Forwarded from Chief's Livestock Emporium (Chief)
Do you wish me a merry Christmas?
Or mean that it is a merry Christmas whether I want it or not?
Or that you feel merry this Christmas?
Or that it is a Christmas to be merry on?
Or mean that it is a merry Christmas whether I want it or not?
Or that you feel merry this Christmas?
Or that it is a Christmas to be merry on?
❤7
Forwarded from Alt Skull's Charnel House (Alt Skull️)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
😁2
Forwarded from The Marauder Project
If you followed me on IG then you have know that I was a pretty rigid Christian Anarchist for a number of years.
I was very convinced that the vast majority of society participated in politics and government out of idolatry, choosing for themselves a man for their king instead of acknowledging Christ as King.
I actually still have many of these same views but I now know that libertarianism/anarchism is certainly untenable and incompatible with real historic Apostolic Christianity. I realized this when reading the primary sources of the Libertarian intellectuals themselves.
Murray Rothbard was probably the nail in the coffin for me. In Ethics of Liberty, he was so insistent that humans have absolutely no positive moral duty to their fellow man that he presents parents as having no moral obligation to their children, even so far as being completely within their rights to allow their children to starve or otherwise sell them on a slave market.
I was very convinced that the vast majority of society participated in politics and government out of idolatry, choosing for themselves a man for their king instead of acknowledging Christ as King.
I actually still have many of these same views but I now know that libertarianism/anarchism is certainly untenable and incompatible with real historic Apostolic Christianity. I realized this when reading the primary sources of the Libertarian intellectuals themselves.
Murray Rothbard was probably the nail in the coffin for me. In Ethics of Liberty, he was so insistent that humans have absolutely no positive moral duty to their fellow man that he presents parents as having no moral obligation to their children, even so far as being completely within their rights to allow their children to starve or otherwise sell them on a slave market.
💩9👍1🤮1
These numbers look way too low, id put good money on male participation being higher, once you control for things like secretaries "account managers", dispatch, coordinators
https://news.1rj.ru/str/zoomerwaffenx/1368
https://news.1rj.ru/str/zoomerwaffenx/1368
Telegram
𝐙𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖊𝖗𝐖𝖆𝖋𝖋𝖊𝖓
White men built this nation
👍1
Forwarded from Santa Big Dave 🎄 🎅
I want you to picture the most magnificent ancient structure on planet earth. The one that comes into your mind when you think of the apex of civilization.
That wasn't built by heroes. A bunch of Alexanders didn't come together and raise that. That mastodonic emblem of achievement was dreamed of, designed and built by men that many online posters would call "mid" or "wifeguys".
Dudes who weren't exemplary genetic specimens. They probably weren't especially handsome or tall or "great" in the proper sense.
They were men who were like their fathers who were like their fathers before them. They learned from long standing transgenerational traditions. Men who dutifully toiled incrementally during their short stint on earth and passed it to their sons.
They maintained the longevity and stability required to conceptualize and construct the greatest things man has ever seen. Things that we still look upon with reverence and mourning.
These buildings are what tie the tales of heroes to our world. They say "You will never forget that Caesar was here".
Instead of stagnating in the intoxication of romanticisms about heroes, moaning about how our hero arc hasn't come, that this system disallows us from becoming the next Alexander.
We should instead have an inspired realism about our limitations with who and where we are today.
I would rather be a maxxed out mid than a hero who never could be. The top dog instead of the mutt who fancies himself a wolf.
Yet another layer of internalized self-hate that stifles our ability to achieve victory and love ourselves in this short time we have in this beautiful gift we call life.
That wasn't built by heroes. A bunch of Alexanders didn't come together and raise that. That mastodonic emblem of achievement was dreamed of, designed and built by men that many online posters would call "mid" or "wifeguys".
Dudes who weren't exemplary genetic specimens. They probably weren't especially handsome or tall or "great" in the proper sense.
They were men who were like their fathers who were like their fathers before them. They learned from long standing transgenerational traditions. Men who dutifully toiled incrementally during their short stint on earth and passed it to their sons.
They maintained the longevity and stability required to conceptualize and construct the greatest things man has ever seen. Things that we still look upon with reverence and mourning.
These buildings are what tie the tales of heroes to our world. They say "You will never forget that Caesar was here".
Instead of stagnating in the intoxication of romanticisms about heroes, moaning about how our hero arc hasn't come, that this system disallows us from becoming the next Alexander.
We should instead have an inspired realism about our limitations with who and where we are today.
I would rather be a maxxed out mid than a hero who never could be. The top dog instead of the mutt who fancies himself a wolf.
Yet another layer of internalized self-hate that stifles our ability to achieve victory and love ourselves in this short time we have in this beautiful gift we call life.
👍12🔥2
Forwarded from Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
Human rights? You mean those abstract universals that mysteriously emerged once we'd destroyed all concrete human bonds and obligations?
First, "positive rights" — universal claims that bind no one in particular. A medieval serf had no abstract "rights" but had a lord with concrete duties to protect him, feed him in famine, and ensure justice. Today's atomized individual has an endless list of theoretical ennoscriptments but no one with any actual obligation to fulfill them. We traded specific duties between real people for universal claims that bind everyone (which means, in practice, no one).
Second, "negative rights" — the even more absurd notion that humans are naturally isolated atoms whose highest moral principle is leaving each other alone. As if we aren't born into families, communities, and obligations. As if a child has a "right to be left alone" rather than a role to be actively guided and formed by his parents and community.
"Human rights" are what remain when you strip away all real human relationships and duties. The father has obligations to his children, the lord to his subjects, the master to his apprentice — concrete bonds creating concrete responsibilities. But your modern rights? They're ghosts of duty haunting the ruins of proper order.
This is what happens when you replace divine hierarchy with enlightenment fairy tales. At least chains of duty bound people together. Your "rights" leave each man floating free — and alone. True freedom comes from fulfilling your proper role in the order of things, not from pretending you're a sovereign individual with either infinite claims on others or no obligations beyond non-interference.
"But Professor Poor, what about human dignity?" Indeed. What's more dignified: having real people with real obligations to protect and guide you, or having a piece of paper declaring your theoretical ennoscriptments to an indifferent universe, populace, government, &c?
First, "positive rights" — universal claims that bind no one in particular. A medieval serf had no abstract "rights" but had a lord with concrete duties to protect him, feed him in famine, and ensure justice. Today's atomized individual has an endless list of theoretical ennoscriptments but no one with any actual obligation to fulfill them. We traded specific duties between real people for universal claims that bind everyone (which means, in practice, no one).
Second, "negative rights" — the even more absurd notion that humans are naturally isolated atoms whose highest moral principle is leaving each other alone. As if we aren't born into families, communities, and obligations. As if a child has a "right to be left alone" rather than a role to be actively guided and formed by his parents and community.
"Human rights" are what remain when you strip away all real human relationships and duties. The father has obligations to his children, the lord to his subjects, the master to his apprentice — concrete bonds creating concrete responsibilities. But your modern rights? They're ghosts of duty haunting the ruins of proper order.
This is what happens when you replace divine hierarchy with enlightenment fairy tales. At least chains of duty bound people together. Your "rights" leave each man floating free — and alone. True freedom comes from fulfilling your proper role in the order of things, not from pretending you're a sovereign individual with either infinite claims on others or no obligations beyond non-interference.
"But Professor Poor, what about human dignity?" Indeed. What's more dignified: having real people with real obligations to protect and guide you, or having a piece of paper declaring your theoretical ennoscriptments to an indifferent universe, populace, government, &c?
🔥8☃2👍2🤓2🗿1