groups and overthrow the corrupted ones.
Libertarianism isn't anti-collectives. Voluntarism, an integral subsection of libertarianism, is EXPLICITLY about the voluntary nature of collaboration (hence the name).
Your nice long leftist meme of a wall text amounts to nothing more than statism. Licking the boot in the hopes that when you're in charge, you'll be a just and holy leader through the needed means of subjugation that will lead them to the promised ends of salvation. Just ignore that it's never happened, isn't happening and will never happen.
The problem with "the greater good" is that every ideologue uses it to justify any immorality they rationalise to "need".
You must not know the inherent tenets of libertarian thought, then. The big L and little l libertarians both espouse the view that societies and nations are amorphous economic zones completely detached from the people that inhabit them, and those people also demonize any White person from ever collectivizing, for any reason whatsoever, up to and including for mutual survival.
Libertarians are nearly identical to all other right wing normies. They hate race realism, hate any criticism of Israel, label increasing numbers of hedonisms as "rights" and "freedoms", disregard the health of their neighbors from the exposure to those hedonisms, advocate for open borders and mass immigration (so long as it's "legal"), and think everything is perfectly fine so long as the GDP and stock market go up. It's little more than economic and governmental mammonism. They'd sell out their neighbors for money, and they're actively doing it right now, just like all other right wing normies.
Long form communication has been around for thousands of years. They're called books, and what I wrote is substantially shorter than a book. Just because you've been brainrotted by short form social media that's intentionally designed to keep you hooked and pursuing a never ending stream of dopamine hits, doesn't make my comment a "leftist meme" or a "wall of text". You're not genuine in that criticism, either. If you agreed with my "wall of text", you'd extoll the virtues of it, but merely because you disagree with what I said, you demonize it, and latch onto any criticism you can, applying it to me unfairly, whereas you don't apply it to those you agree with. You're being a hypocrite. Stop it.
Furthermore, I'm absolutely fine with extremely limited government. I only advocate the idea that government is a natural formation for all groups, regardless of size or intent, that some people must invariably create rules and enforce those rules in order to protect that group, otherwise that group will eventually cease to exist. We can absolutely debate the form and magnitude of government, but not the need and nature of it. If you want a specific view of my ideal form of government, it's that it's incrementally less powerful the more people it controls, the farther away it gets from the average citizen, and the less shared commonality the people have under its jurisdiction. This would mean the United States was the ideal form of government when it was initially created, where local and state governments controlled the most (or could control the most, given the option of the citizenry), and the federal government controlled the least, because it oversaw the most people, was far away on average, and the commonality of the people was much less.
You must not know me very well. Go read through my comments. I repeatedly express the desire to violently revolt and kill the people in charge. Lick their boots? I wish to see their "boots" dangling from trees.
See what I mean. You're ideology makes you incapable of understanding that every group must have collective interests. Every group, regardless of size or intent, forms around common interests, goals, and commonality. Marriage, families, tribes, survival, militaries, militias, cities, castles, jobs, hobbies, states, nations, and peoples, they're all groups with collective interests. At some point, someone must enumerate rules/laws for that group, and enforce those rules, for the "greater good" of that group, otherwise that group will inevitably fail in the future.
What are the basic tenets that a group must have for it to continue to exist? The people must have the right to group up in the first place, which also means they must have the right to group up with whom they choose (regardless for what reasons), they must have the right to control who enters that group, they must have the right to protect the borders of that group (or gatekeep, if it's a group without borders, like a hobby), they must have the right to espouse for their collective interests, and the group must have the ability to protect itself and its constituent members from harm, from conquering or subversive forces from without, or from subversive and destructive forces from within. Without those natural rights, all groups, everywhere, would cease to exist. Coincidentally, this denial of basic natural rights is being explicitly denied to White people in the West, because the people in power hate us and are actively replacing and genociding us.
If you'd like a connection to the culture war, just look at what's happened to many of our hobbies and beloved IPs. They've been infiltrated, subverted, and destroyed because the people that enjoyed those hobbies and IPs didn't properly gatekeep, they didn't espouse for their collective interests, they didn't control their borders, they didn't control who entered,. They let in subversive and destructive people, who have decimated what we love.
If you deny the greater good, the collective, the group, you will destroy that group. This is actively taking place, and you're defending it, because you're actively denying people's natural rights to group up and maintain that group.
You've accepted the lie of individualism, that ignores the collective. I'm not arguing in favor of pure rampant collectivism. That too is destructive. Reality meets in the middle, a healthy balance between individualism and collectivism, where the liberties of the individual aren't trampled, or very little, but the collective health is ensured, so that the individual too, is protected. You may argue the evils of such things using modern analogues, but you'd be forced to admit that the modern examples are all being run by malicious people intentionally destroying the groups they oversee. Believe it or not, groups can be overseen by people that love the people they're responsible for, and act in their interests.
Damn son, that's a whole lot of writing that completely ignores and avoids the key principle of voluntarism being brought up.
Please, do share more about how you wish you could force others to do your bidding so you can achieve your utopia. I'm sure any day you'll bring about true peace and prosperity on earth any day now, so long as they follow your specific brand of statism.
Ah yes, the classic intellectually fallacious and lazy fallback position of "I have no retort, so I'll just criticize the them on anything I can grasp onto". You have no problem with length. You're only criticizing it here because you can't respond or refute, so you try to sling any criticism you can in the hopes that your critic or the audience (which has now left this discussion), will be manipulated into a fallacious argument, away from the pertinent discussion. If you're so monumentally retarded that you view all long form discussion as inherently bad, you've been completely brainrotted by short form dopamine driven social media (engineering), then it casts doubt on all your other positions.
Even though an ad hominem is a logical fallacy, reality shows us that source absolutely matters. It's how people can recognize patterns, determine what's good or bad, and make sweeping judgments upon the groups that are good or bad.
If you think libertarian "volunteerism" is the same as collectivism (grouping up for mutual benefit, goals, and commonality), you're a moron. I explained the differences above, but since you apparently don't like to read, well, that's on you. I won't explain it again. Perhaps if you ever undo the damage that short form content has caused you, you might reconsider your asinine position that anything longer than a 10 second quip is inherently bad.
Government is force. See, this is why I know you're an idiot. You have no clue what government is, how it operates, or why it exists. I attempted to explain above, but again, you can't read. Government operates to enact the will of the governed (or when corrupt, the will of the people in charge). Government comes about precisely because people group up (collectivize), because all groups must (if they wish to survive) enumerate rules for that group, and enforce those rules for the benefit of the group and constituent members. Government, by its very nature, relies upon force (i.e. violence, or the threat of violence). Rules are meaningless if there is no force to back them up. Rules and laws are foundationally and inherently "do this, or else". If rules/laws aren't enforced, there's zero reason to have them in the first place, zero effectuallity of government or the need to keep it around.
If you're arguing that force is inherently bad, it ultimately means you're an anarchist. By this position you've espoused, you've displayed your ignorance to the subject (again), not knowing that what you're advocating for is anarchism, not libertarianism.
Yes, thank you for noticing. My positions and arguments on government are logically sound and consistent, so they work, and my position even allows a wide breadth of possible governmental forms, so long as they follow the basic tenets of what government should be and how it should operate, and remains uncorrupted. When government does become corrupt, it ultimately requires men to retake their own responsibilities, and use their natural right of violence against their oppressors in government, to reform the government, and shape it and man it to enact their will.