Why Liberalism Is Just Passive-Aggressive Totalitarianism

Greetings to the men of ROK this week.  As a brief note, I’ll say that I’ve posted two articles at my blog: one is about the attitude that a traditional man should take to churches and clerics who oppose the restoration of red-pilled, patriarchal values in society (with an emphasis on the Catholic Church); the other, in honor of the end of the month of May, our Lady’s month, presents some of the Catholic teaching on the Blessed Virgin – a misunderstood topic, for many.  Navigate there if you care to.

I wanted to respond to some ideas that came up regarding last week’s article—specifically, some men chafed at the idea that an hierarchical, aristocratic state that emphasized virtue, was not sufficiently deferent to the special nature of their snowflakery (I tease, fellas), and would threaten to trample upon their rights.  This is a common idea, even amongst people who think they have rejected egalitarianism; they admit not all men are equal, but they are very keen to say “don’t inflict your morals on me,” thinking their morals are just as equal (maybe even more equal!) than others’.  Today we will look at why this, too, is one more impossible vision from the Liberal House of Mirrors.

The Essence of Liberalism

Let me first state that any philosophy allowing for rights in abstraction from the norms of objective morality, is Liberal—and this includes almost all of what calls itself “Conservatism” in the Anglosphere (and, increasingly, beyond).  At the heart of Liberalism, aka Modernism (in the technical terms used by Catholics such as myself), is the incoherent and irrational endowing of error with rights, often consequent to an incorrect valuation and application of the good of tolerance.

The first manifestation of this new philosophy in the West was Protestantism, which as Don Felix Sarda y Salvany said, “begets by nature tolerance of error.”  I do not say this to be offensive, but descriptive; it was the first manifestation of the feeling that men are entitled to their own opinions on ultimate questions, and ought to be “free” to act in accord with their conscience on these opinions—and that, therefore, authority must yield more or less to individuals’ rights of conscience.


Concepts as Flawed and Broken as the Bell that Stands for Them

One can see that there is essentially no difference between this and the maxim of Justice Kennedy, which he penned to uphold worthless whores’ rights to murder their children without so much as notifying their husbands, the fathers: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”  I spit upon such damned nonsense; this is literally a carte blanche to do whatever the hell you want.  The story of Western Civilization from about 1500 A.D. to the present, is the story of how this absurd idea has played out in successive waves of incoherence and irrationality.

The only limit on this “right to define one’s own concept of existence” is the flimsy protestation that “your rights end where mine begin,” or, put otherwise: “don’t inflict your morality on me!”  This sounds good to the person who has not analyzed it critically, but in fact it is a complete impossibility.  We all live together in society.  Any view that one enshrines as the societal ideal is automatically and inevitably going to inflict itself upon everybody in that society, and will frustrate or contradict their own “concept of existence,” to some extent.

Indeed, it is a wildly tyrannical idea, because it is tantamount to saying that everyone who does not consider their concept of existence to be totally private, relative and arbitrary, has no right to implement their views in society.  Yes, as we see, even Libertarianism advances this radically hegemonic principle, squelching all opinions and beliefs that reject the relativistic premise.  For, even to advocate that one should not inflict his moral views on someone else, is already an attempt to inflict one’s moral views on someone else!  And in the absence of an objective norm of morality, there is really nothing stopping the Supreme Court from interpreting the Constitution to mean that your right not to bake cakes for sodomites, ends where a sodomite’s right to demand cakes of you begins.  That this is even an issue, is proof of the absurdity of our system.

off my body

But please do convert to my secular religion, abandon all hope of living in a society oriented by sane principles, and prepare to subsidize all the things I don’t want to hear your opinions on.

What is Truly Right, is Inevitably Annihilated by Pseudo-Rights

I, for example, believe that there are objective principles of morality, and a moral and rational role for the state; I believe it is absolutely right and just and salutary for society to be run on these principles, and that this means making definite judgments upon certain ideas and behaviors, “inflicting” this system upon everybody.  I also believe that I am morally obliged to prefer this system of governance, and to reject a Liberal one.

The Liberal, Libertarian or “Conservative” will recoil in horror; but, they are reacting to the mere candor of my position.  The fact, is that their viewpoints also require me to shut up, forsake my dearest religious and moral principles, and submit to a society organized along their preferred principles, which I know to be not only immoral, but also impossible and irrational.

When members of society install a form of specious relativism as their governing principle, they are inflicting their moral view upon me. They limit the scope of my social and moral action; they compel my submission to what they accomplish via their appeal to the mob; they shackle me to the moral drift and societal decline of a state piloted by the demagogued masses. They are denying my moral view that a just, rational and even divine social order should reign over society, and that, far from according “power to the people,”

I should hold the uninformed dissent of infidels and fools in contempt, regarding this latter as the infallible source of civilizational decadence. If they succeed in preventing me from implementing my moral vision and living in the society I would form for myself and others, they have succeeded in inflicting their moral vision upon me. They have nullified my moral and social aspirations. They have compelled me to live in a State where a chimerical relativism bulldozes my sublimer views without scruple.

An House Divided

lgbtworkplace gay religious

Or, put another way: people who say they believe in equality and freedom have determined that my beliefs are not equal to theirs, I am not free to run my business and spend my money as I wish, nor can I associate with whom I wish, nor can I simply be left alone; in the name of freedom and equality, they will inflict their morality on me, precisely on the grounds that I mustn’t inflict my morality on them.

This conflict splits Liberalism down the middle: on the one hand, you have neo-Liberals claiming that people have a right to goods and services such as healthcare, because you can’t exercise your other “rights” or really be “free,” unless the government gives you a house, food, health care and Wi-Fi. They still pay lip service to the “your rights end where mine begin” view, but it’s obvious they now believe that anything that may be necessary to guarantee the more important rights, can plausibly be asserted as something to which one is entitled.

On the other hand, the sorry few who still cling to Classical Liberalism (Libertarians, some “Conservatives”), are futilely trying to keep the barque of negative rights afloat. They will say, for instance, that you don’t have a right to free health care, because this would mean you have a right to compel others to provide you with a service. They take this as a general principle – you don’t have a right to make other people provide you with the substance of your rights; your rights end where the rights of others begin—“don’t inflict your morality on me!”—but, unlike neo-Liberals, Classical Liberals “really mean it.”

The Only Sane Solution

But I answer that this principle is also incorrect. I believe in the right to due process, for example, and this requires that the State provide competent law enforcement, a judiciary, equitable processes for jury selection and compensation, etc., etc. I believe that the King(/State) has a duty to provide just laws and to govern justly. It is NOT a universal rule that I have no right to receive provision of goods or services from the State; the reason I am not entitled to free health care, is because it does not belong to the State to provide my health care, and it is not right for me to force others to do so, either.  The lesson to be drawn, is that real justice cannot exist in an (impossible) neutrality or compromise between “equal yet opposite,” mutually valid yet contradictory worldviews.

Rather than pretend that “neutrality” is actually neutral, the state’s governance and justice must be rooted in what is Right, and in that alone.  You may object: “but who determines what that is?”  We’ll explore this in future, but for now, suffice it to say that the objection solves nothing: even to determine that we must not determine this, is to determine it.


The Non-Aggression Principle, or Declining to Initiate Force, makes sense only if infractions against objective norms of morality are understood to be initiations of force. Without a unified acknowledgment of said norms, the government can easily justify its protection of any kind of outrage, and its persecution of any kind of necessary intervention or prohibition. The “family” in this picture, above, was celebrated for pioneering gay “rights;” then they pimped their adopted son out to a global pedophilia ring. This was one step too far… for now. Tomorrow, when society recognizes the “right” of children to consent to sex – they already “consent” to sex change operations, no? – the police who arrested these men will be unjust aggressors, and the “family” will be persecuted for having “their own concept of existence.”

That’s the heart of all this. Since we no longer believe that the only basis of rights is objective uprightness, and since we no longer orient our society towards this (allowing the masses, instead, to simply assert their whimsies as “rights”), and since we have founded a society based on the irrational attempt to accord rights to this tangled abyss of error, we are doomed to pretend that we are not inflicting ourselves on each other, despite the fact that any set of social norms—even the norm of pretending to reject norms—inevitably inflicts itself upon everyone.  Unless we repent, this already bitter crisis will keep playing out to the bitter, bitter, bitterest end.

I used to think people would wake up. Yet most still seem oblivious to the manifest inevitability of “inflicting a view,” despite the steadily escalating clash of moral inflictions in the name of forbidding moral inflictions over five centuries.  This has now entered a critical stage, because, having moved on from disagreement about less obvious points like the Trinity and Papal Primacy, sane people are now being asked to acquiesce even to palpably absurd ideas: collusion in sodomy = holy matrimony; Bruce Jenner = woman; up = down; square = circle.

The only thing for it, is to stop worrying about inflicting “a” view, and to start worrying about inflicting the right one.  Until men with just convictions no longer fear to take up the sword of a righteous authority, and to smite those who demand the right to dissent from justice and just authority, the West will continue to tear itself apart with a specious and manifestly prevaricating, passive-aggressive, intolerant “tolerance.”


“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9). And if an earthly king is smart, such persons shouldn’t last long in his kingdom, either.

God save you, men.

Read More: 9 Secrets About Female Nature Told By A Hot Girl Who Was Dying Of Cancer

375 thoughts on “Why Liberalism Is Just Passive-Aggressive Totalitarianism”

      1. Why did you upvote my comment? By ‘one of them’ I clearly meant it was an article that was short of magnificent. In fact, it was downright dogshit.
        It seems most of the commenters on this article are blithering fucktards.

  1. Bravo Aurelius, Bravo.
    Rights should not exist to allow for the freedom to do wrong they should only exist for men to be able to do what is right in an immoral and repressive world.

    1. Pray for more violence.
      Thats all they have left.
      They knwo that they are finished and the zeitgeist has changed.
      The day of retribution hastens.

        1. you would cut your head off with that chainsaw knife before you ever ran into someone worth pillaging.

        2. ok, but let me see the full body length chainsaw you have been using for that many days….just saying’ you get one mosquito lands on your ear and shits done

        3. Not it’s good. In fact I like to think this is the future of hand to hand warfare, not faggy laser sabers.
          I believe it’s not always on chainsaw mode, you have a button to press on the handle.

        4. Who wants to be practical? When the day of the rope comes, a little panache is on the menu.

        5. A little panache is one thing, a 7 foot long sword chainsaw combo is a good way to cut your own head off.

        6. “Here Lies the Reactionary Hoplite Adalmar, Whose Chainsword of Doom Was Too Feckful by Far.”

      1. Vae genti insurgenti super genus meum: Dominus enim omnipotens vindicabit in eis; in die judicii visitabit illos. Dabit enim ignem et vermes in carnes eorum, ut urantur et sentiant usque in sempiternum.

    2. The whole point of a ‘right’ is to be able to choose. If there is only one option available, then it’s not a right, dumbshit.

      1. They exist so that if man is under an evil government he can still act morally. God is the author if rights, not man, and he does not give us permission to act contrary to his divine laws.

        1. True, but what you’re arguing is that the state should make sure that the individual follows what YOU believe are God’s laws.
          That’s not your place. You have no way of knowing (any more than the people that you want to control) that your side is right and their side is wrong. That’s why we practice freedom, since nobody can be sure what the right thing is.

        2. No God’s laws are revealed both in natural law and revelation, it is certainly my place, if not duty, to fight for them. What you are proposing is that everyone be allowed to do what is right in their own eyes. This is the story of modern culture. Whereas a few years ago homosexuality was taboo, then the sodomites said we want to get married, conservatives opposed it on moral grounds, but the sodomites said who are you to tell me what to do with my body so they won. Likewise a few years back the perverts said children have the right to be transsexual, conservatives fought it on moral grounds, but the perverts said who are you to tell me what to do with my child’s body, so they won. Now the child sodomites are fighting for pedophilia I think we can see what will happen with that. In a few years when you take your kid to kindergarten for the first time and see that his teacher is a pedo then you will be forced to realize that other peoples personal moralities really do affect yours, and that there is a right and that there is a wrong.

        3. “No God’s laws are revealed both in natural law and revelation,”
          I understand that that’s YOUR opinion, but plenty of others honestly disagree. Freedom to choose your way or another way means that there won’t be armed conflict. It’s the peaceful solution to the whole disagreement issue.
          Regarding the examples you cited, pedophilia violates the non-aggression principle where the previous examples didn’t. So, there’s no incoherence in what I’m arguing.
          “What you are proposing is that everyone be allowed to do what is right in their own eyes.”
          We have a certified genius in here, folks! He figured that out all by his little old self!
          “it is certainly my place, if not duty, to fight for them.”
          It’s NOT your place because there’s no way that you can be sure that you’re right. Humble people understand that and that’s why they don’t seek to impose their beliefs on others. Arrogant people such as yourself don’t.
          And if you ever do show up at my place and try force me to choose the ‘correct’ religion, I’ll blow your fucking brains out.

        4. Oh big tough guy. Your argument is weak and you are forced to support anarchy by facism. Which makes you a hypocrite.

        5. You’re the one acting tough, saying you’re going to ‘fight’ for the ability to force your religion on others. I’m simply warning you of the consequences of playing 21st Century Inquisitor.
          And there’s no fascism (that’s the correct spelling, dipshit) being argued here, since I’m clearly arguing that people should have the freedom of religion, speech, association, and so on. You know, all those pesky freedoms in the 1st Amendment.
          What you’re doing here is trying to put me on the defensive. It’s not going to work. You’re a freedom-hating arrogant piece of shit who won’t concede the possibility that his beliefs are wrong and therefore shouldn’t be forced on others. Go fuck yourself, you little bitch.

        6. And what you’re saying, is that what YOU believe to be the more correct view, is what society should make normative in all of its laws and policies. And, in addition to that being impossible, incoherent and contradictory, it’s also not *your* place, nor can you know that your agnosticism is right. So, to be consistent, you should simply shut up and have no opinion.
          We can, in fact, be sure of what the right thing is. Most people are not able to know it with very clear precision; that was the point of last week’s article.

        7. I understand that’s YOUR opinion, but plenty of others honestly disagree.
          So, please immediately abandon your opinion and cease to advocate for it publicly. After all, you wouldn’t want to impose your views on me; you are very humble, that way.

        8. And you will be riddled with bullets, for the ones coming to impose their moral standards on you will not be “Guest” to whom you respond but the gunmen of the belief system that you actively reject. Almost certainly blowhards will submit when confronted with overwhelming force. Making public threats, public being what the internet is, just incites the enforcers to have their fingers already on their triggers when they come to you.
          If the dominant belief system becomes Islamic Shariah law, people like you will be the quickest to blurt, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.” The prospect of being beheaded is rather convincing of the rightness of the belief system that has hired the executioner.

        9. For over two centuries you have failed to vindicate your moral positions by offering anything of value to humanity and today Islam is beginning again its attempts to violently subjugate our forcefully secular societies and gradually replace the West’s free thinking virtues with their iron age primitivism; and the funniest part? THAT HAPPENS WITH “LIBERALS’ ” BLESSINGS AND APHORISMS TOWARDS ANYONE OPPOSING IT in the name of your false gods of equality and tolerance.
          It’s funny that you mention the Inquisition as if it was something bad when in actuality it was a necessary measure to protect Spain and by extension Europe from reverting back to the Islamic tyranny.
          I personally really doubt the existence of God or similar concepts but I still have the basic logic and historical literacy to realize the value of organized religion and its institutional contribution to societal hygiene and vitality on a freaking evolutionary basis and it’s pretty fucking simple:
          Societies that take individualism to the extreme and try to overrationalize the instinctual and cultural sense of morality and devotion to the tribe’s founding principles that have been established by natural selection, environmental fitness and downright necessity are quick to be subverted and violently subjugated, often to extinction, by competing societies that don’t and choose to maintain their natural virility.

      2. No the point of a right is to enshrine what is Right in a society. That’s why it’s called a “right” and not an “option.”

      1. Deciding that nobody can/should decide what is right, is already for you to have decided what is right for us. That’s the point.

        1. That is highly specious reasoning and a non-sequitur. Following this line allows you to falsely conclude that therefore there must be a “right and wrong”. Unfortunately, once you remove God from the equation you have no foundation for morality. Furthermore, it is essentially the philosophy of Liberalism.
          A better answer might be that what is right and wrong must be decided by deductive logic. This leads us to ethics and ethical behaviour as discovered through this process.
          Unfortunately for someone like you, unless you are going to be a liberal, you would have to therefore accept a woman’s choice to be a prostitute or dress like a slut.

        2. I don’t think you’ve understood what I wrote. There is no “reasoning,” especially not specious reasoning, in what I said: it is a simple statement of fact. If somebody objects to an authority’s decisions on the ground that “nobody should presume to tell others what is right and wrong,” that person, merely in saying so, has done exactly what he condemns: he has told people what is right and wrong (namely, he has told people not to tell other people that they are wrong, because that is wrong). This makes the person look very stupid, to anybody who is alert and not brainwashed by Liberalism.
          Yes, the idea that nobody should decide right and wrong is central to modern Liberalism (though it is incoherent, as we’ve just seen); I condemn the idea, as if it needed any condemnation.
          Finally, a logical argument can only be as good as its premises. Example:
          A) All cats are made of solid gold; B) Thor is a cat; C) Therefore, Thor is made of solid gold.
          The argument is logically valid, but its premises are a disaster. The idea that you can just establish right and wrong by “logic,” ignoring the fact that you first have to get people to agree on the premises, is a revelation of the folly within.
          And to raise irritation to the highest possible pitch, I’ll point out that the only first premise that CAN establish that such a thing as Right and Wrong could even exist, is God. Without God, there is no sufficient premise for Right and Wrong, and therefore no atheist (the type which generally speaks about “logical, fact-based morality”) should presume to have an opinion on the matter, other than “do as thou wilt is the whole of the law.”

        3. No I think you are changing the argument. If through deductive logic one determines that no single individual can decide right and wrong for everyone else, that is merely the logical conclusion rather than one deciding right and wrong for everyone else. Its like if I said 2+2=4 and then you told me I have “decided” that the result is 4 rather than this merely being the logical conclusion.
          Your argument is that someone should be the “decider”. I am asking you who this person is.
          Your argument (on gold cats) is not logically valid because the premises are demonstrably false.
          You are being a sophist here, with the objective here of showing that faith is more valid than reason. You’re always going to struggle with that especially since everyone has a different conception of God. Which means we wind up back where you are trying to get away from: moral relativism.

        4. You are proving my point; obviously, many (most?) people are not capable of making the simplest logical inferences or arguments. For example, you said “if through deductive logic one determines that no single individual can decide right and wrong for everybody else…” without realizing that this is logically impossible, because your thesis (“no one should decide right and wrong for everyone”) contradicts itself (i.e., it is itself a decision of what is right and wrong for everyone). And, again: a logical argument starts from premises; you have to furnish those, somehow.
          You are unschooled in Logic, if you are unaware of the distinction between a merely valid and a sound argument. Any argument whose conclusion follows truly from its premises, is a logically valid argument (even if the premises are false). When the premises are also true, the valid argument is a sound argument. All sound arguments are valid; not all valid arguments are sound.
          As you can see, I’m not being a “sophist” who is attempting to show that “faith is more valid than reason.” I’m having to teach you the very first principles of reason, and to point out elementary errors in your own attempts to sound reasonable. Hence the point of the article previous to this, that it is dangerous and deleterious of society, to give people the impression that they are entitled to their opinions or should trust their intellectual, moral and political beliefs, when it is obvious that most people cannot muster up enough clarity of thought to even make a beginning at competence in these fields.
          I’m not trying to be an ass in so saying, but at some point men need to speak plainly about this existential crisis in the West.

        5. Now you’re just being rude. You are resorting to insults and you are also changing the subject. We are now arguing about the argument which is a common defensive strategy to avoid dealing with the actual problem. You also keep telling me what my thesis is after I have already told you that you are mis-specifying it.
          Fine, your argument about cats is not logically sound. You led me astray there, well done. But if we’re going to be pedantic about terms, perhaps you can stop rephrasing my argument in terms that suit you?
          Your only argument seems to be that your version of the counter-argument is contradictory. Fine. I will grant you that. In that case prove to me that a single individual can decide what is right and wrong for everyone else. I believe this is the third time I have asked you.
          The implication of what you are saying is we need some kind of totalitarian dictator (perhaps you), to run everyone elses life. This comes across most clearly in your penultimate paragraph. History has shown us that this cannot work. But perhaps logic will inform you otherwise.

        6. Actually, history has shown us that this CAN work, and DOES work far more efficiently than any democratic style. Part of the brainwashing of Modernism is to make common folk take for granted the idea that all totalitarianism is inherently tyrannical. This is just plain not so. There are an infinite number of examples to prove this, in fact all great Classical civilizations were not Democratic. It seems reasonable to harbor a healthy distrust of someone or something that continually lies and obfuscates (Modern Society) – and should prod you to inquire about any other “truths” the liar has forced you to accept. Feminism and various other forms of cultural degeneracy were already written in the stars several hundred years ago after Liberal Democracy got a foothold in Europe. All of this nonsense is simply the child of a civilization based on “Equality” and “Liberty”. It was nothing more than a heinous trick all along.

        7. If those great Classical civilizations worked so well how come they are not still with us?
          And you are talking about these civilizations that regularly engaged in practices that would appall you and I, I’m sure.

        8. Come now, every thing that goes up must come down. Every civilization of the past has crumbled eventually. Rome certainly lasted far longer than most, with an empire that encompassed pretty much the totality of the known world. In today’s terms, the British Empire or the United States haven’t even come close.
          Yes, just as modern society engages in practices that appall you and I.

        9. Your final statement is a defensive one that pretty much contradicts the rest of your argument. The conclusion to draw here then is that these ancient civilizations have no advantages over the current one.
          The Roman Empire did not encompass the totality of the known world. Not at all. The British Empire was larger.

        10. Whatever morals, standards of right and wrong, Liberals have are plagiarized from Religion, from faith.

        11. The great classical civilizations are still with us: we are they.
          There is no break with an empty, unknown gap between the civilizations of Greece and Rome and ours today. Greece and Greeks are still there. Italy and Italians are still there. Our institutions in large part descend directly from the institutions of Greece and Rome.

        12. Might as well say we are part of one large homogeneous civilization spanning the entire globe.
          Except of course we are not.

        13. We’re only recently connected with the far eastern Asian civilizations. Our civilization is in the main descended from the Greco-Roman civilization through the Holy Roman Empire. The “barbarian” nations of central and northern Europe merged into the trunk of the remains of the Roman Empire.

        14. Recently connected? Since when? Europe is essentially a peninsula of Asia and the people of Europe have been fighting wars with Asia since civilisation began. The European people you know as “white people” migrated from Asia and before that Africa. The Roman Empire is an arbitrary sticking point.
          There has been no merger with the Roman Empire. Sure we share a few legal traditions but Britain’s strongest external influence has been the Scandinaevians and Anglo-Saxons who lived outside of the Roman Empire! And we (British) consider ourselves separate to the rest of Europe.
          If anything the trend has been divergence rather than merger. Look at the different languages spoken by Spain, France and Italy (yes the Italians are with us but the Romans are not). Especially since nobody speaks Latin which itself derived from Ancient Greek. As for the Greeks, Ancient Greece was a collection of City States that warred amongst each other. It is nothing like that now.

        15. It seems you didn’t pay much attention in your History classes (or Philosophy). Otherwise you would know that we don’t share common grounds with “Asiatic” peoples when it comes to philosophy beyond some basic common points like the Golden Rule. Despite the invasions and populations flows, not even the Russians share a philosophic common ground with the Chinese (their inmediate neighbours) let alone with India or the rest of the Gang.
          When it comes to England, though their genetic influence is largely from Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxons, when it comes to culture the former were a small influence, their presence was very limited and in the end they were expelled, the latter are cousins of the former but by the Early Middle Ages they were striving to imitate and scavenge what they could find from the ruins of Roman empire. With the invasion of Normans (another Latinized group of Norsemen), your language was changed to the point that it seems like a dumbed down Low German or Dutch, with tens of thousands of Latin Words not to be found either in German or in the Scandinavian languages. It can hardly be identified as a German language on account of its lexicon.
          By the way the Latin is not derived from Ancient Greek, that was the theory of a few linguists in the Eighteenth century.

        16. Before you start throwing around baseless accusations you should make sure that you yourself paid attention to history and philosophy. In Europe and parts of Asia they speak Indo-European languages. Languages that are all related to each other and share a common root like Latin and Greek! Related languages imply other relationships right?
          I never claimed that English was a German language so I don’t know who you are directing that at. Perhaps you mean it shares a common root, in which case, if you are going to be pedantic with what I say about Latin and Greek then you should apply the same rigor to your own analysis.
          The Anglo-Saxons were never expelled! Where do you think the name “England” comes from or “Anglo-American”? Our language comes largely from the Angles and Saxons with our names of people and towns strongly influenced by the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And then in 1066 we were conquered by the Normans, themselves descendants of the Vikings! All of these people spent far more time in England than the Romans and had a stronger influence both culturally and in terms of geography.

        17. Before you start throwing around baseless accusations you should make sure that you yourself paid attention to history and philosophy. In Europe and parts of Asia they speak Indo-European languages. Languages that are all related to each other and share a common root like Latin and Greek!

          No one denied some languages of Asia are related to the European ones. We are talking about philosophy. Moving the goalposts heh. By the way I was not the one claiming Latin derived from Greek…and I understand both languages are branches of the same family.

          I never claimed that English was a German language so I don’t know who you are directing that at.

          My apologies I meant Germanic language, I stand corrected.

          Our language comes largely from the Angles and Saxons with our names of people and towns strongly influenced by the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And then in 1066 we were conquered by the Normans, themselves descendants of the Vikings!
          All of these people spent far more time in England than the Romans and had a stronger influence both culturally and in terms of geography.

          I never rejected any of those points…except for the inconvenient (for your argument) facts that you seem to forget: Vikings were expelled after a relatively short time thus their culture was never hegemonic or very influential, the Anglo-Saxon people was already heavily influenced by the Roman culture from two main sources: The Church of the Time and their own intellectual class that was striving to rescue whatever the Romans might have left. Let alone the little fact that despite the Norse origins of the Normans, they had already abandoned their language and adopted the French language and through the invasion exported not only tens of thousands of words from Latin to English but even more customs derived from Rome.
          Sorry but England owes more than a few legal institutions to Rome.

        18. No you are talking about philosophy, not me.

          Vikings were expelled after a relatively short time…

          Like the Romans?
          You continue to argue with points I never made. I’m simply disagreeing with the earlier assertion that Britain merged with the Roman Empire. Yes we were influenced by the Romans but also by many other cultures and we have a distinct identity from the Latin nations. Our system of law for example is very different to France – you’ve heard of English Common Law? I can’t quantify how heavy the influence is from Ancient Rome but certainly the influence flowed the other way round with early Christianity modified to fit Pagan customs. I’m sure I don’t need to point out to you the Pagan holidays that we still celebrate here.
          I’ve already ceded your point about Latin and Greek not sure why you keep bringing it up. It was after all the same mistake you made with English and German. Point of fact though, while Latin itself is not derived from Greek much of the alphabet and rules are.

        19. Unlike the Vikings, the Romans had a high culture to propagate and its propagation was ensured in a myriad of ways long after they were expelled and their empire fell….
          By the way you are the one who didn’t read properly. I never said the British were a continuation of the Roman Empire. My whole point is that the British Empire is heir to the culture of Rome in many ways. Not a continuation of it but its heir. The Brits owe to the Romans a lot more than a couple of legal institutions, despite the fact that they are not related genetically and their language is not a Romance one.

  2. In order to impose anything on anybody, you should have to prove it is needed by both fact and logic. Your god is still unproven, so keep it to yourself.

      1. Just like marxists or French revolutionaries did. Worked so well. Slaughtered millions in the name of Humanism and Progress.
        Fuck off.

        1. I never said anything about slaughtering people. Just banning your book of fairy tales. You fuck off, faggot

        2. Which religion? That’s the same as saying a society run on beliefs slaughters people. Well what beliefs?

        3. What your essentially saying is that any society which believes anything ends up slaughtering people however that belief in and of itself is an absolute belief which undermines the premise of what you are arguing.

        4. oddly enough I have to side with the believers here though not one myself. Telling them that their belief system is stupid a) won’t change their beliefs b) is something that simply can’t be proved because it is a different form of argument and c) really helps no one.
          If there is a specific grief with a specific thing like faggot priests or not strong enough communion wine or whatever I am sure that the believers, for the most part, and especially the ones here, would be more than open to a rational discussion of it.
          However, calling an entire belief system just a bunch of made up faeries and shit…I don’t know….I don’t think it is helpful in any way to anyone.
          All societies, by the way, lead to slaughter. Some of it might be in the name of religion. But ya know what, if religion disappeared it would be in something else.
          Like of like when Scooge McDuck landed on an island with no money with a bunch of soda and boom next thing you know he was the richest guy because people used soda pops as currency.
          Slaughter is going to happen. Blaming it on religion is about as insane as religion saying it had nothing to do with them. Human nature is kind of shitty. Like Hobbes put it “everyoneth isth a bunch of cunths” or something like that.
          In the meantime, your best argument against religion being judgmental is to not be religious or be judgmental against people who are and manage to live your life and kind of be happy.

        5. Exactly, a society run on belief ends up slaughtering people. That is not a belief, that is a historical fact. Beliefs are the enemy. Proven facts, science, and logic are not.

        6. My emerging thesis in these comments is that governance should not be based in beliefs. It should be based on science, fact and logic.
          Unlike them, I am not trying to change their belief system. I am just straight up mocking it because they are funny people who believe in sky zombies. It’s like trying to change a feminist, there is no rational thought happening, so change is impossible. And again, I know it cannot be proved which means it shouldn’t be the basis for exerting power over people.

        7. That in and of itself is a belief it’s called progressivism. I hope you realise you need someone to interpret those things into policy ergo a supporting structure of beliefs.

        8. Name a society that hasn’t slaughtered people. Maybe that points to the conclusion that this belief based operation isn’t working real well…

        9. Science, logic, experimenting, questioning itself, being open to change and failure, etc. There are a shit ton of people who get through life successfully without religion or some unproven belief system. Maybe put them in charge.

        10. As there has not yet been a society based in science or fact that I can point to, yes, technically wanting to attempt that society is a belief. However, a policy based on science and fact is not a structure of beliefs. It’s a policy grounded in fact.

        11. There’s an old saying that I’m reminded of.
          “We’re all given the same facts. What we do with them is a completely different matter.”
          What if we stick a group in charge that, through much deliberation and scientific reasoning, determine that a state-run eugenics program is the best course of action and any undesirables should be castrated in order to weed out the gene pool? Science and logic does not stop evil acts from being done. Science is amoral and is quite capable of slaughtering as well.

        12. Every society is based on technology and fact to a certain degree in fact I can’t think of a single society that has ever turned down an invention because of superstition. The fact is that you cannot seperate science facts and beliefs it’s impossible. The reason we have never had a society based solely on fact and science is because those two things can’t govern the human experience in and of themselves. As for policy based in fact mosy everyone who has ever made policy will tell you that is what they try to do. Very few people will say “well the facts all say one thing but we’re going to do the opposite.” Facts and science need a correct belief system to operate under or else they are useless or worse.

        13. Yes that could happen, but as I have stated in other posts, I believe the role of government should be to do tasks which are very hard or impossible for the individual to do. You are stuck on this idea that government should be influencing people.
          Besides, I am pretty sure you just used logic to point out why your hypothetical is a bad idea and would never be done, thereby bolstering my side.
          Edit: Also, your hypothetical assumes giving people in charge a lot of power which is antithetical to what I am advocating for.

        14. Birth control – United States until Griswold.
          You really don’t pay attention to much politics in the USA do you? The right wing does it all the time. Comprehensive sex ed is proven over and over again to reduce pregnancy and abortion and it is regularly banned. These transgender bills are based on fear mongering and superstition with zero proof of a problem. The worst of all is marijuana versus alcohol laws.

        15. And also, my point is that nobody should be trying to govern the human experience. Basic laws that protect freedom and liberty – that’s all the human experience needs.

        16. Really? I believe you err in fact. However I would argue that you are taking what you believe is the best for our society and seeking to impose it on others argue using facts and science as confirmation bias what makes contraceptives superior to pregnancy? Can’t you see that you are only using facts and science to support your preexisting beliefs that pregnancy is worse than contraception. Or that genital mutilation is not a problem.

        17. Sex ed? Please, contraceptives and ultimately abortion did more to reduce the so feared “teen pregnancies” than all the degenerates, dykes and homos you could recruit to molest infants and pollute their minds with thinly disguised porn.

        18. Who have little violence (minus refugees), good education and health, and generally rank high on happiness?
          Again, I am advocating for as little governance as possible, but their over the top style which avoids religious superstition seems to work alright.

        19. Yeah because turning all the men they can into pussies and their women into masculine whores is a sign of tremendous success /sarc
          If anything those societies are a cautionary tale against the abandonment of relgious beliefs, afterall the idiots and welfare recipients weren’t the ones to create their inmense wealth. That wealth was created and hoarded in previous times where people believed in something, men were men and women were women…

        20. That is a valid point. I do assume that a technology which allows people to have more control over their lives and decide when they want to have children is a good thing. However, I base that on the history of forcibly sterilizing people, orphanage death rates, and the general treatment of unwed pregnant women in the past (e.g. lock them in a home for girls and pretend it never happened). You base pregnancy is better than contraception on the word of an unproven god?
          That control over one’s life has also helped lead to modern technology, which I also assume is best for society based on the number of lives it has saved and/or helped. And yes, helping out fellow humans is a belief. Based on the logic that we are a species and must do so in order to survive.

        21. Are you trying to argue current generations (60s onward) are the ones responsible for their wealth? They are not Singapore, Japan, China, Germany or the U.S. At least the pre-boomers and younger people of those countries can claim their success is theirs. Scandinavian golden times are long past.

        22. I’m saying the current generations are responsible for their continued wealth. Also, I may be wrong so correct me if I am, but I assume those pre-boomers are the ones who created and implemented the Nordic model. It’s almost as if they don’t believe the cut-throat, winner take all model is the best.
          Along those lines, your statement sounds like that the inhabitants there desire to be part of an imbalanced winner take all scheme. There is a name for it in Scandinavian culture, but basically there is a belief that they are all in it together people who try to stick out and be special snowflakes are looked down on.

        23. You are correct and they were idiots by the way who thought they had defeated human nature and there was no sin, that men and women were equal (except that women rule was better) and human progress was always linear…
          My point was that under the current model, they can barely maintain what they have let alone start from scratch if need be and cannot outdo what their ancestors achieved without so much funding and resources.

          There is a name for it in Scandinavian culture, but basically there is a
          belief that they are all in it together people who try to stick out and
          be special snowflakes are looked down on.

          Yeah, i think they call it Jantelaw (I may be wrong) but in a nutshell it means: Equality überalles hence the insanity from those regions. With the exception of Finland and maybe Denmark, the region cannot go down soon enough to serve as an example of what not to do when organizing a society…

        24. So…how old is planet earth? 2000 years old? In your book of fairy tales faggot. Get on your knees my son, “receive” your holy communion. Faggot

        25. And then there are people like me that don’t really care whether it’s a made up story about faeries or not, I care about results and what works. Let’s face it, the church, rightly or wrongly, has done a whole lot more over the last 2,000 years than ensure its believers are going to Heaven and not Hell. It’s a social institution. A method of control. A method of societal shaping. A system of rules on how to interact with others and how to treat them. It may be good or bad from one person’s perspective, but it had a HUGE influence on how the world is the way it is today.
          The rules about sex, the rules about property, the rules about money. The rules about honesty and treating others in an equal manner as one would want to be treated. These ideas were spread through churches and had a huge immeasurable effect on how the world is. Do I care which of the stories of the supernatural is most true? Not really. I care which is most effective at meeting its ends.

        26. I like many of your posts, and I think we both come from a libertarian framework. But there is a particularly American view of government that I find is different from much of the world. Most Americans feel at odds with their government. They don’t like it, they tolerate it.
          I know from talking to foreigners that they are often frustrated at their governments too, but I don’t think they are as adversarial as the US is. They typically see the institutions of the state as good. The state health system is there to keep everyone healthy. The police force is there to preserve order and safety. The education system is there to help everyone learn skills for employment. The church is there to maintain a happy marriage and strong families. There’s a cohesiveness and sense of collectiveness that I don’t feel in America.
          I know many slam him as a left wing nut and automatically reject him out of hand, but I encourage you to watch Michael Moore’s latest film, where he travels around the world to other countries to see what they are doing right. It’s really just a film about looking at how if you focus on doing one thing really well, like what the US does with its military, what can you achieve if you put that level of effort towards other areas (employment, health care, education, family cohesiveness etc.)?
          Ultimately what I would like to see is two societies: One that is relatively unfettered and free, and another that imposes a patriarchal order, a sort of Third Reich without the military side and killings and genocide. But with an active attempt to improve conditions for its people, and yes, until they started invading neighbors and genociding folks, Germany was good for non-Jewish Germans. Is it impossible to mimic only their good actions?
          I would like to see those two societies and how they played out, and determine which I would prefer to live in. I don’t really know the answer. But I think both would be preferable to what we have today. It’s sad that we have neither a weak, free state, or a powerful state that operates for good, anywhere in the world. Just a bunch of corrupt, bad, powerful states.
          Also have you read this?
          EDIT: DO NOT watch the second half of the film featured above, it’s basically just an endorsement of feminism. But the first half is good.

        27. Sure, but every society slaughters people; at least Catholic theocracies slaughtered the right people more often than not.

        28. Great! You’re the first person ever who has thought their system of governance was based on science, fact and logic. I’m sure it will work out for you, since your idea is so novel and immune to error.

        29. But should society be run on logic and facts, or should it be based on your belief that the role of government is to do tasks which are very hard or impossible for the individual to do?
          Make up your mind.

        30. Never said they were immune to error. A large part of what I am espousing is not having an unflinching authoritarian mindset and admitting and addressing error. It’s an ongoing process. To say you know the true way is narcissistic and egotistical.

        31. That’s not a belief. I think history gives proof that government or people organizing to take on tasks which are hard or impossible is more productive and beneficial to society than leaving it to the individual.

        32. That’s the everybody else sticks their hand in cow shit theory. I don’t see why we should accept it as unavoidable or embrace it. We should at least try our best to avoid that path. Here comes a belief – I believe people can be better than that.

        33. I’m not saying we should embrace it, either. I’m just saying it’s not an argument against me if it’s also true of thee.

        34. But this requires you to resort to an ultimately religious argument that “benefitting society” is good, and then requires you to make ultimately religious arguments for what constitutes a true “benefit.” This is what I keep trying to drive home: first principles. Liberals just take things back one or two steps and assume a vast sea of doctrines. To really get at what any of that means, will require you to either appeal to a transcendent moral authority (i.e., God), or to abandon morality and the concept of “should,” altogether. All that will be left to you is pragmatism: “I find x more pleasant, and that is why I want it.” At which point, I can say “I find y more pleasant, and there’s no reason I shouldn’t kill you over it.”

        35. “To say you know the true way is narcissistic and egotistical.”
          But do you know that that’s the true way?

        36. “I never said anything about slaughtering people. Just banning your book of fairy tales. ”
          Every fucking time…

      2. Nope. I don’t believe in banning religion. They have their right to believe in fairies and demons and I have the right mock them for it.
        I believe in banning anything not based on fact or logic from influencing governance of the social compact, i.e. religion.

        1. Facts and logic do not exist. They are a myth, a fairy tale you tell yourself. Only in your head, my friend. Only in your head.

        2. And yet religious based morality is more based on fact, logic, biology then modern ideologies that wants to play as a new god.

        3. Ah, but you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow! Only believers in Tinker Bell would even think there might be a nova!

        4. He’s entirely correct.
          Without the transcendent, even your own principles are meaningless. But you’re too “logical” to understand that, I’m sure.

        5. How are they meaningless? I don’t find them meaningless. Defining meaningless may help.
          Also, if religious based morality is more based on fact, logic and biology, why continue to wrap the unproven (and in some cases, proven false) concept of religion into it? Why not just use the functional parts?

        6. The only basis for a transcendent system of “values,” is itself the transcendent. Religion is the only coherent basis for morality. This does not prove that religion is true, only that, if religion is false, so also is morality. Irreligious morality does not need to be “disproven,” because it is logically impossible on the face of it. This is not to say that irreligious people never act in moral ways; just that their moral acts proceed from truths they somewhat acknowledge in the depths of their souls, but which their frenzied minds disavow unreflectively.
          Hence, if your opinions are merely your opinions, and are not rooted in a transcendent, moral authority, then there is no reason why I should acquiesce to your moral views and abandon mine, which is essentially what Liberalism demands of me. “Science” can tell us what is, not what should be. No principle of Science tells me that I should or must be kind, at least, not in any way that rises above merely pragmatic considerations. And if my “values” differ from the values that drive your consideration of the pragmatic, Science can offer no principle of objective discrimination between the two.
          None of this proves that religion or morality exists; it only points out that Liberals argue for their moral position by invoking principles that invalidate their own moral system, just as much as they invalid my moral system and, really, every moral system. Hence I keep insisting that it is incoherent.

      3. In order to ban religion, you have to ban religious people as well. But no worries, they are all crazy people with imaginary friends right? Atheist doltz and their totalitarian delusions.

      1. Its sad to think that she’s going to be someone’s mother someday
        well maybe she’s not, but if it happens God help that child.

        1. what is he going to propose to her? ordering Chinese, Pizzas and Burgers because no one can decide on which?

        2. I know this Liberal gal, a friend of my parents, and EVERY time I have seen her in the past four years, she ALWAYS has a Quinoa and Kale vegan salad on her person.

      2. Just because shitty people exist, does not mean that others should have their freedom restricted. People kill people with guns, that does not mean we should confiscate all guns.
        Trying to control people doesn’t work. The Catholic Church and Islam have strict control over their members and they regularly rape children. Gays and sodomy were outlawed for many years and yet they still created bathhouses, fucked each other, and spread AIDS.
        This idea that a hierarchical structure can control people is lunacy and simply pushes said behavior underground. In the past that woman would have committed to a school for girls and sterilized. But that doesn’t stop the problem. It merely sweeps it under the rug.

        1. No aids came about after the acceptance of homosexuality during the sexual revolution. Pedophilia entered the church after Vatican 2 which aigns itself more closely with what you are proposing than the Catholic Church before it. As for trying to control people doesn’t work you have described all governments and laws that have ever existed. Many of those have worked for their desired effects. Are you arguing for anarchy?

        2. No the there have been a few morally bad popes but the vast majority have been good and holy men.

        3. Your confusing having a just authority with having an unjust authority. The role of government should be to promote virtue and dissuade vice obviously having such a woman in governmint would not serve that purpose. If you believe in anarchy because people are going to do what they are going to do anyway I will remind you that human nature is intrinsically evil and to free people from the reigns of just restraint is to usher in horrors that you cannot imagine. If you doubt this I can show you all of human history as proof.

        4. No, the role of government should be to do tasks that are very difficult or impossible to do by the individual – national defense, preservation of large tracts of untouched habitat, etc. It should not be to promote any specific way of life.
          I am unsure whether people are intrinsically evil or not. I point to all the amazing shit we have created and done as proof. Moon landings don’t arise from evil.

        5. You believe this no? Can’t you see your telling everyone they need to adopt a certain form of government based on your beliefs and all other beliefs are intolerable? That was the point of the article.

        6. “Trying to control people doesn’t work.”
          Actually, it works really well, all over the world, even with modern technology and modern educated people.

        7. I never said other beliefs were intolerable. I said imposing your will based on those beliefs is intolerable. Imposing your will on somebody else should first be proved by fact or logic. That is a huge difference than imposing your will with zero proof.

        8. Facts and logic support the adoption of a universal objective moral code. The thing about anarchy that you have described is that it does promote intolerance of universal truths, morality ect.

        9. You used the term “objective.” Objective is defined as ” not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.” This article argues for the adoption of a subjective moral code.
          I think we are just at an impasse. I follow facts and objectivity. You and others follow beliefs and subjectivity.

        10. He isn’t taking in not one word you are saying, your time is more valuable brother, let him be. If he frequents here enough he will understand the truth eventually.

        11. Yep, If only those foolish middle easterners could enjoy our corporate slavery, massive debt, fast food diets, morbidly obese feral women that hold zero respect for the male population that extort us with impunity. An innovative progressive society of an increasingly growing dysfunctional degenerate population.
          Apparently now to keep this ‘technologically advanced’ society running native populations who built these nations are forced to kill themselves to make way for cheaper labor at the request of a foreign elite who have usurped them.

        12. What are you talking about? Modern Liberalism controls people with precision and efficiency.

        13. You said controlling people never works. In point of fact, sometimes it works way too well.

    1. Your ideas are also unproven, so I am sure you will now cease seeking to impose them on me, right? Thank you for proving my point.

  3. Again Offtopic, sorry guys:
    But I just have to share this amazing text with you:
    “In a world where all the information is out there, easily accessible via the internet, easily available through globalization, 90% of people still don’t get it. We have it all, the entire know how, the step-by-step guides… everything. From how-to-become a pro athlete, to computer programming, to how-to-become richer, smarter, better, faster, you name it. All we have to do is extent our arms, grab it, grasp it, “I want it! Here, I’m ready!” and we shall receive. Yet, we don’t do it.
    Why? Because we don’t want to. We seriously don’t. I’m going to unveil the uncomfortable truth here:
    We don’t want to hustle hard and work on ourselves.
    >>> ALL. WE. WANT…. is someone to pad us on our shoulder saying:
    “Hey, don’t worry, give up, there’s no hope for you, it’s okay. Nobody in your special little case can do it. It’s okay, don’t worry, you’re just meant to live a mediocre life.” ALL. WE. WANT… IS PERMISSION TO BE LAZY. TO NOT CHANGE. TO KEEP DOING NOTHING.

    Oh, and the other 10% wins life, they want it, they work for it, they get it. And everyone watches them in awe. Which one are you?”

  4. Excellent piece of work, as always.
    These are some simple yet deliberately burried truths you reveal in this article.
    The antithesis to Classical Liberalism was written by Joseph de Maistre, the “anti-Rousseau”.
    A worthy read.

  5. This is by far the most well written article I have had the pleasure to read in quite some time. It is indicative of the philosophical growth of ROK. I applaud the author and Roosh. I will have to reread it before I will feel competent to comment further. Bravo, sir.

      1. Dear Sir, for the past few days I have been in a heated discussion on The Economist regarding MRA, MGTOW, “raising awareness” , etc. A few hours ago I was informed by The Economist that my post were being deleted for “violating standards”. Evidently, challenging Paul Elam, feminine orthodoxy, or demanding concrete statistical proof of assertions causes wide spread panic on their platform. I do not have the technical capability to archive the thread. Nor do I have the technical capability to expose the censorship. I’m hoping you can help. Cheers, and let me know if I can provide any more info before they delete it all. Thanks.

        1. Yes It was. More info has come to light. AVFM has on staff a woman named Suzanne McClarey, Director, Disqus Moderation Team. I’m not making this up. Considering this article was about totalitarianism and its love of suppressing dissent, I thought you would find it interesting that a group that proclaims itself to be the leading voice of MRM has a staff that patrols the internet seeking out disparaging comments about it and flushing those comments, on sites other than their own, down the memory hole at their self appointed Ministry of Truth. You might already be aware, but I just felt this hypocrisy from Elam and his stable of clowns needed some publicity. Thanks.

  6. “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9).

    One of the ironically true statements in the bible. These people won’t “possess the kingdom of God” because no one will. It doesn’t exist outside of Christians’ fantasies.

    1. “These people won’t “possess the kingdom of God” because no one will. It doesn’t exist outside of Christians’ fantasies.”
      My God…I’ve heard this so many times, but now only when you said it does it finally click! You know what they say, the 10,000th time is a charm.
      ….seriously, what do atheists get out of this? Do you really think the cliché “God doesn’t exist” line convinces us? You don’t like the article, fine. Try actually disproving the points as opposed to pulling out the same old tired tropes.

      1. Muh faire tails, muh sky beard, etc,etc (i’m mocking anti-theist talking points in case it’s not clear).

      2. We want you to live in reality, not fantasy. God, if He exists at all, doesn’t intervene in the affairs of mankind. The sheer worldwide number of rapes, mutilations, and murder per year is proof of that.

    2. You believe in nothing. What a good little Harrier you are.
      “…life is not a frail thing that disappears in a puff of fear, but far stronger than you know, and though it knows its time, it is never imprisoned by it, never done in against it against its will, because the weakest something is stronger than the strongest nothing, and nothing never wins.”
      BB Rationalizations 21:7-13

  7. There is no such thing as free will either. Free will is a myth, like “free speech”.
    Nothing is free.

    1. You’re absolutely correct. There is nothing in this world that is fair, free or equal. Every attempt to make it so has ended up in a clusterfuck, whether it be political, social &/or economic. Examples of the aforementioned are virtually limitless.

    2. If there is a freedom, it is not exactly physical or rational, it is likely to be supernatural. If there is freedom it is a paradox set up to operate by God. Perhaps even one of the reasons he enjoyed making us, i.e. “Let’s make man in my image, to bring me pleasure; lets make him both physically determined and able to freely determine moral choices at the same time, and see what shakes out. Teeheehee.”
      If I was God I would do stuff like that. But not laugh like that. It would be more like Harrrharrr harrrr.

  8. “…the incoherent and irrational endowing of error with rights, often consequent to an incorrect valuation and application of the good of tolerance….The first manifestation of this new philosophy in the West was Protestantism… the first manifestation of the feeling that men are entitled to their own opinions on ultimate questions, and ought to be “free” to act in accord with their conscience on these opinions—and that, therefore, authority must yield more or less to individuals’ rights of conscience.”
    Protestantism is about the incoherent and irrational endowing of error with rights? I thought it was about reforming the Holy Church and correcting her errors?
    Protestantism was about being free to act in accord with their conscience without authority? I wonder why they were so strict about morality, religion, and authority? They had state enforced religion (authority) and demanded that all morality be in accord with a book of scriptures, not their own opinions.

    1. “The major individualistic reform movements that revolted against medieval scholasticism and the institutions that underpinned it were humanism, devotionalism, and the observantine tradition.”
      “Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.”

      1. Protestantism is a bunk excuse for a religion. If you think the Protestant religion is stricter than Catholicism. You might be protestant. Just saying.

        1. Catholicism is a bunk excuse for Christianity.
          Papal infallibility? You made it up
          Immaculate Conception? You made it up
          Sainthood? You made it up
          Having a Vicar of Christ to begin with? You made it up
          I could go on all day about all the doctrines you guys preach that were never taught by Jesus and are not found in the apostolic epistles, but you get my point.

        2. Your your opinion is founded on the fallicy that the written word is the totality of revealed truth. This is not so for Christ came to found a church not write a book in fact the New Testament wasn’t written until years after he died and wasn’t compiled for centuries after he died. It still could never have been available for everyone to read until the printing press was invented some 1500 years later. But this is beside the point the Church is established on the Apostolic tradition and written word both are equally valid.
          By the way Protestants only use the bible to confirm their preexisting bias that’s why they removed 7 books from the bible that disagree with their beliefs.

        3. And you’ve added onto the original biblical texts by arguing that the Church’s teachings are on par with the Bible. Bullshit. Jesus never taught that, and He’s the reigning authority on Christianity.
          He never taught the Immaculate Conception. You made it up.
          He never taught that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra or is the Vicar of Christ. You made it up.
          There is absolutely no way you can get around that. All you can do is say it was justified. But on what basis? If Jesus never taught it or supported it, who are you to say that it belongs in the religion that HE started? If you want to believe all that stupid bullshit fine, but it’s not Christianity for the simple reason that Christ (you know, the name of the guy in the fucking title of said religion) never taught it.

        4. Yeah he did his church is witness of it today, prove that he didn’t teach it. And do not curse when discussing these matters.

        5. I don’t have to prove a negative; you have to prove a positive.
          Prove that Christ taught those things. You can’t because He never even came close to teaching them.
          Idiot cocksucker.

        6. What you’re asking is logically impossible. The onus is on the one making the assertion (i.e., you). The onus is not on the other to prove that nothing ever happened.
          Are you really so stupid and ignorant that you think the onus is someone to prove a negative? Seriously? This exchange is quickly becoming surreal.
          And you haven’t cited a single biblical passage where Christ taught those things, so you haven’t proven jack shit.

        7. You are the stupidest person pretending to be smart I have ever met. May God have mercy on your soul.

        8. You haven’t been able to cite a single passage from Christ in support of those doctrines and you’re calling ME stupid? LOL just more projection from a lightweight.
          And you can’t prove a negative. You can only prove a positive. Any professor of logic will tell you that.
          You really are pathetically ignorant.

        9. Actually, Jesus never told anyone to read the Bible. He told them “if a brother won’t listen to you after a couple attempts to help him, bring him to the Church; and if he won’t hear the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and tax collector.”
          Also, He never said “Upon this Rock I will write my Bible!” He said, “I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will never overcome it!”
          Christ vested authority in the Church, and in the Apostles; He also singled out Peter quite specifically in some very important passages. So if you base your ideas on Christ as the reigning authority on Christianity, you should look to the Church as per His own words.
          …If you want to believe the words He actually spoke, that is, instead of just ignoring the actual contents of Scripture and assuming from the get-go that your prejudices about it are true.

    2. “They had state enforced religion (authority) and demanded that all
      morality be in accord with a book of scriptures, not their own opinions.”
      In theory, yes, but don’t you think the history and current state of Protestantism would be totally different, if the theory worked in practice?
      John 17:21
      “I am not asking on behalf of them alone, but also on behalf of those who will believe in Me through their message, that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. ”
      That verse, to me, narrows the choices down to Roman Catholicism or “Eastern” Orthodoxy, of which I consider Orthodoxy to be the original and right one.

      1. The verse you cite implies that all who believe in Him might one day be united as one, not all who go to a Priest every week and submit to the Pope to be united as one.

        1. I think he means to say, that the Church for the first 1,000 years is one Church, apart from a minor heresy or tiny pop-up group every now and then. At that point, East and West split, making those two groups to be the only ones with anything like a believable claim to represent the original Church.

    3. “They had state enforced religion (authority) and demanded that all morality be in accord with a book of scriptures, not their own opinions”
      But it is their opinion, who gives Protestants the authority or ability to interpret scripture? This is why you can’t find two Protestant churches that agree with each other in all thngs. Protestants only use the Bible to confirm their Biases, as human beings we are imperfect creatures therefore as a person any reading of scripture will be flawed because we ourselves are flawed.

      1. But the Catholics are subject to the same limitations, using reason, tradition, the Pope, and the magisterium to determine doctrine. They’ve produced errors and have had to correct themselves, and some errors persist to this day. The reformation sought to see these errors corrected. Some Protestants still look to the day that she will reform, and perhaps unite East and West as well.

        1. I agree I would love for Protestants to come back to the church. As Catholics we have the unity of faith and are united to the magisterial teachings and the Pope to prevent us from falling into error. I’m not aware of anytime the Church has issued dogma in error or contradicted her doctrine. Do you have examples?
          BTW I’m not saying that no Catholic has ever done anything wrong or that there have been bad practices.

        2. See: Martin Luther, anti-Popes, sinlessness of Virgin Mary, sedevacantism due to the current imposter posing as Pope.

        3. Martin Luther, a Catholic scholar, posted 95 objections to Catholic teachings and practice, focusing on the Pope and bishops and not the laymen. I point to those 95 as a start. Thankfully, the church eventually reformed in some areas he raised. It has also reformed in other areas since then, not associated with Luther

        4. The Church never changed her doctrine or dogma as a result of Lutheranism. From Wikipedia: “Lutheranism advocates a doctrine of justification “by grace alone through faith alone on the basis of Scripture alone”, the doctrine that scripture is the final authority on all matters of faith. This is in contrast to the belief of the Catholic Church, defined at the Council of Trent, concerning authority coming from both the Scriptures and Tradition.[4]”
          That isn’t to say that the Church didn’t get rid of bad practices like indulgences, but Church teaching has never changed.

        5. I’d cite but I can’t now or soon. I went to an RC class to consider joining. I looked up the laws in the catechism. There is no reason to be justified by the RCC. I can be saved and even receive communion as a Protestant under several “penumbra” of doctrine in the catechism. Ergo, Luther pointed this out and and RCC has been forced to acquiesce, whereas before they would’ve been more likely to resist their own”penumbra”
          Tell me about the church doctrine and how it has changed on limbo or purgatory within the last few decades.
          Tell me, is the sinless Mary doctrinal, which scriptures say so, can one be saved believing she’s not, and did Luther et al affect the church orthopraxy here?

        6. The first two points you make apply to the Novus Ordo church. For the the third I suggest you read Aurelius article about Mary on his hermatige blog.

        7. I used to think this way, as I used to be a Protestant.
          But when I looked at the Catholic Church’s history and doctrine, I realized that she really doesn’t teach anything today that you couldn’t find either in whole or in embryo in the very earliest years of the Church. Protestants can only make their arguments by appealing to their interpretations of matters internal to the Scriptures, which is so subjective and volatile a process that Protestantism is continually fracturing itself until, as now, the more popular forms just abandon any rigorous doctrinal notions altogether.
          Catholics can point to a continuous and unchanged body of belief and practice going back to the first century, including the universal and ancient Christian belief that the Church’s Tradition (including her traditional interpretation of Scripture) was the norm of doctrine , including scriptural interpretation, from the beginning of the Church onward.

        8. Luther’s objections are either themselves wrong, or point to abuses which were not sanctioned by the Church as her own, secure doctrine. If you have a specific one in mind, I could address it.

        9. That the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin, is De Fide (i.e., a Dogma which one must believe, at least implicitly, to be a member of the Church and so saved).
          That Mary was free from all sin during her life is a “sententia fidei proxima” (“a proposition second only to the Faith itself”), meaning that to deny it is heresy proxima (“comes right up to the line of heresy,” but is not heresy itself.
          Martin Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin and preached on it.
          General Church doctrine on Limbo/Purgatory is fixed by the Universal, Ordinary Magisterium; it has not changed in any meaningful way in recent years. The thing operating out of Rome is not the Catholic Church, as can be proved by many arguments.

    4. Yes, but the meaning of the Scriptures was determined by their own opinions, and if the State disagreed with their opinions, they vigorously worked to overthrow the monarch or, after a century had or so had passed, they began to install officially relativistic norms in society, where the State was not supposed to interfere in the “private” matter of religion.
      I didn’t bring it up to be rude to Protestants; just to show that this was the first phase of Liberal ideology in the West, which already manifests all the principles of the subsequent phases of Liberal revolution.

        1. Hah! Well, at the risk of offending you further, I consider Protestantism to be a kind of Gnosticism. But early Gnosticism is not connected in a meaningful way to the latter-day Revolution, so far as I can see, and I don’t see that it advanced a theory which required the authority to abdicate jurisdiction in the face of their private beliefs. Tell me more about why you think it was the first phase.

        2. Because your thought experiment has set the conditions that we determine the earliest forms of revolution in the Christian West, we can only consider western philosophies that formed after Christ in the West, and the first one that comes to mind is gnosticism. Gnosticsm is a gross revolution from Christianity, Christian authority, Natural Law, reality, sanity, authority, morality. There were multiple schools of thought in gnosticism as well, so we see that they likely made up their morality as they went along, as you accuse Protestants of doing. some gnostics didn’t want to eat, some did, some didn’t want to handle money, some did; differing morality.
          Seems to me to be a better candidate when trying to determine the first turn against the RCC tradition/founding.

        3. I’d agree with you that it was the first heresy, the first aggression against the integrity of the Apostolic Faith. I just don’t know enough about it, to say that it was a direct progenitor of the Modernist revolution.

  9. I studied Economics at a libertarian leaning university, and until now I couldn’t put my finger on what exactly was wrong with basing everything on the non aggression principle. I think that’s also the reason Ayn Rand could never quite put together a coherent philosophy.

    1. “I think that’s also the reason Ayn Rand could never quite put together a coherent philosophy”
      Being an inbred Ashkenazi probably also contributed.

  10. Modern society has replaced a relationship with God and going to Church with the obsession of hoarding wealth, status and other material ends. RoK does itself no favors by encouraging banging degenerate sluts and acting like the antithesis of what Christianity encourages us to be (good, compassionate, kind-hearted people).
    I’ve consistently noticed that what women appreciate in terms of men is highly indicative of how the society operates. In the Phillipines, I’ve seen gorgeous women go for apparently soft, kind-hearted and providing men (this does not include bar girls). The fact the Catholic Church still lords over people’s lives there should be an answer as to why that is. Now in the United States, one has to be a Gaston-level uberdouche to even get a slice of nookie.
    We ought to put together a Christ-driven society ruled by men of virtue. I considered making it a theocracy (in the style of prince-bishoprics of old), but give me your ideas on how to go about it.

    1. And so, you know these men? To make the assertion that they are soft, kind hearted and providing? By the cover is not a book read…. People could make the same assertion in the states and then would find out differently when they delved in deeper, either that the woman wasn’t committed or the man was only nice in public, something to that affect.

    2. Read about Theonomy, by Rushdoony. That’s where I lean. Libertarian Theonomy, of the Christian father, by the Christian father, for the Christian father, in order to corporately love/obey God and love/serve your family/neighbor (as domestic policy) and bring about the peaceful unity of the nations under the banner of Christ as a foreign policy.

      1. Rushdoony famously said blacks didn’t have much spiritual discipline, so I’ll avoid him right now.
        As for Theonomy, I can’t see how that ties into libertarianism, as OT law mandates there be a top-down justice system that punishes what God deems wrong.

        1. Nearly every writer over the last 3,000 years has violated at least one principle of modern political correctness. To discount them entirely due to lack of political correctness is silly. And I don’t remember this quote, perhaps you’ve taken it out of context?
          Rushdoony called himself a libertarian Theonomist, look up the quote to see how it works. Theonomy can be libertarian. The time in the OT before the judges was libertarian, the refrain being “and everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” Although it was a horror show of rape and murder and blashphemy, now that we have a High Priest And King in heaven, I believe it can work. We already got rid of kings, why not try pre-Judges OT libertarianism again?

        2. “And I don’t remember this quote, perhaps you’ve taken it out of context?”
          Maybe, I don’t know. Also about the political correctness, black people form an entire group of human beings that aren’t exactly unrighteous. In fact, most Christians in this day and age live there.
          “We already got rid of kings, why not try pre-Judges OT libertarianism again?”
          Try it out. See how you could make it work.

      2. There’s a lot of truth to this; once it is contextualized in the real world and makes the necessary adjustments, you essentially have a Christian aristocracy. People mistakenly think that Christian fathers didn’t have rights under the Ancien Regime, when in fact they had all kinds of rights, and they were observed far more honestly and thoroughly than they are today.

    3. If I may, I believe you might benefit from getting out of your typical pool of women. As an american woman, I’ve been very lucky to meet some kind, compassionate men in my life, one of which is now my boyfriend of 2 years.
      Myself and friends have scant patience for men who are boastful or try to throw around aggression in the name of “scoring”. It’s really transparent, and comes off as insecure. Far as I see it, I want someone who is honest and real… And I suppose I must be equally honest and real in order to attract that.
      But then, that comes down to whether one is looking for a best friend in a partner.

    4. “Modern society has replaced a relationship with God and going to Church with the obsession of hoarding wealth, status and other material ends. ”
      We do not even have to deviate from the the current modern secular and relativist paradigm to realize the decadence. Just replace “God” with “natural order” or “innate sense of morality in Homo sapiens” and you will still be able to recognize the literal rot of modern and post-modern “societies” (using quotation marks because the term implies the existence of a set of rules, a moral fiber and a sense of common purpose that keep individuals together and in a mutually beneficial coexistence).

  11. I don’t really get this. The whole point of Christianity is choice. I’m afraid I’m gonna have to respectfully disagree on this one AM

    1. “I don’t really get this. The whole point of Christianity is choice.
      I’m afraid I’m gonna have to respectfully disagree on this one AM”
      The whole point of Christianity is your free will choice in relationship to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christianity doesn’t have anything to do with democracy or supporting “choices” to be able to legally murder babies and practice sodomy and the like.

      1. having freedom to do right or wrong, to affirm or disaffirm the Christian message does require a degree freedom of conscience and of action. Nobody is saying ‘all things are permitted’ but remember it is the death of God (belief) that grants permission for murder and limitless sin

    2. “The whole point of Christianity is choice.”
      I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion. Can you elaborate more? I believe it is acknowledging that Christ died for our sins, among many other tasks that aim to bring us closer to God and perfection.

      1. orthodox christian’s phrase below – free will – is a better phrase than ‘choice’. They are not exact synonyms, but the one could be said to imply the other. Free will / choice is not the same as having ‘rights’ although such rights may make it easier to exercise free will / choice. The point is a simple one, if a priest tells you to do something and you do it, because he has moral / spiritual authority, have you exercised choice / free will. If you can’t see why you do something, or believe something, or adhere to some standard external to your own mind and heart, what is its value? This isn’t an argument for absolute personal autonomy, but for a society that does its best to realise personal agency such that people can exercise free will. I don’t see how Christianity can simply be an argument for a well-ordered society

    3. I don’t think I’d say the whole point of Christianity is choice.
      If you mean that the essence of righteousness is choice, I would again say no, though I begin to see what you’re aiming at.
      Morality/Righteousness is about adhering to the Good. In man’s current state, he is capable of defecting from the Good. This introduces the element of choice into our present condition, and our moral life is about choosing the good as well as we may. When society makes it difficult for individual men to make an immoral choice with ease, in a sense it diminishes their moral potential… but only in the isolated instance. Overall, this can help the soul to develop good habits, by which it actually grows more virtuous than it would have if left at its own license to weaken itself. Moreover, this helps to safeguard the moral ambience of the society at large, protecting the virtuous from living in the blast radius of vicious person’s vices.

      1. “Morality/Righteousness is about adhering to the Good.” / “When society makes it difficult for individual men to make an immoral choice with ease, in a sense it diminishes their moral potential… but only in the isolated instance”
        But I wonder if moral choices mean much if they exist in a highly constrained society where such choices are little more than going with the flow, or worse nothing more than habit. If society is too regimented towards christian dogma or whatever is considered to be the good, then whatever virtue there is can’t really be ‘heroic’ in the christian sense of ‘heroic virtue’. It will be less rather than more conscious. Mechanistic even perhaps`

        1. I understand what you’re saying, but this may begin to explain what is off about it.
          Virtue is an habit of the will. If the only reason I don’t murder my neighbor, is because I’m afraid of getting caught (but otherwise I would do it in an heartbeat), then my choice not to murder him is not moral at all. If I abstain from such crimes for virtuous reasons, this is a moral action. I’m not saying that people are “moral” simply for outward conformity to the good or the law.
          Moral authority wishes to encourage choices that conform to the objective standards of morality, even if the person is only doing it out of constraint. This is entirely good and proper. It is why parents discipline their children. It is why bosses discipline their workers. It is why the king should punish the criminal. No authority figure should sit around hoping and dreaming that their children, workers, etc., will do the right thing out of the goodness of their heart. They threaten them with punishments for doing the wrong thing, and possibly offer rewards for doing the right thing.
          Now, here’s the rub: this kind of training towards the good is useful, first and foremost, for preserving the common good; but it often helps people to develop actual virtue and morality as individuals, too. I.e., by being constrained to do the good in spite of themselves, they often learn to value the good, and to internalize the good, becoming actually moral persons. A person who observes the moral law does not lose his moral goodness simply because there is also the threat of punishment if he disobeys it. And in fact, in the Resurrection man is impeccable, not because there is any fear of punishment thereafter, but because they have been confirmed in the Good.
          Morality is in one’s intent. Authority wants to enforce outwardly moral behavior regardless of intent, both for the common good and also to train the individual in having the right intent. When one has the intent, the law, precept or threat of punishment is, as it were, irrelevant to the person, precisely because he is actually moral and so there is no thought of incurring punishment for crimes he is too virtuous to commit. Thus, the law and the threat of punishment does not in any way diminish the virtue or the moral scope of their actions, just as it does not confer a moral quality upon persons who obey it only out of fear.

        2. “Morality is in one’s intent. Authority wants to enforce outwardly moral behavior regardless of intent, both for the common good and also to train the individual in having the right intent. When one has the intent”
          I think you make a strong case, and in practice, to a large extent, I agree. We all want to live in a well functioning society and hopefully a moral one, where people do good rather than evil as a matter of course. That’s partly why once we reach a certain kind of sensibility we favour not only living in, but also consuming and partaking within certain types of society more than others. I have no desire for instance to live in a violent society, a terribly poor society or for that matter a grossly stupid one. On the other hand there is something slightly post-utopian about such very well-ordered societies. I don’t mean that they are a pipe dream, or aren’t achievable – but that in a sense they might have started out as some kind of utopian vision (say in the sense of plato’s republic, or More’s utopia etc) i.e. we have a vision of trying to perfect order within society, then we achieve it, and then the task becomes to keep it well-oiled and running.
          I would like for the most part to live in such a society, but I’m not entirely convinced its necessarily for the good as a whole, if you like sub specie aeternitatis (allowing for the likelihood that it may not be for us to worry about such things). Basically I think we need longer leashes, if not necessarily infinitely long ones. We need the freedom to do wrong, and even to do evil to an extent. I’m not saying the state shouldn’t keep order. It should. That’s because the state is an instrument of social order and cohesion (hopefully). But when it comes to religion and religious freedom, to the extent we learn how to behave, how to believe, what to feel, how to treat people is good only because it makes for a practically better society, but less so insofar as it may remove our capacity to ‘see’ why those things are necessary.
          I don’t want to be guilty of nihilism, but I think at some point when we work towards trying to create a decent society (which I do think is the proper purpose of civil society / politics etc) we come up against the problem of evil. Things go wrong, sometimes terribly wrong, at that point perhaps we fail to see why something is good, or we become unsure whether it is good, and to my mind that it is a good rather than a bad thing. It cannot be or rather should not be circumvented entirely, even if it may need to be managed.
          I feel somewhat that there is too much certainty in your schema. It is too paternalistic. If the church, the father / mother, priest etc has a valid function in an instructor / adult / parental role then at some point that function must involve stepping back. In educational theory the equivalent to parenting is sometimes caused scaffolding. As the child grows and learns more the teacher pulls back, the scaffolding is removed partially and then completely (this is not unlike what you describe) and at the end point the child has hopefully learned and understood for himself – that much is entirely consistent with what you say. The problem though is if there may be other ways, or if a more complete learning, a more complete seeing might involve perhaps rebellion, negation, kicking away the scaffolding, failing to see, without it necessarily being inevitable that all that is required is avuncular correction.
          I believe people need to be able to see for themselves. They can’t be forced to see correctly, in part because it may not always be clear what is in fact correct or right (why else would people have crises of faith, uncertainty, doubts, moral dilemmas and other quandaries).

        3. Aurelius has a nice comment defining proper freedom above.
          While our society is too ‘maternalistic’ you are afraid that the aristocratic society Aurelius paints here will be too paternalistic, so well ordered that leaves no room for error and genuine learning.
          I doubt it but it is not impossible. The pendulum certainly can swing too far in the opposite direction. In a sense, it is not even in our hands. We can live a virtuous life but that does not grant us peaceful life or well-ordered life. God can challenge us in many ways.
          The beauty of God being personal is that He really is the supreme ruler of the universe with His heavenly court, aristocracy and hierarchy. So we are already involved in an aristocratic society without being aware of it.
          People kept coming to padre Pio with their problems and wishes. When they received help from above the good padre usually reminded them to thank this or that saint for doing the favor. I understand it as a great picture of our personal bonds to the entire court of Heaven that goes back to the Creator Himself. In such a personal universe the role of ‘system’ or ‘mechanism’ or ‘checks and balances’ is rather less important.
          I don’t mean your comment implies it but sometimes the discussion is focused too much on what we can *do* instead of what we can be given. False self-sufficiency is earliest of our errors.

        4. Thanks for your comment, which is interesting and coloured with a faith that seems quite poetic to me.
          I don’t know for sure whether I agree or disagree with your post. It references a Catholic world view I am a somewhat unfamiliar with: I am still getting my head round the idea of a ‘heavenly court’ and the hierarchy descending from it.
          “In such a personal universe the role of ‘system’ or ‘mechanism’ or ‘checks and balances’ is rather less important.”
          I can see how that might be the case. But I am not really arguing for personal self-sufficiency, which is not my vantage point. I don’t see it as ‘prideful’ for it to matter that people can make their own minds up about things. If it boils down to no more than affirmation or negation of all that you have described, then still that is for the individual to determine according to conscience.

        5. I certainly agree that the point of moral training and education, should be to help people see for themselves why morality is true. I also agree that sometimes disillusion can be a spur in this direction when incentives to that process are failing. Certainly the Church has long had a sense that sin was, in a sense, necessary: “O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum, quod Christi morte delétum est! O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem!”
          Certainly God, the State, parents and other authorities often tolerate certain evils or shortcomings; God always does so in perfect wisdom; human authorities must recognize in such an act the greatest need for all their efforts at prudence. But willingness to tolerate a man in his errors never excuses the deliberate occlusion of truth, nor the abdication of the offices of punishment when necessary.

        6. “Certainly the Church has long had a sense that sin was, in a sense, necessary”
          There was a Russian author who once wrote that ‘without evil, God would not be necessary.” If that’s true, it is an uncomfortable truth, particularly if it is our purpose to defeat evil. It creates a degree of paradox perhaps
          In terms of ‘errors’ then, to follow this line of thought (which may of course be in error itself) the error is kind of the point. Why the prodigal son comes to be – almost unjustly – favoured over the dutiful one.
          There is also the sense perhaps that it is through error that we learn, including as potential adults. We remain God’s children even in adulthood but in the same relative way that we remain the children of our parents even when we are ourselves aged

  12. I dont personally believe that religion is a starting point for ethical behavior. I strongly believe that there are values/morals that are inherent within us that have been shaped by evolution and our continued progression into a “civilized” society. There are a lot of good things that come from religious practice, but also a lot of bad. I dont think by embracing secular “religion” (as the author puts it), means abandoning sane principles. There is a significant amount of discourse via Philosophy that is not grounded in religious thinking and has much to say about ethics and morality. In my opinion, that discourse is much more important to society than any religious teaching.

    1. The secular humanist philosophy is one in which mankind is reduced to the lowest common denominator. The idea of inherent rights to humans is a fairy tale.
      In nature the strong survive. The weak perish. The wolf is not equal to the lamb it eats.
      Any discourse that fails to necessitate the importance of Natural Law is one that is easily seen by the student of history to be a method of control for the masses.
      There is little evidence we are “progressing” in any other sense than the material and perhaps technical in some areas.
      Our ancient history is littered with civilizations that were much greater and grander than the urban cesspool of multicultural filth we see today in the “modern” world. To this day we still do not know how the pyramids of Egypt were even built.
      Our art forms and architecture reflect a vulgar people in decline. The progress that needs to occur is a complete collapse of the modern world. Having too many useless eaters is a recipe for disaster when the government spigot of printed money runs out.
      Our great civilizations of the past were great because they did not aspire for the material or the earthly.
      They were inspired by looking above to the Sky. By looking upwards to divinity in the cosmos.
      When religious and spiritual systems expressed this hierarchy through the Natural Law or Order of the world we see the foundation of ethics as the Nuclear Family. This used to be represented in the religions of said cultures and when it was, the society had beautiful art, architecture and an ordered structure of hierarchy.
      Your conception of morality, philosophy etc hinges on your idea of “rights” for the people. You cannot even fathom that not all men are created equal and that is why we have an atomized society deracinated from the high cultures of our past.
      In its place we have the lingering turd of mediocrity. But hey everyone is free and has the right to be a simp.

      1. I do believe that there are genuine rights. But yes, the essential conceptualization of “rights” in the modern mind is utter bullshit, and in that sense I can agree with you.

        1. You misunderstand Natural Law if you think “might is right” is a principle of it. That would be the “Law of the Jungle.” The concept destroys the very basis of the right.

        2. “That would be the “Law of the Jungle.” The concept destroys the very basis of the right.”
          Some of us are being pragmatic and allies of more than convenience. Morality descending from Skydaddy and morality ascending from mere bestial necessity at this point both correspond to “natural law” which modernist rodents have chewed away like the roots of Yggdrasil dragging us all down to their self-destructive path.

    2. “…but also a lot of bad”
      What bad things come from religious practice? And I don’t mean Muslim pedophilia, but Catholic Doctrinal practices? I cannot think of an example.
      Do you mean like fasting makes you weak or something?

      1. Well one of the bad via Christian doctrinal practices is they spread unsubstantiated claims via the bible that have to be taken on faith exclusively. I follow a biblical scholar named Bart Ehrman who in his early years was a born again fundamentalist who completed seminary but then over the course of 25 years of studying the new testament, became agnostic. Through his research, he suggests that there are a plethora of claims in the bible that cannot be objectively stated as fact and there are many discrepancies that cannot be reconciled.
        He has written over 30 books on the new testament and has some very compelling stuff to say about how problematic the bible is as well as the people who spread it’s contents. Christians generally are not wiling to admit all of the inaccuracies and discrepancies that are found in the bible and it is easier to sit and listen to scripture than to try to understand it’s content in the context of when it was created and how it relates to our world now. One can even read just a simple introduction to the philosophy of religion to have the basic worries of religion revealed to them. That is what I mean when I say “Bad”.

    3. Every argument or opinion that proposes or depends upon a transcendent value, is a religious argument. Most people just don’t think things through to First Principles, anymore.

  13. This two fags with that kid abused that child horrifically I’m pretty use. Think there was an article on ROK about it

    1. There is more gaybies (children adopted by gays) with other horror stories to tell.
      Also single mothers. One boy was repeatedly raped at 5-10 years old by his mother’s gay best friend

    2. Yes they did, that’s why I included them. They had a tv news special and a newspaper article dedicated to them and their championing of gay “rights.” Then it was revealed that they were flying all over the world, putting him in bed with every disgusting pedophile that wanted him.
      Death to “tolerance.” It’s time to excise the tumors upon society, though at this point I think our hands are unworthy and God has reserved the honor to Himself.

  14. Yep, great points! I think we will wake up, Trump will bring up the fact that males don’t have a right to be pregnant and women don’t have a right to impregnate. Liberals will recoil in horror, but soon they will admit that it is true, men and women have different rights and we don’t get to choose which right we have. Same sex couples don’t have a right to procreate together. Marriages are supposed to mean the couple has the right to procreate together. So when we ban male pregnancy and female impregnation, we will also have to ban all same sex marriages.

    1. I really do understand the desire and the hope and respect it. That said….this is what trump will do….it is one of two things….Either 1) lose or 2) nothing

      1. I think you’re right. The only thing that maybe could happen, is that Trump might turn a blind eye, as it were, if there were a wee bit of vengeance and a few “unfortunate accidents” arranged for certain disruptive elements by reinvigorated white men. Even that may be too much to hope for.

  15. This was well-written and respect to the author for writing it. I do disagree though. I believe the individual, and “freedom” trump all else. (No I’m not a liberal, bear with me.)
    1. “Rights” are bullshit. They do not exist. Take the simplest one, your right to life. Someone kills you. Your “right to life” has been infringed. What now? Nothing, you’re dead. So much for that. Rather than relying on a right, rely on yourself for survival.
    2. Morality can be dictated by anyone, even God, but the individual still has to accept it as his morality. Every action is a choice. All talk about morality goes out the window when faced with a difficult choice. Conscientious objection to war is a great example of how one man’s morality is at odd’s with another’s. Your freedom isn’t granted by government or a bill of rights, but resides within you, to make whatever choices and suffer whatever consequences may come as a result.
    3. Laws – restrictions of freedom in the name of security or morality, can be deterrents in some cases. Again, an individual still has a choice to make. Hiding taxable income or smoking weed are examples of breaking laws with little chance of detection. Whether the offender is “immoral” is up to him. Laws exist mainly because society – a collection of individuals – mostly chooses to accept and follow them. But not everyone.
    4. It’s true that unless stranded on a deserted island, each individual is part of society (no man is an island). The corollary is, as I said above, society is nothing but a collection of individuals. It’s a marketplace filled with billions of transactions. The aggregate choices dictate what the majority believes is “right” most of the time. E.g.: lynching – illegal supposedly, but not truly until the general market began rejecting it as an acceptable form of justice.
    Prior to the Enlightenment and Protestantism, people weren’t somehow more moral or law-abiding. They were making personal choices based on the information they had at the time. The Doge of Venice, for example, defied the Pope repeatedly during the Holy Wars in the name of commerce. The Venetians were often threatened with excommunication for warring on Christian peoples. With a fortune at stake, they were obviously insufficiently impressed with the moral guidelines of the church and made their choice. Freedom existed then, too.

    1. Thank you for the substantive reply. In regards to…
      1) That someone can violate a right, does not mean that the right does not exist. I certainly believe in rights, but rights abstracted from objective morality do not and cannot exist.
      2) Morality, to be morality in any meaningful sense, is intrinsic to the order of being and is not a matter of dictation, not even on God’s behalf. Contrary to your opinion, I think the science of morality shines through most brilliantly precisely when difficult questions are evaluated. The fact that people disagree is not a discredit to the Truth or to Morality; people disagree about the age of the earth, the origins of man, quantum mechanics, etc., etc.; it doesn’t mean there isn’t a right or wrong view.
      3) Laws should be guided by the objective norms of morality; sometimes, man being fallible, they are not. A man is not immoral simply for breaking a law, but neither is the criterion of morality “up to him.”
      4) I agree that society usually sets acceptable norms of behavior, and that this is not always in conformity with morality; I disagree that morality is (therefore?) relative.
      And as regards your last comments, I think the organizing principles of pre-Modern society were objectively more moral; there is nothing intrinsically immoral in defying the pope or having sentence of excommunication passed upon one’s self. Often the men in such situations have been saints. Yes, man’s life is in the hands of his own counsel; that has no impact upon the transcendence of Truth, however.

  16. Wonderful article and well done, but I would have to say one thing. It’s too long and complicated for general use…
    I’m maybe officially Christian but it’s has been a long time since I attended, and as a head of family my chosen religion is Japanese Shinto and Buddhism,
    I am not sure the denomination of faith is that important, but taking a traditional male provider role is IMO.

    1. Do you worship the emperor and all? Not asking out of being an ass, just curious. I practice kendo and have studied zen, and have gotten much of value from both. I ultimately returned to Christianity with these treasures in tow and found they added much.

      1. Hmm not directly, but I do think I understand what you are tugging at.
        On that respect I would have to hand your question over to the monks and priests of the temples I frequent. I am not sure I can accurately answer that. I suppose I do also worship the emperor as well.
        You do realize that it’s a lot more than what you choose to pit against your beliefs?
        To me I found a kind of peace I never knew before it in the zen gardens and temples of Japan…
        I was thinking about this and well I’m the kind of guy who has the Yasukuni and offerings as mandatory for a Tokyo visit.
        That’s my answer heh.

        1. Fair enough. I too have greatly enjoyed and benefited from the peaceful aura surrounding the shrines of which you speak. Traveled in Japan three times and visited about 20 of them. Some were absolutely beautiful…there was one on the Kii peninsula with a very tall waterfall that I particularly enjoyed. Have also visited Yasukuni during o-Hachiman festival. I have great respect for Shinto and Buddhism alike.

        2. My favourite is Kiyomizu-dera in Kyoto. And a really small temple in Arashiyama.
          I never got anything out of Christianity so to say, it never meant anything to me. But I do get something from Buddhism, everything I wanted and wished for is in a way linked to it. And Shinto gives me a tangible way to connect with both nature and the great people I admire as true history changing leaders. I have prayed at their shrines for strength and resolve to be able to do what I want.
          And wether it’s because of that or not, matters less than the fact that I did get where I wanted and did what I wanted.

      2. I practice my own concept of Sintoism, more specifically the Kojimaist denomination, that revolves around artistic depictions of lesbianism and smugness, with some influences from pre-Dynastic Egyptian frog-related paganism and some early Christian influences regarding the Will of God and annihilation of spit-roasted meat of mesooriental origin from premises.

        1. Sounds like you like to go to church, and then visit a Chinese buffet and look at some dirty magazines. This is a faith I can get behind.

    2. “I’m maybe officially Christian but it’s has been a long time since I
      attended, and as a head of family my chosen religion is Japanese Shinto
      and Buddhism, I am not sure the denomination of faith is that important, but taking a traditional male provider role is IMO.”
      You’d be better off being becoming a house husband and letting your wife be the provider, or abandoning your family altogether, to live as Orthodox Christian (even if as homeless hermit), of which Japan has a few. Hell, you’d be better off chopping off your manhood, if that was price to follow Christ. If Buddhism is true, then nothing lost that a reincarnation or two won’t fix. If Christianity is true, then you condemned yourself to eternal suffering and contributed to the eternal damnation of your family and everyone around you.

      1. What are you smoking and how can I get some?
        I never had a doubt that Christianity was a bucket of bullcrap, but I was very surprised at and pleasantly so, by Bhuddism.
        Fuck you and your wanker opinions, since we are on ROK when did you last game a girl?
        My guess is never hahaha.

        1. People like OrthodoxChristian are simply true believers. Don’t worry about him. Odds are that no religion on earth is correct and that God (if He exists at all) is nothing like what we’ve imagined. Forget naysayers like OC and just focus on yourself.

        2. “Odds are that no religion on earth is correct and that God (if He exists at all) is nothing like what we’ve imagined.”
          That’s no excuse to not PURGE THE HERETICS!

  17. america should just split back into two. liberals and conservatives. oh but wait, liberals don’t want that either…I wonder why. could it be that THEY are the leaches and the conservatives are the producers? couldn’t be…

    1. “america should just split back into two.”
      Not that simple, unfortunately.
      Looking at a precinct map of the US, America tends to be purple; even the reddest states have their blue parts (mostly in cities).

      1. obviously not going to happen. just a thought experiment to show the differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals deny freedom of association because to do so they would have to admit that they are lazy good-for-nothings.

      2. Sounds like somebody read the Balkanization article over at Social Matter. I did too. I still think that there will be some kind of split, though.

      3. California has a good bit of Red in it, but with the major cities attached to it, it will always turn out Blue.

  18. With this article there is hope yet for the Roman Rite. I may even take out my rosary.
    “Until men with just convictions no longer fear to take up the sword of a righteous authority, and to smite those who demand the right to dissent from justice and just authority, the West will continue to tear itself apart with a specious and manifestly prevaricating, passive-aggressive, intolerant “tolerance.”
    Excuse me brother but fuck yea.
    One day society will take the red pill possibly with no choice in the matter. You cannot sustain passive-aggressive nonsense without something else filling the void.

    1. There is a faithful remnant in the Church. Look to the SSPX, the SSPV and other traditionalist organizations. There are serious problems in many other traditionalist bastions, although usually their political and theological views are correct.

    2. “possibly with no choice in the matter”
      ἀνάγκᾳ δ᾿ οὐδὲ θεοὶ μάχονται
      Necessity cannot be opposed even by gods.
      -Simonides of Ceos

  19. Curious. When it comes to liberal societal decay, the Catholic Church has been one of the driving forces, exercising a disproportionate amount of influence in our courts and legislature. And more than its share of harm. The current SCOTUS is Catholic and Jewish. It’s unified in insanity and killing America.
    Whenever I read something straight up evil said by a talking head, I play a little game called Catholic or Jew. It’s amazing how often it’s one or the other.

    1. You are ignorant if you think catholic or christian principles are the guiding force of any policy. That ship sailed long ago.

    2. Yes, I’ve mentioned this before. My explanation, is that the most morally guilty and twisted persons, are those who are apostates from God, or have imbibed the culture of apostasy from God.
      Apostate Jews and Catholics are far and away the most destructive elements in society, just as authentic Catholics and authentic Catholic doctrine are the most constructive, civilization-building elements in society.
      For example, I imagine you would agree that the best influences on the Court recently were Scalia and Thomas, both more or less orthodox Catholics. The worst influence has probably been Kennedy (an apostate), but only because of his position as a pivot; objectively the worst opinions on the Court are the opinions of Jewish women (Kagan, Ginsberg, Sotomayor).

  20. This article is bullshit. The whole point of being to choose, say, which religion to believe in is because no one person should be able to tell another what religion he has to follow. By what right does he do so? He has none. Furthermore, he has no way of knowing that the other man’s choice is wrong, so how can he possibly justify religious repression on even a pragmatic level?
    Freedom of life, liberty, and property were concepts that led to the West dominating the world. It is the reason for our power and prosperity. The fact that you guys are challenging these concepts is laughable.

    1. “e has no way of knowing that the other man’s choice is wrong,”
      just want to point out that this is exactly the argument that faggots give for, ya know, thinking being faggots is great.

      1. That’s the whole argument for freedom, actually, and it doesn’t rebut my argument at all.
        Your statement is a guilt by association fallacy, dipshit.

        1. no, your being..ya know…well…you refutes your argument.
          I merely pointed out that you are reiterating every argument faggots give for saying it is totally awesome to throw a butt fucking parade.
          I didn’t pass judgement. You did. So enjoy your parade….faggot.

        2. Dude it’s cool. You know what. There are good people here. I wish you wouldn’t be such a cunt. But, ya know, whatevs. I would make the following suggestion: Take a few seconds…just a few….take a deep breath and ask “am i online pissing on other people because they disagree with me?”
          You are giving quite the impression of your idea of freedom. Freedom to be a twat. Freedom to be a faggot.
          For what it’s worth…I am all for it. I think my belief of not fucking giving a shit about god is well on the record on this website…..that said…I do my best to try not to shit on it and I will tell you why — not because I am humble because fuck shit that would be a lie….but because I give people a chance to believe what they believe.
          So which one of us really believes in freedom?

        3. meanwhile, because I am feeling generous, let me teach you what a logical fallacy is. Take, for instance, the most famous one. Post hoc Ergo Propter hoc. Before, therefore, because of. This is a logical fallacy.
          The logic is that if something comes first then it is the cause.
          So, look where it might be a fallacy. Ice Cream Sales Rise in Inner Cities and so does crime. It is a post hoc argument to say that ice cream sales in inner cities cause crime. Especially when you can say that heat and poverty don’t mix etc.
          To lets say someone gets shot in the head and dies. To say that being shot in the head was the cause of his death is a post hoc argument. And, guess what, despite that it is still true.
          The fallacy is not that all post hoc arguments are false, but rather that not all post hoc arguments are true.
          So yes, you are correct, when i call you a faggot it is guilt by association and guilt by association is in fact a logical fallacy meaning it isn’t always true….however, in your case…YOU ARE A FAGGGGGOOOOOOTTTTT

        4. “I wish you wouldn’t be such a cunt”
          You started the name-calling. Not that I care, but take responsibility for your actions.
          “I give people a chance to believe what they believe.”
          That’s clearly what I’ve been arguing for this whole time. How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

        5. no,, you are saying that people are free to believe exactly what you believe which is, yet again, exactly what faggots are saying. Dude…stop flirting with me.

        6. I hope you aren’t paying for college. If you are, whatever it is, you can just pay pal me that shit

        7. You’ve been replying to all my posts consistently and you’re telling ME to stop flirting with YOU?
          You tell yourself whatever you need to.

        8. I thought I could help you learn something. It is a weakness of mine. I give people the benefit of the doubt for being on this site. I know when I am beaten. Good luck proving how awesome you are. I wish you all the best.

        9. The principle is of potentially universal extension. Only present comfort levels slow the advance of the relativistic premise’ application.
          “X has no way of knowing that Y’s choice to sodomize children is wrong.”
          “X has no way of knowing that wearing women’s flayed skins is wrong.”
          And if they say, “Well, nobody has the right to do harm to another person,” one can say, what, I wonder?
          “X has no way of knowing that doing harm is actually wrong.”
          Seriously, they say we have no right to impose our views or truths. That men can be wrong. Well, they seem pretty damned sure of their Non-Aggression Principle, Relativism, etc. The difference, is that they do so in a contradictory and incoherent way, not understanding the premises of their own views.

        10. So true and it’s such hypocrisy. They are enthralled with the idea of allowing everything under the sun, but then will suddenly adopt the objective Non Aggression Principle when the fruits of their misguided philosophy might actually hurt them.
          We see this in Europe where they brought in a million Muslims saying: “Keep your beliefs, practices, and traditions, do whatever you want, here’s some money we want you to culturally enrich us, but please just don’t hurt anyone.” How did that work out?

    2. But, what’s the point of all that if you’re wrong? Why must error be preserved at the expense of truth? There s a way of knowing if the other man’s choice is wrong, because we are living in a society with ample proof already. Why is society degrading all around us? It begins with relativism, the belief that truth is relative to each person instead of objective.

      1. Society is degrading because we are subsidizing people’s choices. Women want to have children outside of wedlock? Fine, let them, but they don’t get a dime of welfare, either. Under THAT system, bastardy would drop about 90%. End the subsidization, and the problem solves itself.
        Don’t forget that freedom also entails responsibility. Our society doesn’t promote freedom, ergo.

        1. But, where does that all come from? You have to keep going backward, and understand how mindsets and ideas are transferred and get their origins.
          For example, most Conservatives and Libertarians pretty much stop at the Founders when they study the philosophy behind America. But I kept going further. One time, I asked myself a very important question: What if we somehow achieve the miracle of reducing government to its constitutional limits and pay down the debt – how long would it take for us to get right back to our predicament? The answer is very fast, possibly within a generation. Why?
          Mindset. Or, more importantly, the nature of moral relativism as it began since Martin Luther, Rene Descartes, and John Locke. It’s a very complicated issue. The idea that an individual can decide what is right or wrong for himself is really at the core of it, and it begets a prideful presumption that the individual is somewhat infallable, which only promotes error.
          When you give errors protection, error will prevail over truth, because people prefer the pretty and easy lie to the ugly and hard truth.

        2. Re your third paragraph, as I said to others in this Comments section, the West has practiced religious freedom for a few centuries now, and up to this point have been the world’s reigning heavyweight champion in terms of military might, wealth, and technological progress. You medieval-minded individuals don’t have a leg to stand on.
          And regarding your last paragraph, who’s to say that what you say is true and what others say is error when it could be the other way around. That’s why we practice freedom, because we have the humility (well, not you, obviously) to concede that we could be wrong.

        3. That’s a very simplistic conclusion you have there. The notion being that without Americanist or Enlightenment notions of freedom (which are a false premise for so many reason) we wouldn’t be so prosperous or advanced is nonsense. It ignores the real history and other elements in play.
          We don’t really practice freedom. What we practice is liberty, and those are two very different things. What’s worse is that we don’t have humility. I do, but you don’t. Why? Because humility is a recognition of Truth. Because of that, we do not conceded that we could be wrong about anything, especially Americanists, and especially liberals. My God, how much has the notion of man-made climate change, in all its forms, been debunked? And yet, we have an entire political movement that continues to peddle this nonsense, among other myths and legends.
          How is it that same-sex marriage got enacted? That’s a lesson right there in how “free” we actually are. What good is free speech if error prevails? Or if we cannot call out factions of our society as the traitors to the nation that they are? It’s precisely because we don’t really have free speech because it is not guided by Truth in our nation. What we have is libertine speech, where any gutteral utterance is given the same, if not more, protections as truth to the point where our society is dying from it.
          Freedom is power, and power that doesn’t accomplish what it means to do is ineffectual. Think about it. How powerful, really, are you? If you consider history, people were far, far, far more powerful under monarchs than they have been in our so-called free republics; never have any European monarch ever taxed their subjects the way America taxes us today! This is because democracies/republics do not exist. They are fantasies. There is only monarchy and oligarchy, and we live in an oligarchy, and oligarchies always make the nations they rule into pig troughs, to where they see you ONLY and FOREMOST as an economic cypher. The mere act of voting doesn’t make you more free than the common European subject; it actually absolves the elected officials from personal accountability, by transferring authority from their hands into as many people as possible, which means there is no real authority to do anything, giving the elected and unelected oligarchs more power to reign over us according to their self-interest. None of them are responsible for the nation on the whole, not even the President. His only job is to make sure the government is operating to the whims of the oligarchy.
          So, maybe you ought to rethink freedom a bit more.

        4. I dont think so single mothers and the law will just find other measures to keep their pockets full while you pay for it

        5. No, you need to rethink it.
          Humility is not ‘recognizing the Truth’ because people clearly disagree on what is true (e.g., the big questions of life as well as the smaller ones).
          People have honest, non-egotistical reasons for disagreement. A humble person recognizes that. An arrogant person such as yourself does not.
          And as for the rest of your overly long, wordy response: all the problems that you describe can be solved by only letting (white) men with property vote. No need to go back to feudalism and monarchy.

        6. If only white men with property could vote, they wouldn’t. That’s the whole issue, here: all these neoreactionaries think we need to use 15th century France as a model when things were just fine in the United States in 1789.

        7. What I said was civilizational-level cuckoldry. You know, letting tens of millions of Third World peasants into this country. When this country was 90% white, we were just fine and would have remained that way even with all those icky freedoms like choosing which religion you wanted to practice.
          All you stupid Catholics are just mad you can’t murder those you disagree with anymore.

        8. Thank for proving you are stupid and ignorant. I guess those are the final fruits of liberalism and protestantism where the iq of civilized people is dragged down to the level of savages. You are the white version of the paranoid nigger who sees the “man” behind every nook and crany oppressing him. Congratulations

        9. ^A response full of insults and 0 arguments. That’s because you can’t actually rebut anything I said. Enjoy knowing that, little bitch.

        10. Full of insults? That’s your specialty so get used to it.
          What arguments? If you think immigrants are responsible for the decay of the West you are more stupid than you seem. As I said before you are the white version of the paranoid niggers unable to analyze or think and like a woman you just emote and repeat second hand ideas. Bye faggot.

        11. The United States was at the apex of its power and wealth in the 1950’s (and was 90% white). Since then, it’s been a long slow decline due to letting tens of millions of Third World, low IQ peasants into the country. Race matters. More than anything else, actually.
          So, yeah, you’re fucking ignorant. Bye cocksucking bitch.

        12. And why are we subsidizing people’s choices?
          Because it is the logical progression of Liberalism to do so!

        13. You put it perfectly. Errors can at best be tolerated. Saying that one has a right to an error, a right to a wrong, is the incoherence upon which Modernity is built.

        14. That people disagree about truth, says nothing about the Truth itself. Disagreement about truth certainly doesn’t privilege your agnostic version of truth over mine. The fact that you would disagree, is proof that you don’t actually disavow truth or the imposition of your version of it on the public. You simply invoke it as a magical ward against the advance of firmer ideas.
          The principle that we must abdicate enforcement of x because people disagree, ultimately justifies any possible form of degeneracy, and demands that we tolerate it on the grounds that we are obliged to “agree to disagree.” Liberals are willing to do this while shrinking from things we are not yet conditioned to accept, but their arguments provide the premises, always, for demanding acceptance of the next form of degeneracy. Once public disgust at that form of degeneracy is abated, then the Liberal premises kick in and demand its approval.
          It is a slide into complete relativism and misrule, with the “ick factor” being the only semi-functional brake on an essentially runaway train.

        15. “But I kept going further. ”
          Not further enough. You can go as back as the early paleolithic and realize that the concept of morality was based on ethological natural selection resulting from inter- and intra-tribal social dynamics, you can also give it a theistic flavour as long as you are not a full-blown science-denying young earth creationist and say that God did it this way since they really don’t directly contradict each other; the essence of the story is that a semi-universal sense of morality, an instinctual form of social guidelines, is well established in the human psyche and for a good reason too despite of relativists’ attempts to trivialize it and discredit it with pseudo-rationalist sophistries. That’s something even the (real) Pope and Richard Dawkins can agree at.

    3. “Freedom of life, liberty, and property were concepts that led to the West dominating the world” – the colonial period was a very weak “domination of the world”. It wasn’t any kind of true dominion. It was done to extract resources and feed a greedy system. Look instead to a time when the West really dominated the world, I.E. Rome or Macedon. These were empires that had real, lasting effects. These are empires are still revered today by the people they subjugated, you get no similar sense of glory from the colonial period. My point is, those classical civilizations were built on virtue – just as the article suggests.
      We can do the life, liberty, property nonsense and have a couple colonies in which the people are treated like crap – then turn into a liberal cucked democracy a century later and call that dominion. OR we can build a civilization based on classic virtue and rule with God’s hand for a millennia.

      1. Now you’re just being pedantic. The West has been the wealthiest and most powerful (up to this point) of all the world’s civilizations for the past 500 years, so telling me we need to go back to the medieval point of view is laughable.
        The results speak for themselves. And as for the civilizational level cuckoldry that we’re experiencing, that’s the result of not leaving people to the consequences of their decisions. Instead we subsidize it through the welfare state and other means. The solution is to get rid of mass suffrage, not go back to feudalism.

        1. Strange response. I don’t see how anything I’ve said was ‘pedantic’ in any way, might want to look up the definition of ‘pedant’. Secondly, Rome and Macedon were not medieval – that’s an error on your part. So what, then, is the “medieval point of view” (lol) that Rome had? Why can’t classical virtue and governance be reinstated to glorious effect? Again, yes, the results DO speak for themselves; Rome dominated the entire known world for 1000 years, Alexander conquered the entire known world without a single lost battle. You can’t seriously tell me the colonial period was somehow more enlightened, victorious, and long-standing than Rome?

        2. If you can’t see it, that’s fine.
          Anyway, in this discussion, medieval and classical are largely the same because they have the same viewpoint: a top-down system of telling people how to approach life.
          Moving on: Considering that the West has done very well for itself even with all this religious freedom that you don’t like (along with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right for individual citizens to bear arms, etc.), you don’t have a leg to stand on when you say that we need to back to a top-down system where all those freedoms disappear.

        3. Yes, it has. It’s only in the last couple of decades where this civilizational-level cuckoldry has become an issue. A simple return to allowing males with property to vote will fix that problem. We don’t need the Bill of Rights to disappear.

        4. That system was far more free than the one we have now. You act as though there is freedom in sin but there is only slavery in sin. A society built upon truth and virtue supports freedoms that are good in and of themselves ie right to self defence, property ownership ect. And does not recognise “freedoms” that are evil such as a right to lie, religious liberty ect. If you want a less abstract view consider how free you really are in this enlightened “free” society: you pay close to half your income in taxes so you do not own your own labor, heavy regulations prevent you from freely exercising it, you pay property taxes so you do not own your own home, everything you do is regulated and controlled to a certain degree. Back in the medieval times all you had to do was to show up to church and pay a (usually) small tithing to the local lord. I believe George Orwell said: the more I hear people saying they are free the more I hear their chains rattling.

        5. “You act as though there is freedom in sin but there is only slavery in sin.”
          I’m talking about political freedom. It’s not your place to tell others what religion they should follow, what gender they should fuck, or in what order they should do the marriage and kids thing.
          And regarding the rest of your statement on taxes, a simple return to only white property-owning men being able to vote will fix that problem. We don’t need to go all the way back to the 15th fucking century to fix these problems. Jesus, you lack imagination.

        6. I don’t see how you can argue for political freedom and at the same time say I should not have the political freedom to my beliefs. You talk about political freedom then give several examples of sexual morality I really don’t see on what basis you believe we should have laws. For if we can say that those things are ok we can excuse any degenerate forms of behavior.

        7. Where did I argue that you should not have the freedom to believe your religion? Nowhere. Nice try, bitch.
          “You talk about political freedom then give several examples of sexual morality”
          We have the freedom to do those things in this particular polity. That’s what I meant.
          “For if we can say that those things are ok we can excuse any degenerate forms of behavior.”
          No shit, Sherlock. That’s what I’m arguing. It’s not your place to tell others how to run their lives when their actions don’t harm your freedoms, your body, or your property.

        8. You re saying I have no recourse to politics for those particular policies. Who are you to deny my political rights!? You are a hypocrite and a fascist and I would appreciate it if you would cease imposing your subjectivism on everybody else.

        9. You have the right to practice your religion, you fucking dipshit. I wholeheartedly support said right. And ‘imposing my subjectivism’? That’s what YOU’RE fucking doing!
          And just so we’re on the same page: what freedoms do you think I want to take away from you?

        10. No a society founded on moral truths does not impose subjectivism because it denies bad behavior, only a twisted mind could think that. Because guess what not everybody wants to live in a San francisco where trannies walk the streets and bums deficate on the sidewalk. You are imposing that on everyone and then denying people the right to redress greviences against it all in the name of freedom, which is why you are a fascist and a hypocrite. Most people don’t want to live in your nihilist subjective world stop imposing it! We do not live in a vacuum you believe in what you say this is why you are such a vile and nasty person. Beliefs do matter and they affect a whole lot which is exactly why I don’t want a society based on your beliefs not only are they wrong, but they turn what would be good people into terrible human beings!

        11. The projection here is staggering. You’re arguing for taking away (among other things) people’s freedom of religion and you’re saying that I’M the fascist…simply incredible. You really are a piece of shit and a fucking snake.
          Anyway, you’re saying that we should live in a society founded on ‘moral truths,’ but, again, you can’t know for sure that your beliefs are true. Therefore, it’s not your place to tell people what church to attend, who to fuck, etc. That stuff neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.
          Learn to appreciate freedom, you little bitch.

        12. If you are going to loose an argument you should learn to lose with grace, because the way your going you will be losing a lot of them.

        13. LOL more projection. You’re getting your ass kicked. It’s always the loser who’s the first to claim victory. And learn to spell, fucktard.

        14. Avoiding consequences is a central quality of Liberalism. Delivering consequences is a central quality of virtuous, hierarchical, patriarchal societies.

        15. Did you not read the article?
          Even without reading it, it should be clear to you that Liberalism is itself a worldview, and when you say it should prevail in society, you are telling people what religion to follow, and what to do in many other ways. There is no such thing as “not telling people what to do,” if you have any opinion on how things “should be” in public life.
          Telling me not to fight for a civilization based in reason and natural law, is far more oppressive, objectively speaking, than is insisting society encourage virtue and discourage vice.

        16. Exactly. The incoherence of Liberalism. “Don’t tell people what to do! Except when you’re telling them not to tell people what to do!” “Tolerate people’s choices! Except when those choices seem even in some slight way to express judgment or disapproval of people’s choices!” “Don’t impose your morals on me! But do let me impose my entire system of moral relativity upon you!”
          I’m not sure if there’s an emoticon to indicate flying spittle, so I’ll just have to leave it like that.

        17. My religion commands me to fight for the establishment of laws that accord with right reason, the norms of objective morality, and the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
          Your Liberalism absolutely seeks to impose its subjectivism on me, and to declare my religious and philosophical opinions “out of bounds” from the get-go. Your Liberalism is also a worldview, which you insist should dominate and exclude other worldviews from public viability. This is what we’re trying to make plain to you; the appearance of “tolerance” in your views is actually just a relativistic totalitarianism which denies the legitimacy of any view whose application is not kept strictly private and personal. But your view is itself not private and personal, and you seek to apply it universally.

        18. Again, did you not read the article?
          ANY system that gains public dominance, denies dissenters the license to enact their own views. There is no such thing as “not inflicting a moral viewpoint” on society; the question, rather, is: “which viewpoint is right to inflict?” Since Liberalism is self-contradictory and incoherent, it manifestly is not the right one.

        19. But when our society restricted the vote to males with property, males with property voted to expand the vote. Obviously there’s nothing magic about leaving society in their hands.
          And only somebody unaware of history, would say that the incoherence of the modern West was not a problem until the 1990s!

        20. No man is an island. If a man ruins himself by his poor choices, they do have an effect on everyone else. We are our brother’s keeper and ought to instruct him when he goes astray. This belief is rooted in my religion, which you say I am allowed to believe and practice. Something has to give…

        21. “. It’s only in the last couple of decades where this civilizational-level cuckoldry has become an issue.”
          You misspelled “centuries”.
          Post-modernist cuckoldry, subjectivist collective madness, LGBTSJWAH freakshow parades and attacks by any mean against the virtuous is just the inevitable logical outcome of the institutions founded on your libertarian disciplines.

      2. That’s why I say civilization and patriarchy is nothing short of nurturing feminine motherly reasons
        Being male provider is falling into beta provider territory and having children with a woman and raising them is like sharing the woman’s misery and allowing her to have revenge on your sex
        Building for the future of your children and the future of mankind and providing is a feminine motherly instinct

        1. Beta providers are so called because they provide for their wives and then also submissively do everything their wives want or demand.
          In the Patriarchy a man provides for his wife and kids, but also rules over them. He is not stuck in a domesticated nightmare, because the wife and kids a) have been raised right, and b) know that he can beat their asses until the cows come home if they decide to be ungrateful little hellions.
          Do you see the difference?

    4. By what right do you presume to know what I have a right to assert, or not to assert?
      If we have no way of knowing that the other man’s choice is wrong, how do you know that my choice is wrong?
      This was the point of the article; Liberalism is incoherent and contradicts itself. Liberalism is simply a self-defense maneuver, which invokes a monopoly on truth and rights in order to incoherently shame the notion of a monopoly on truth and rights.

  21. Catholicism seems to entrench upon feminist ideals placing “Virgin” Mary as some god like figure. Saying a woman can have a child without insemination is in line with the thought women need no men to reproduce which is not true
    This could explain how they placed a homosexual as a pope

  22. I, for one, have been making this argument LONG before I ever became Catholic. I’ve been pondering why we must court disaster all in the name of “freedom?”
    People around the world, from whatever political persuasion, do not really know what Freedom is. This is because we’ve not been taught. For this reason, there has been a major deconstruction of the subject that can be seen along eastern and western lines. But for simplicity, I teach people that freedom is actually power, merely the ability to get something done. More specifically, freedom consists of two components: Liberty, and Purpose, and the two must always go together, guided by Truth.
    Liberty is merely to be free from constraints. Purpose is a productive goal or achievement. Constraints, by the way, aren’t necessarily bad, but to the western libertarian mind, all constraint is seen as suspect at the least. What they often don’t understand is that Constraints that help you achieve your Purposes actually make you powerful. Options, or choices, by the way, do not make you anymore powerful, especially when there are bad choices.
    In the West, we tend to focus so much on liberty that we often end up mistaking things we can do as Rights, so much so that we look at our Freedom, our Powers, as a License to do what we please under the rubrick that we don’t hurt nobody directly. But this makes the mistake of misunderstanding what Rights are, which is another topic. It’s as though we have a car and only put it up on jacks and rev the engine, going nowhere.
    In the East, they focus on Purpose too much, so that you are free only to do what you Must. This is the nature of totalitarianism. It’s like getting on a train; it’s okay so long as you don’t mind where it’s going, how fast it gets there, and how far you may have to walk to get to your ultimate destination.
    When you put the two together, you get genuine Freedom, where you are free to do as you Ought, and Ought implies Purposes and Goals that enrich your life and the lives of those around you. But, without guidance based on Truth (there is no such thing as subjective truth), you will not get very far, and you will eventually lose your freedom one way or another.
    Getting back to Rights, all Rights, really, come from Duties. You have Rights in order to fulfill those Duties. If I have a business, and I hire you to work for me, you would then have the right to come onto my property, handle my merchandise, deal with my customers, handle transactions, and if I put you in charge of other employees, you have the right to manage their tasks as necessary to fulfill your duties to me. When we talk about universal human rights, we have to talk about the source of those rights, which means what are our duties? If they come from the Christian God, that means a whole lot more than if they come from something Pagan, or the State.

    1. Along similar lines, this short essay found elsewhere online, is a very important compliment to my overall point, here. I don’t agree with every word, and sometimes think something could have been put better in it, but overall it is excellent.
      Aquinas on Liberty
      As long as we abide in partial darkness, we will continue to be conquered.
      If we looked very closely at the idea of liberty, we would discover that there is a radical distinction between true human liberty and liberty falsely so-called. Indeed, liberty falsely so-called is that same liberty which the NWO [New World Order] qualifies as the “bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to oneʼs party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority,” and as an idea of freedom which is really an “infection,” and as a “slackening of the reins of government.” [1]
      Where does the false idea of liberty come from? What is false liberty? What is true liberty? Knowledge of the correct answers to these questions is still lacking in the bulk of the patriot movement; and to the degree that it is lacking, so is integral unity and true power to overcome the menace. Until the patriot movement unifies itself under true philosophical principles, it will win only apparent victories, while the satanic NWO continues its long march to total global domination. [2]
      True liberty is the highest of natural endowments. It is the portion only of intellectual or rational natures; and it confers on man this dignity – that he is in the hand of his counsel and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty semblance of good, to disturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen. Worse still are those who promote a false and absurd notion of liberty, by perverting the idea of freedom, or extending it to things in respect of which man cannot rightly be regarded as free. [3]
      The Declaration of Independence states as follows: We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [4]
      Sad to say, this is a very ambiguous, and therefore dangerous, proposition, as it is subject to any number of conflicting interpretations. Indeed, the proof of its weakness is the young age of the total collapse of the American Republic. Obviously, that clause has not been interpreted properly. If it had been, we would not have devolved into barbarity in less than two hundred fifty years. It can be argued that the American Republic was built on Freemasonic sand; and thus if we are going to rebuild it, we might want to re-codify our foundational principles. In order for America to throw of [sic] its internationalist oppressors, a proper understanding of natural human liberty, in the minds and hearts of the American people, is indispensably necessary. For we the people have been brought low, and have been rendered soft and vulnerable as the direct result of having imbibed and believed a false notion of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [5]
      As a natural endowment given to human nature by God, the omnipotent Creator of the universe, liberty must exist for an end or ultimate purpose. And this end must be identical to the essential determination and composition of human nature, which is rational, i.e., intellectual and volitional. The end, or object, both of the rational will and of its liberty is that good only which is in conformity with reason. [6]
      Liberty belongs only to those who have the gift of reason or intelligence. Animals do not possess liberty. Considered as to its nature, it is the faculty of choosing means fitted for the end proposed, for he is master of his actions who can choose one thing out of many. Freedom of choice is, therefore, the essential property of the human will. But the will cannot proceed to act until it is enlightened by intellectual knowledge. For the proper object of the will is the good. The will cannot proceed to act until it is enlightened by the intellect. Nothing can be desired by the will unless it is judged by the intellect to be a good. Thus in all voluntary acts, choice is subsequent to an intellectual judgment that something is good or desirable. [7]
      The will is referred to as the appetitive power of the soul or the rational appetite. Like the intellect, the will is a spiritual faculty. It is that power through which an individual seeks to execute an act or attain to an object proposed to it by the intellect. The object of the will is always the good, and even in the election of evil, it must be proposed to the will under the appearance of good. Anything chosen as a means is therefore viewed under some aspect of goodness. [8]
      Therefore because in all voluntary acts choice is subsequent to a judgment upon the truth of the good presented, declaring to which good preference should be given, it is an immutably true principle that human liberty depends entirely on intellectual judgments that conform to reason and the natural law. If a judgment which does not conform to the natural law or to reason, and which is, therefore, objectively false and immoral, is acted upon by the will, then it is a source of grave disorder in society. Exponentially multiply the number of individual immoral acts, and you have a Republic that collapses from moral decay in a short period of time. [9]
      Hedonism, i.e., the tyranny of the passions, has no place in the well ordered man or in the well ordered civilization. Unfortunately our elitist overlords have long been at dumbing us down to the level of beasts that cannot employ their natural rational endowments, but only their carnal lusts. We allowed this to happen to us because we mistakenly believed that the lie they told us, namely that true liberty is the “right” to do whatever we want, whenever we want, as long as it is not illegal or discoverable. True liberty is an essential property of objective truth and morality. Therefore there can be no true liberty in a civilization that enshrines moral relativity. [10]
      === The following commentary was provided by Dave Lenef ===
      [1] False liberty (as opposed to true liberty) refers to merely an idea of liberty that sets one group against another, as in the two-party political system, or even in a manipulated revolution. There may be an appearance of more freedom, but ultimately the reins (or reigns) remain. This is not a state of true liberty. It still restricts free action.
      [2] Most of the freedom movements (patriot, tea party, etc.) are ignorant of what comprises true liberty. The fight for liberty must be based on philosophical underpinnings of universal principals of nature or the fight will fail. And as the fight fails, so it leaves the path open to tyranny and global governance. Examples of incomplete or false ideas of liberty include those in the sovereign movement who traverse complicated legal machinations, filing paperwork in order to classified [sic] as a different class of person by the state; or tea baggers who rail against certain segments of the population.
      [3] The Creator has given humans the ability to reason and choose. Reason aligned with truth will lead inevitably to liberty. But humans can also choose to ignore reason and choose less wisely, which will inevitably lead to confusion and chaos.
      [4-5] Ever since I realized that the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was inspired by John Locke’s “life, liberty and property”, I’ve considered that happiness is far too ambiguous, while property is clear and specific. This small linguistic departure by the founding fathers may have set the stage for the devolution from our country’s original ideals. Happiness is a shallow feeling that does not predicate freedom. Sometimes we must feel pain when we do the right thing.
      [6-7] Our gift of reason is a means to a specific end. If we use our intellect in harmony with natural law—that is, free of contradiction from truth—we become more free and progress toward our ultimate end. I don’t pretend to know what that end is, but our nature rewards acting out of love, and moves us closer to unity. Our gift of will is tied to rational thought. We use reason to judge the options before us and then we choose, resulting in action. Every voluntary act is an expression of our ability to choose rightly. But we always choose based on our evaluation of what will result in the most good. Our thought processes can fail to deliver the Good. We may believe instead of reason, holding close those institutions of security that contradict fundamental moral truths. Or we might think we know based on false information. We’re not perfect, but striving to discover and understand that which is true will always keep us pointed in the right direction.
      [8-9] Humans base all choices of action on intellectual evaluation, and those choices are based on what we judge is “best” for us at given moments. If a choice is based on fallacious reasoning instead of truth and logic, we are in contradiction with nature, and the result “grave disorder”. It is the exponential accumulation of all the false choices leading to immoral actions that have lead to the state of confusion and increasing lack of liberty we find ourselves in.
      [10] What is moral is what is true. Truth is truth. It is what has happened. There can be no shadings of truth, no relative orderings of less or more truth. It simply is. To the degree that truth can be known, knowing what is moral action becomes completely unambiguous. We have been educated to believe in a lie that morality can be determined and handed down in laws of man. This has led to an idea that what is good is simply what feels good. That is hedonism. This way of thinking excludes reason, and therefore prevents us from connecting with what is true. This is an artifact of the domination culture, and the extent of our acceptance of that is the extent that we subjugate ourselves and move further away from liberty and closer to slavery.
      The above is an essay which was posted online under the pseudonym of Aquinas on the InfoWars forum. I do not know the original date of posting (there exist references to this essay as early as 2010), and I understand the original posting is no longer available.

  23. As our Brother points out, the accelerating decline of morality and sanity we are witnessing in this age is clearly illustrated by a trend toward “anything goes”. Since gay marriage is the law of the land, we are seeing incremental pushes and forays into acceptance of pedophilia (see ROK). Next stop, normalization of incest.
    Asserting these things leads the left to scoff (for now) at us for its absurdity, but shortly advocating it in a righteous SJW fury.

  24. Sartre stated that the modern man now should live in a post-nihilist era, the “God is dead” era, and that he should be the center of his own moral.
    And then came Fabulous Foucault, stating than the era of Men was dead too, and that any identity should be subverted, deconstructed and annihilated, like his butthole.
    Now we are in the age when Foucault’s ideas are being put in practice, taught to every dumb cunts in college. The anti-“white male”rhetoric, the “queer”-shit all comes from him, and his beliefs are being forced on us.
    There was a reason why such individuals were forbidden to say such bullcrap before.

    1. The problem is that we were always in The age of Foucault’s ideas….you point it out right when you talk about what we are being taught. Man has always already been dead but the teaching created the illusion of life and when illusion is all that exists is becomes reality. The problem is, knowledge wasn’t meant to the many and now we have a world populated almost exclusively buy insufferable twats

        1. god. I mean, I looked like a real d bag in the 80’s and 90’s and I am sure my grandfather thought “what a faggot” but this is all next level. I remember asking him if I could get an earring and he said “sure. so, which is it?” and I asked “which is what” and he said “are you a fag or a pirate?” My desire to pierce my ear ended there.
          This would have killed him.

        2. Thats a nice story actually. In my teens I decided to go ‘metal’ lol and at one point my mom came back from being abroad for 8-9 months and when I opened the door I had leather pants and a ripped tshirt on, she looked at me and asked if I’m some sadomashochist homo now, and told me she is staying in a hotel and I’m paying for it.
          I don’t dress like that anymore lol. I quite hate my mom but she did sometimes have a point.

        3. If you said that to a kid now I think social services would lock you up.

        4. She has a talent for being insanely offensive lol. I told her I was going to marry an Asian girl and I want to have children with her. Her response? You are too fucked up to breed with anyone, And you will die soon anyway. And Asians are stealing everything. I don’t shop at Asian owned stores on principle.
          Yep, thanks mom…

        5. Am I the only one here that even in my leftard rebellious face recognized body modifications like tattos and piercings as unnatural and degenerate and only grew my hair and beard?

      1. Do you mean that we always were in the age of metaphysical annihilating ? I don’t think that is correct. Never has manking had the right tools to implement such philosophies, and never has mankind developped such ideas meant to attack our identity in its flesh, until now.
        Look at the ideas they’re advocating now, a part of why they’re scary is because they’re aimed to the core of our essence : destroying the polarity betwen sexes, subverting the psyche, attacking everything that differentiated us from animals…
        I don’t believe that we’ve been living in a dream during centuries, and that, suddenly, the modern and post-modern, discovered that nothing is true, and at the same time everything is.
        In fact I believe we reached Truth at some point.
        These modern thinkers, Freud, Marx, Foucault, are just a short abberation aping traditional philosophy, and should be considered as such.
        A bunch of pretentious big- headed twats, pedestalized by a borred bourgeoisie.
        At least the nihilism of Nietzsche had the decency to not disguise itself as something else than a cry of agony, which expressed the fact the modern thinking has lost its traditional backbone.
        Foucault’s work is madness, literally ; smart madness, erudite madness, (he was a great researcher and should have stick to researching) but still madness, and should have been treated as such.
        If I remember well, at the end of Madness and Civilization, he implecitely stated the goal of his work : which was inverting sane and insane. Which he did. And which we have been doing.
        And as you said, it’s not their work in itself that is dangerous, it is the fact that the college teachers, scholars, and ultimately uneducated world leaders are currently holding their words as dogmas, and are shaping the minds of a very very very dumbed down youth with it.

        1. I’m gonna love this one. Going on a bike ride. I will get back to you. Short answer: need to separate out the ontological from the epistemological arguments here.

        2. Actually, email me you French lunatic. Need to do this off board. It may take some time.
          As for “when” Heraclitus had this shit down before Socrates was a gleam in some drunken Greek queer’s eye

    1. Even the wickedness of the Mongols was more beneficial since they helped Civilization by pushing the mudslimes shit back in (pardon my French). The wickedness of liberalism has the exact opposite effect.

  25. I really really want to be a liberal but the older I get and the more insanity I see everyday, I wonder if humans can even handle the kind of freedom we allow these days. It seems that as soon as people are free, they embark towards a self-destructive path that could have been prevented by and overarching conservative authority like a wise religious leader. It feels really odd to say that as an atheist, but I cannot deny the existence of objective moral standards whether they come from a god or not, and I cannot deny that society seemed overall more cohesive when Christianity (or Catholiscism where I come from) was held in higher regard. Explaining to my 83 year old grandmother that the Woman of the year was actually a man – with all his male parts – was quite telling as to how much society has changed in a few years. We need to find a just middle ground between unhinged liberalism and utter conservative tyranny of the kind you would encounter in Islamic countries.

    1. some men can handle freedom. women definitely can’t. I wouldn’t mind liberalism if there weren’t any ‘bailouts’ from government enabling these lifestyles. people would naturally veer towards the conservative to survive.

      1. That’s the crux of the issue, imo. The very word conservative means someone who saves, which is of course the smarter course than being free and loose with your money, your body, etc.
        Conservatism is natural and born of common sense. Liberalism is the ideology of a child.

      2. That won’t work out, though, unless you ditch Liberalism. Because Liberalism says those people should vote, and that discriminating against them is contrary to Liberal principles. So they will vote to rob you blind, and you will not be allowed to “discriminate” against their right to vote, even though their behavior towards you is far more discriminatory. But Liberalism will not notice this, because Liberalism exists to maximize vice under the guise of Liberty, and to crush virtue under the guise of tolerating others’ liberties. It is Authoritarianism invoked against all upright authority.

    2. Why on earth would you want to be a liberal? It’s like saying “I really want to have AIDS/cancer but I want to be able to rationalize it as a female hamsterbrain to my 83yo granny”.
      My suggestion? Get your head checked coz you sure as shit have some wires loose.

      1. Hector is sympathetic towards the mentally ill.
        Strangely enough, my granny at 84 wrapped her head around the whole transgender thing fine. She said something to the effect of:
        “They’re having problems figuring out who they are? I knew who I was because my mother told me!”

        1. If I remember right her father worked in a mill much of the time, so he was rarely home.
          Back then there were things like “the town lesbian” (who tried to seduce someone’s wife, might I add) you kept your kids away from.

      2. Stop. Calm your tits, and think for a second. Liberalism (classical liberalism anyway) is the idea that every human being is deserving of freedom and rights. In other words, that an unconstrained vision of human agency and it relies on the premisse that most people are able to handle being free and still produce a cohesive society. That should sound great to you and this is something you would want to strive for, like many classical liberals such as Youtuber Sargon of Akkad still do. What I’m saying is, as I’m growing older, I realise that this is merely an utopia and that it will never happen. Therefore, the rational choice is to be a conservative and somewhat restrict people’s agency on the societal level. That means having leaders religious or otherwise, (although religious leaders have proved that they are really efficient) that promote the nuclear family, nationalism and patriotism, etc… Basically, we need the exact opposite of what we have right now. In historical terms, we need a Julius Caesar to sort our shit out.

        1. Christian Monarchy also believes that every human deserves to have his rights and freedom maximized in accord with nature and reason. Any decent human being believes this.
          What is particular to Liberalism, is the way it seeks to attain this end through a series of incoherent and contradictory premises that overthrow the very meaning of rights and of freedom, and delegitimize the very authority that it invokes to advance itself.
          Christian monarchy, and other sane forms of government, retain the objective standards that maintain the coherence of an authentic system of rights and liberty.

  26. At the beginning of the article (quote:”…entitled to their own opinions on ultimate questions, and ought to be “free” to act in accord with their conscience on these opinions..”) – why the word -free- with quotation marks? The article claims to fight against totalitarism…yet the Good Brother has hots for the “Authority” and “Morals” all the way to the end…)) I mean, I know that he is obliged to peddle the agenda of the oldest corporation in the world…but, hey…what happened with some confidence in good old personal human ETHICS? 😀 Ts-ts-ts…)))

    1. Ahemm…and what about “treateth others as Thou Thyself wishest to be treated”? …and “do unto others….”etc.,etc…. 🙂

    2. Your vocabulary suggests that you can form proper sentences if you try. You know, like using punctuation?
      What’s with the closed parenthesis? Fetish of yours?
      I read your comment multiple times and I follow until you ask about quotation marks and then It just goes to shit.

      1. I suggest reading the comment a few times more. Upon that, “fetishes” dissapear and – hey! You suddenly comprehend “the shit”, and then some! Bottle uncorked! 😉 Smart boy, you…))

    3. “Free” is in quotes because, this view, it is evident that the authentic meaning of “freedom” is unknown.
      Just authority is not the same thing as Totalitarianism. I am all for legitimate authority; I am opposed to illegitimate authority, and the point of the article was that the quest to delimit authority on contradictory, incoherent, Liberal premises, does not succeed in delimiting authority, but only in magnifying illegitimate authority… i.e., it is itself a cause of Totalitarianism.

      1. I can not but agree with You on that, Golden One..) However, Right doesn’t equal Law doesn’t equal Justice. Especially so in wretched humans. There is always, but ALWAYS, the problem with “controlling the controllers”, eh?))
        It is, I think, quite obvious why are You all in for “legitimate” authority and I oppose ANY of it (not for “progressive liberal” reasons, though)…but, if the World continues like this – there will be no one worth saving…or, corrupting, for all it matters. ))
        “Progressive liberals” and “feminists” are not even worthy of Hell. We don’t have any space left for idiots anymore.

        1. I disagree with a good bit of your substance, but I agree with your style, let’s say. 😉

        2. “I am just a Lesser Evil”
          >not unironically being part of a disease and chaos spreading human sacrificing pagan airplane forum homosexual death cult

  27. “You may object: “but who determines what that is?” We’ll explore this in future, but for now, suffice it to say that the objection solves nothing: even to determine that we must not determine this, is to determine it.”
    Definitely looking forward to THAT article, but I guess the god of catholicism is going to be the determining factor.
    As always with A. Moner articles I enjoy hearing his point of view and his prose is excellent, but it always depresses me. We have the choice a dystopian, culturally marxist hellhole of a society with stifling, oppressive leftist ideals or a theocratic hellhole of a society with stifling, oppressive religious ideals.
    Either way the world sucks

    1. That’s why you vote option C: America circa 1791.
      Over 90% of the country was white, only white males with property could vote, and the government was also quite limited.
      These stupid neoreactionaries think we need to go back to the 15th century in order to have a stable social order, which means that they’re stupid and ignorant as hell.

      1. I want people of all races to be able to vote. Saying women can’t vote sounds good as most are very liberal, but there are a lot of conservative women too. (not sure if you were being sarcastic).

        1. If you want all races to vote, then you have yet to take the final red pill: the racial one.

        2. I wanted to provoke you, it worked beautifully, thank you grand dragon or grand cyclops or whatever rank you hold.

        3. You think you provoked me? Damn, you’re stupid. At least you’re honest about being a troll. And keep in mind that white men with property being the only ones who could vote was the original system in 1789. Which means you’re calling all of the Founding Fathers KKK as well.
          But, do as you wish.

        4. Many of the founding fathers knew slavery as an institution was doomed to fail. The KKK was founded by bitter Democrats who clung to the idea of racial superiority. I agree with you on the property part, “skin in the game”. I just don’t care their race.

        5. Slavery or no, voting was explicitly limited to white men by the Founding Fathers. So, again, you’re calling them the KKK.

        6. Even if the founders didn’t want non-whites to vote, (I think they knew it was inevitable) the KKK wanted active violence against non-whites and Catholics/Jews. So I don’t think the founders were as bigoted as others.

        7. You’re the one who said I was KKK for only wanting whites to vote. I pointed out that the Founding Fathers were of the same opinion.
          So, do you believe the Founding Fathers were KKK in mentality or no?

        8. No I think they knew that non-whites would eventually be able to vote and tacitly supported it

        9. To be clear, I don’t want anybody voting. But think about it: for every Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell, there are a million Dindus.
          In a sane social system, such deserving persons could be elevated up to their proper, aristocratic station in life. In the absence of such a system, with apologies to such men, it is both unjust and irrational to let the entire civilization be degraded by hordes of Dindus, so that the hundred or so brilliant black dudes can also have a vote. And this applies across the board; again, this is an “abstract” right, a “right” abstracted from the norms of objective morality. There is no objective moral norm, that would extend the franchise to persons without insisting that they have the proper qualities.

        10. That was more a response to the gentleman that presented that voting should be race based.
          To be sure there are many hucksters presenting themselves as capable leaders but I don’t see how the system you seem to favor won’t be rife with far more and widespread oppression than currently exists.

        11. Well, historically it wasn’t. And, of course, this is not because the system was perfect, but because it was used in Catholic countries oriented towards virtue, and man’s supernatural end. To be sure, if you instituted an aristocracy now, with men of modern morals and tastes, it would probably be far more corrupt.

        12. I have the feeling you will again say I’m arguing from exception/neo-marxist view but what if you were some dirt farming serf completely stuck in your station in life with no excess to education or any hope of bettering your situation? You ONLY hope was an afterlife reward as you life was nasty, brutish and short. I’m not picking on catholic countries, I’m sure it went in in the east too.

        13. Most of those realities about Medieval (and ancient) life were functions of the technological advancement of the time, not of the nobility per se. And the rapid expansion of science and experimentation, primitive machinery, etc., began while the nobility was still the dominant power. Upward social mobility always existed, and began to accelerate in Western society while the nobility was still in charge. Indeed, it was the tension created by a class of newly socially-elevated people, with a little too much and a lot too little knowledge and power, that began the revolution. This indubitably slowed authentic social and technical progress, which had already begun under the nobility of Christendom and which we can even say was fostered uniquely by the nobility of Christendom.
          You will find nothing to rival Western Civilization anywhere else, and Western Civilization, far from beginning to advance in the modern age, actually blew itself apart at the beginning of the modern age, scattering a unified and ascendant energy into a thousand disparate bits. For a while, those bits continued to ascend, but the main propellant had ceased; now they are hovering at the top of their arc; momentarily they will come crashing down.
          If a king were put in charge tomorrow, it’s not like we would all wake up on a dirt farm. More likely, we will wake up on a dirt farm because we destroyed ourselves in five centuries of Democracy and Revolution. Then, we will have kings again, and they will lead us up from the dirt farms and build cathedrals and universities and, just as soon as we get too big for our britches again, we will blame the king for every little thing that has gone wrong, and start the process all over again. When I look back on history, monarchy is the government that provides for progress; at the height of a civilization’s propulsive power, it overthrows the monarchy; there is a brief period where the lingering dynamism of that system remains; then it decays under Republican and Democratic forms of government while congratulating itself for being so advanced as to have Republican and Democratic forms of government.

      1. I can never quite pin down what position you are coming from. Do you not advocate that reason comes from the god you believe in? Or can it be secular? Can one not simply apply a rationalization of some religion (islam for instance), repackage it as reason and present it as justification for slavery, polygamy and the severing of limbs as justified?

        1. Well, this is what I mean when I say it is a closed book to most people. Reason is reason; it is rooted in reality, which includes God. Yes, most people will easily fall for rationalizations repackaged as reason. But that doesn’t drag Reason itself into disrepute any more than Lady Gaga drags real music into disrepute.

        2. Also, secular reason flawed as it does not include god? Or is it in a hierarchy of reason with god-inclusive reason at a higher level?

        3. Reason is reason; I wouldn’t say there is such a thing as “secular reason” or “religious reason.”
          Someone using reason will discover that there is a God, and some of His necessary attributes, although many explicit doctrines about God (the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.) are not things that reason can lead a person to conclude. Reason cannot exclude God, because His existence is a truth of reason. But, that said, one can apply his reason to many topics without ever having to consider anything about God. As I say, reason is reason. When it deals with God, it deals with God; when that’s not relevant to a consideration, it doesn’t.

  28. This is one of the stupidest articles I have yet read on my entire life on the Internet. It is completely devoid of any actual historical or theoretical basis. It’s almost as if it was copied and pasted from the Onion. I am going to completely destroy your lame “argument” using the dumbest paragraph of your “theory”.
    “The story of Western Civilization from about 1500 A.D. to the present is the story of how this absurd idea has played out in successive waves of incoherence and irrationality.”
    Since European/western civilization started throwing off the chains of monarch totalitarianism it has seen the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, free markets, and the rise of European dominance throughout the world through colonialism. This is all because of European rejection of any form of Collectivism. I define “Collectivism” as any and all political ideology that forsakes the rights of the individual for the the good of the state, the monarchy, the people, the volk, their god, etc, etc…
    You all live in a time of unprecedented industrial, technological, and medical advances all thanks to the rise of the individual and the rejection of the collective. You are literally typing on computers, tablets, and cell phones because of the rise of the individual.
    Every form of collectivism has proven itself to be inferior to free peoples and free minds. Free to make their own choices in life. Whether it be the primitive, technologically and cultural backwaters of the muslim world that decry the good of Allah over the rights of a single man, the destructive rise and fall of the National Socialists who preached the goof of the Volk over the rights of the individual, or fall of the Evil Empire who simply could not keep up with the wests technical and economic advancements, who crushed the individual over the good of the people.
    These are just a very few examples of the stunning failures of collectivism.
    What makes me lose faith in humanity is not that people are allowed to express their own political, economic, religious, and moral views. No, what makes me lose faith in humanity is you idiots who believe that the Western world is worse off because of the rejection of collectivist ideals and the rise of the individual. Pick up a history book you loons.

    1. Lol Le Collectivism meme
      Liberals these days are less collectivist and more like hyper-libertrarian (not economically, though).
      Who cares about nation or race when I can fuck in the ass all day and take drugs.
      Individualism is good when controlled and counterbalanced by a culture that does not complete discard the value of tribalism.

      1. But, think about it: who is really collectivist? Are Liberals individualists? Or are they not the most conformist personalities in all of human history?

        1. It’s paradoxical.
          On one hand they are the most likely to claim they are some sort of special snowflake. ” I’m a trans-cyber-vegan and data pagan ” , on the other they are the biggest followers around.
          But their insistence of radical individualism and hyper-atomization makes me think the ” collectivist ” boogeyman should have died with the fall of the USSR. They are no collectivist they neo-liberals.

    2. Could you change your nic. I do not want to be associated with your 2 post shit fit. Thanks.

  29. This is one of the stupidest articles I have yet read on my entire life on the Internet. It is completely devoid of any actual historical or theoretical basis. It’s almost as if it was copied and pasted from the Onion. I am going to completely destroy your lame “argument” using the dumbest paragraph of your “theory”.
    “The story of Western Civilization from about 1500 A.D. to the present is the story of how this absurd idea has played out in successive waves of incoherence and irrationality.”
    Since European/western civilization started throwing off the chains of monarch totalitarianism it has seen the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, free markets, and the rise of European dominance throughout the world through colonialism. This is all because of European rejection of any form of Collectivism. I define “Collectivism” as any and all political ideology that forsakes the rights of the individual for the the good of the state, the monarchy, the people, the volk, their god, etc, etc…
    You all live in a time of unprecedented industrial, technological, and medical advances all thanks to the rise of the individual and the rejection of the collective. You are literally typing on computers, tablets, and cell phones because of the rise of the individual.
    Every form of collectivism has proven itself to be inferior to free peoples and free minds. Free to make their own choices in life. Whether it be the primitive, technologically and cultural backwaters of the muslim world that decry the good of Allah over the rights of a single man, the destructive rise and fall of the National Socialists who preached the goof of the Volk over the rights of the individual, or fall of the Evil Empire who simply could not keep up with the wests technical and economic advancements, who crushed the individual over the good of the people. These are just a very few examples of the stunning failures of collectivism.
    What makes me lose faith in humanity is not that people are allowed to express their own political, economic, religious, and moral views. No, what makes me lose faith in humanity is you idiots who believe that the Western world is worse off because of the rejection of collectivist ideals and the rise of the individual. Pick up a history book you loons.

    1. Advances in technology were already well under way, and would have continued. Indeed, in some ways the Renaissance and the Revolutionary Age represented a retardation of the speed of progress. I made this point in my last article.
      There is a vast difference between “Collectivism” and the civilization of Europe, which has never been collectivist in any meaningful sense until the modern age, under Fascism, Socialism and Communism.

    2. “Every form of collectivism has proven itself to be inferior to free peoples and free minds. ”
      [citation needed]
      ” the destructive rise and fall of the National Socialists who preached the goof of the Volk over the rights of the individual”
      You mean the guys who gave us the jet-engine and practically sent us to space?

  30. A worthwhile endeavor is to re-discover the difference between “license” and “liberty.” In the past, “liberty” was defined as the freedom to do whatever one wanted, within the accepted norms and standards of society. “Licentiousness” was defined as freedom to disregard the accepted norms and standards of society. Our fore-fathers greatly favored such liberty, but worked en masse to restrict those who acted in a licentious manner. Today’s freaks and perverts have taken the word “liberty” and made it synonymous with “licentiousness.” The bait and switch works on the uneducated thusly: “Yeah, who doesn’t love ‘Liberty’? Do whatever you want man. Hump dogs, corpses, kiddie porn! FREEDOM!” But that ain’t what liberty really means dude…

  31. Good article. libs want all your guns and run your life. The left has a huge assault on white men in America. Its infected all schools. its sickness. its saying men should be women.

  32. Destroying morality so a few godless monsters could do whatever they pleased, and every institution that got in their way—that wasn’t a flaw of liberalism. That was the whole point of liberalism.
    Faggotry, harlotry, demon-worship—in moral societies all are abominations punishable by death. In liberal societies they are human rights.
    The God of Israel has a contract with man. If man keep his end of the bargain, man prospers. If man breaks it, God takes great pleasure in humbling him.
    We need to start keeping our end of the bargain. Faggots, harlots, demon-worshippers—let their blood flow like rivers that the righteous might live.

    1. I agree that the destruction of all morality and traditional institutions is indeed a feature, not a bug, of Liberalism. But many semi-conscious Liberals do not share this intent; they are merely foolish. You know that, of course, I’m just making it explicit.

  33. Secular religion

    Oxymoron? Or do you refer to State worship?
    Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are not the same thing, hence the two different terms. Libertarianism is more about “the non-aggression principle” rather than “your rights end where mine begin”. That is a misstatement and what has led to the current problems.

    …suffice it to say that the objection solves nothing…

    It does not suffice to say this. This is what your argument rests upon. Some objective measure of morality. Without it, you have moral relativism, the thing you argue against but without an opposing standard.
    The Church does not have an objective measure of morality, since no two religions can agree on it, and the Catholic Church itself cannot decide. What are you left with? Simply your opinion.

    1. The objection solves nothing because it is self-evidently contradictory.
      The Church certainly does have an objective knowledge of morality; the fact that it requires a degree of philosophical preparation in order to apprehend this fully, does nothing to controvert that fact.

        1. Even if he can’t prove the existence of God his axiomatic reasoning is still better over the one that is based on the demonstrably erroneous assumption of equality.

      1. I just demonstrated the truth of my statement regarding the objection solving nothing, in another reply to you.
        My statement as to the Church having an objective knowledge of morality was, as you observed, a mere assertion. That was my intent, at the present time. That assertion can be proven, but it requires a real education, sufficient intellect and a series of arguments. So, while I take stabs at moving people towards this realization in my articles and will continue to do so, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that I’m going to explain it here in the combox.

  34. I would prefer we abandon euphemisms, of which liberalism is one of the most pernicious. It is much better to refer to liberalism as what it is – progressivism, socialism, Cultural Marxism. It is another variant of the war against Christendom waged by the Cultural Marxists.
    Therefore, I consider that Cultural Marxism must be destroyed.

    1. On the one hand, I see what you are saying; on the other hand, the term Liberalism is used by the Catholic Church in her official documents, which have anathematized it as an heresy that proposes a false understanding of actual Liberty. So, I still use the term for that reason.

    2. ” against Christendom ”
      It’s far worse than that. It’s a war against nature of which Christianity might just be an extension depending on your views on theism. Modern societies have undermined their own foundations with lies, false axioms and downright denial of reality.

  35. I been saying this for a while now: social “justice” and liberalism’s goal of instituting “rights” is a perversion of true morality which by nature is universal. Morality was written by the laws of the one true creator Yahuah/Yahweh. Because the NWO/elites serve their fallen master, it is in his likeness they also pervert whatever Yahuah creates. This replacement theology is merely a conversion to state/secular worship which is also Satanic. Remember Satan masquerades as an angel of light, no surprise his followers also become false ministers of light.

  36. Error may have no rights.
    But people do.
    Most valuable is the right to be wrong.
    Our mistakes are valuable, because it is from them we learn the most.
    A Republic of Virtue is a tyranny.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *