Somewhat. Lack of homogeneity and increased faction provides a legitimate need for authoritarianism. They never had to divide people, because humans have natural in-group bias. Our self-evident differences were always enough to do that work.
It took a lot of work and indoctrination to reach the 90s state of mind on race. I don't think we'll go back to that place again.
I'd say, "read it again", but it's really moot. You do you. I'm not against Christianity, even though it's in really rough shape right now. There is no sin anymore. It's pure submission and acceptance. Needs less Jesus, and more Moses, to restore any semblance of virtue.
he answers the question "is Jesus God" with I don't know but I expect I'll find out soon enough.
Pretty sure that's what I just quoted.
I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.
None of them rejected god, but most of them rejected Christian dogma and mysticism.
The last part is extremely germane to the conversation, though.
I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure.
It shows the pragmatic utility he found in the Christian faith, in keeping the population virtuous, regardless of the truth of it.
Well, on that we can agree.
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure.
-Benjamin Franklin
They were rational. Sometimes it's rational to pray in public. That's for a Christian public's benefit and resolve, not some belief in divine intervention. Don't confuse Reason with Marxism. Terrible mistake that a lot of Christians, especially the Evangelical Zionist camp, tend to make.
The framers were mostly deist. Most saw Jesus as a wise man, but they didn't buy into any sort of divine revelations or miracles or magic or prophesy. Not the messiah, not the son of god. Just a very wise man.
Above all, they were pragmatist. Wisdom is only as useful as its application. They also believed that no god controlled the destiny of men, so it was their duty to control their own destiny. They were excellent examples of Enlightened men.
That's not to say America wasn't founded as a Christian nation. Most people were Christian, and the religion was the most in harmony with ideals of the Enlightenment.
They aren't destroying them, they are just replacing the populace as doing so serves them.
We fundamentally disagree on the consequence of multiculturalism and degeneracy, then. China is only competition as long as we're competitive.
Your correct that destroying Western nations from the inside out doesn't pose a great risk as long as there's another nation to run to. The question is whether China will allow them in when the Western world is finally ready to extract vengeance.
non-western blocs are mostly immune, so it just serves to weaken us and our european/anglo allies. I'm not saying they're aware that they're traitorous cunts, I'm just saying that they are traitorous cunts. China will never push back against the stupidity of the baizuo, because it only serves them.
The media was always against the people.
Yes, but this particular expansion of influence was mostly a matter of television adoption. Media gained a lot of power over the decade. They used it to destroy tradition and institutional trust.
The European admixture at least boosted their IQ a few points over their purebred counterparts.