Doesn't that mean that the 'greatest civilization' will necessarily be whichever one is last?
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!
Well, not that shocked.
Firstly, thank you for a detailed answer.
You mention the origins of religion in your post, and I don't disagree with your framing of it. I think we can both agree that religion has been around pretty much since humanity gained sapience. I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument, however, as to me it simply proves that humanity will inevitably invent religion regardless of race, culture, geographic or historical circumstances. In addition, everywhere religion has emerged, it has immediately become the domain of the priest, or the medicine man, or the shaman, or whatever. I don't believe this is due to some kind of nefarious influence from power hungry people, either. I think this is simply the emergence of natural hierarchy.
I understand that Nietzsche's declaration that 'God is dead' was not a triumphalist one. He understood what would be required of humanity in order to overcome a lack of religion, and he laid it out in his Übermensch ideal. You seem to believe that humanity is capable of constructing the purely rational moral framework that is required when divorced from religion. I do not.
Even the most rational among us are driven by emotion. Look at all the corrupt scientists who have come to light in recent years; these are people who make their living on being rational. I would even argue that emotional thinking is part of what it means to be human.
I also believe that the majority of people don't have it within them to form a 'Master mentality', nor do they want to. The vast majority of people want to be told what to do, and it comforts them to know that there are people above them who have done the heavy lifting regarding philosophy and metaphysics. They like these ideas to be wrapped up in grand narratives that survive down the generations and are easily taught without having to understand the philosophy behind it. They identify with these things in the same way they identify with their national history. They give a culture a touchstone upon which everyone can base their interactions. That's what a religion is to most people, an instruction manual on how to be a good person without needing to generate these instructions from first principles.
Further, I think this arrangement is essential for societies to actually function. If everyone was a self-directed master of their own moral framework, you would end up with a situation of too many chiefs and not enough braves. People are obviously going to have different opinions on what constitutes a metaphysical framework 'of pure reason', which brings me back to my assertion that humans are primarily emotional creatures, not rational ones. It's a struggle to get two people to agree on what constitutes objective reality, let alone an entire civilisation.
If humanity was capable of forming a society of self-directed individuals who each individually come to the same rational, universal system of morality, I would expect to see at least some evidence pointing to it at some point in history. When I look at history, however, I see the vast majority of people being led in their beliefs by a much smaller number of genuine thinkers. Yes there have been plenty of thought leaders in history who abuse the trust placed in them by the general populace, but I disagree that most leaders 'cultivate a slave mentality' in their followers. Instead, I think this is just natural human hierarchy playing itself out - a few lead, most will follow. That's true from the family, to the workplace, to government, to the church.
What CAN the dissident right do to fix that? The media is currently broadcasting the orthodoxy of the establishment. Until the right has a modicum of power, there's no way to influence that.
If you're an anti-theist, you must believe that it would be better for everyone to stop believing in religions. You're not just ambivalent about what other people do, you have an active interest in stopping them from believing. Is this a legitimate framing of your opinion?
If so, I don't know know how you can believe that. Do you honestly think the average person (or even the above-average person) is capable or even interested in building their own moral framework and metaphysical view of reality? Strip a man of his religious foundation and you don't create a logical, self directed Übermensch, you create a scared, confused, and easily led fool desperate for a framework with which to interpret his existence. I would say look back at the 20th century for evidence of that, but we have had a stark reminder of how malleable the general public is in the past few years, so you don't even need to go back that far.
It's a disease. Diseases should be stigmatised.
My favourite line from Tolkien. "Dope," replied Frodo.
I think it would be dishonest to suggest that 'leftism', such as it is, is entirely the product of European descended people. It's pretty clear to me that our Levantine friends had some involvement with the origins of Marxism, feminism, critical race theory, and all its other shapeshifting forms. You can argue how much influence they had, or what their motives were for doing so, but the culpability for its existence belongs to more than just whites. Jews themselves will tell you as much, with a fair amount of pride.
Furthermore, we are now in a situation where many other groups of people are pushing their ethnic interests in the western world for a wide variety of reasons. In such an environment, you can't honestly point the finger at white people and say 'It's YOUR fault you are in this situation, and yours alone!'. That's reductive and ignorant of circumstances.
In any case, regardless of whose fault it is, I think we can both agree that white people are in an unenviable position in the modern world, and something has to be done about it.
I think even the most hardcore anti-semite would lament white people's failure to resist Jewish manipulation, and everyone knows there are plenty of gentiles who go along with the status quo because they stand to personally benefit from it. I don't think anyone believes whites are perfectly innocent actors who are having this situation imposed upon them. Reality is always more complicated than that.
This kind of reminds me of the mythologizing of America's founding that was kind of poked fun at in Bioshock Infinite:
Perhaps such a deifying of the founding fathers could have better protected America's ideals in the long run.
Very interesting, thank you.
I'm curious, why is it a better technology?
Good riddance
I was going to say this. It entirely depends on whether or not another summer of riots is useful to the powers that be. None of that stuff was organic last time, and if any kind of organic protest does occur in a way that doesn't benefit the money power in some way, make no mistake they will crush it before it gathers momentum.
What does ConPro mean?
I agree with pretty much all of what you said, but I still have faith that having kids is the right way to go for most people, since it has worked in the past. If we have enough right thinking people raising right thinking kids, maybe we can detach from the corrupted mainstream and make something new.
I don't blame you for not wanting them, and I think men can do better without kids than women can, most of the time. I just hope you can find something else that will give your life meaning in the long run because God knows it gets terribly lonely in your twilight years when you don't have a family around.
Good luck my friend! I'm planning on getting married soon too. I want to be young enough that I can deal with my kids when they're teenagers and not have to put up with that in my 50s.
I think for a lot of people, having a child is what truly transitions them to adulthood, and there's probably a bunch of biological changes that occur within the brains of parents to make them more responsible and forward-planning. There was no doubt a very good reason why our ancestors used to get married young and start having kids early, and it wasn't just that their life expectancy was shorter. I think a lot of us are living this extended, aimless adolescence these days, and I say that as someone who is nearly 30 with no kids yet.
I've heard a lot of people say that DeSantis is a lot better off staying in Florida where he has some measure of power rather than diluting himself in DC, although I'm not au fait with the matter myself so I can't say for sure either way.
We have a similar kind of phenomenon in the UK with the older working class being staunch supporters of the Labour party despite it now actively hating them and supporting everything they complain about socially. For all of their lives, the Labour party has been the party of the 'working man', while the Conservatives have represented monied interests, and they can't break out of that dichotomy.
I think you reach a certain age where your beliefs have become so ossified it's impossible to change them, even if new evidence is staring you in the face. Cognitive dissonance produces a physiological pain response in the brain, so in some sense it is actually 'painful' for these people to reflect on their own beliefs and realise they might be wrong. It's easier to just disregard conflicting evidence entirely.
Trails of Cold Steel is a guilty pleasure of mine. Typical anime romp with a fun battle system and a story where you have to suspend your disbelief and not think about too much. The characters are really the draw, although by the end of the fourth game there are a laughable number of characters that you're expected to remember and care about. I remember one scene where they're all lined up on the bridge of a ship and I actually burst out laughing at how many of them there were.
Was that... was that a giant fish impaling a woman?
Before my brain connected the dots, I thought I was looking at a picture of some 'rebels' from some African republic hiding out in the jungle.
I don't think any Europeans on this board are going to criticise America for its stance on guns.
I definitely don't disagree with that, I just think that every civilisation of note is going to go through these cycles of rise and fall. In fact, you could argue that only the 'greatest' civilisations (whatever that means) survive long enough to destroy themselves rather than be destroyed by outside forces.