If someone asks you “Do you believe your religion is more true than other religions?”, and your answer isn’t a definitive “yes” then your professed religion isn’t your actual religion.
For instance, Mr. Talarico would have no trouble declaring anti-racism more true than racism, liberalism more true than post-liberalism, egalitarianism more true than authoritarianism.
Therefore these things are Mr. Talarico’s real religion.
The purpose of democracy is not to elevate the lower class, but to launder power relations so that rulers can shirk their feudal obligations
Feudalism was utopian compared to this
Are we still doing this? Fundamental failure to understand how civilizational cycles work. At the “height of their power” Rome’s birthrate collapsed among elites because their patriarchal religion died, hence mystery cults, hence orgies. By the time Christianity came on the scene in a serious way, the religion (and people) were a dead letter.
“Listen up friends, I’ve been hearing a lot of you talking about Carl Schmidt’s ‘Friend-enemy’ politics, and I want to make one thing clear. Schmidt was a Nazi, and if you talk ‘friend-enemy’ politics then you are my enemy.
“I don’t want to hear about anthropology, or whether Schmitt was right. That’s not how I do politics. Schmitt was my enemy. So therefore, everyone who talks about ‘friend-enemy’ politics, much less PRACTICES ‘friend-enemy’ politics is my enemy and the enemy of all my friends. That’s how I know Carl Schmitt was wrong.”
If there is one thought-terminating cliche I could eliminate it would be this word “universalism” that has popped up on the RW internet over the last 5 years.
Bluntly, “universalism” is an entirely overloaded term with more definitions than are easily listable. However, the way “universalism” is used in these conversations conflates universal/objective morality (or “natural law”) with suicidal individualism, cowardice, and an inability to exclude bad actors.
As is obvious, these notions are two VERY DIFFERENT things, linguistically, logically, and historically.
Universal/reciprocal systems of morality that use some form of the Golden Rule have been near-ubiquitous in European societies for almost 2000 years. On the internet today we call this the “shopping cart test”.
Still, none of our Christian ancestors before 1946 would have mistaken the belief in objective morality with the idea that we should placate malevolent actors or welcome hostile invading groups. These are separate concepts and the word “universalism” obscures that.
Look, I know what people are trying to attack, weak Christian leaders who don’t want to be brave and hide behind universal charity. However, by making this equivocation on “universalism” you are actually helping their cowardice. You are telling the world that David French is the apex of your culture’s sacred moral system, which he obviously isn’t.
@igkolev@papasha408@sumlenny Try over 13 000 sq miles (9% of the country) and no it was not all unimportant forest, much of it was industrialized and we had to resettle approximately 430 000 people (12% of the population).
Hitler used diplomacy, so you should never ever negotiate. The only way out is to fight to the bitter end no matter how bad it gets, just like… oh no… oh no no no no
@ArmchairW That will never happen. All the Atlas V rockets have already been built as the production line closed a year ago. Last Antares to fly with RD-181 flew two years ago, the future flights switching to US made engines and besides it only flies Cygnus which has been flown on Falcon 9.
The primary upside of liberal democracy is very often alleged to be the peaceful transfer of power. This is such a towering load of fuckwaddery, it makes me want to shit upon the head of whoever came up with it.
If you are in a political system in which power can be transferred PeAcEfUlLY among political factions, you exist in a single-party political system, and the factions are only apparent.
When the uniparty cartel breaks down and actual politics re-emerge, the whole criminal justice system gets turned on opposition candidates. They try to shoot opposition candidates in the head. They turn domestic spy agencies loose on opposition candidates. And so on.
These tactics are how you can recognise real politics, as opposed to fake politics: The instrumentalisation of state security services or criminal justice apparatus or random telegram-actrivated crazy people against the opposition is real politics. Trying to kill enemies is real politics. There are game-theoretical reasons for this. If you take the high road of non-skullduggery in conditions of Realpolitik, you're not going to win.
Statements like this really fascinate me. I see them a lot. "I'm usually against doxxing/violence/death penalty/bullying, but..." no you aren't, you have a set of circumstances where it's permissible like even the most fervent supporters of those things