That's a false equivalence. Weapons are tools and as such are neither good or bad inherently. It's all about how they're being used. Coming from a Christian perspective, it's easy to see degeneracy is inherently bad. It shouldn't be tolerated in society to begin with but you see it as a "freedom" because you've been desensitized to it as it became widespread. In reality, it's the opposite of freedom - sin enslaves you and is death.
Sadly, the US is premised on a false revolutionary liberal dialectic of a struggle between the state and the individual, between the public and the private. This makes it fertile ground for individuals demanding rights and liberties that ultimately destroy them, because people are easily manipulated and deceived. The function of a strong state (a monarchy) is to protect against all kind of enemies and to take care of the spiritual and physical prospering of the people.
This is why jews historically promote revolution and democracy against monarchical states - they know a good monarch serves as a buffer between their power (banks, "free trade" and media) and the people. Democracy on the other hand is easy to manipulate via their powers.
Of course they don't really care for democracy or equality, they use it as a chess piece to further their agenda. Once society is weakened through liberalism and degeneracy, they get more open about their project and show the true face of their regime, which is authoritarian (1984 and any totalitarian communist regime). We're at that stage now.
The function of a strong state (a monarchy) is to protect against all kind of enemies and to take care of the spiritual and physical prospering of the people.
In theory, yes, but I'm not sure it has ever been the case. Most probably it has always been like it is now. It's just that they could no longer sell fairytale about hereditary rulership to the public, so they came up with this thing called democracy. Most people were successfully fooled by it for a while, but now the masses are waking up to the absolute farce of it, so they have to come up with something new and come up quick. I suspect they'll try to sell AI to the public as some kind of neutral, incorruptable and just form of government. Which it very obviously is not.
In any case, I don't see a fundamental difference between monarchy and that abomination we have now. It is all the same. Small group of elite is fucking over everyone else. Probably always has been like that. Only decorations, narratives and justification change.
To believe that any government cares about its citizens is a bit naive in my opinion. Which brings us to voluntaryism (which is not the same as liberalism as you seem to believe). Basically, very short version is that humanity has to get rid of superstitious belief in this thing called authority. Any authority. The problem is not that the government is bad or that politians are bad, or that the form of government is not the right one. The problem is that it exists at all and that masses believe in it.
In theory, yes, but I'm not sure it has ever been the case. Most probably it has always been like it is now. It's just that they could no longer sell fairytale about hereditary rulership to the public, so they came up with this thing called democracy.
Democracy was well known since Ancient Greece. Plato wrote about the various forms of government and noted democracy to be one of the least desirable (compared to republic and aristocracy). Saying it has always been like this and there is no real change on a very deep level is naive and symptomatic of a modern cynicism driven by ignorance and false historical narratives - it is a cope. I'd say we are at the lowest point of out European civilization for the past 2000 years and nearing the end of it really (as historians like Oswald Spengler famously predicted in Decline of the West).
It's a very complex subject, but the historical fact of the matter is that there was a paradigm shift around the Enlightenment revolutionary period (17-18-19c) that led to the collapse of the Old world and of traditional institutions and society. For thousands of years it made sense to people that the world followed a divinely ordained hierarchy (patriarchy) and everyone had a firm place in it. It was a top-down hierarchy with God at the top, and under Him was the priest class of the Church and the king with his aristocracy. Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers. This was not viewed as a power dialectic resulting in oppression (a jewish concept btw), but as a chain of command where all parties did their part towards a common goal (the Greek called it symphonia). It was evident for everyone that power came from above (top-down), and not from below (bottom-up).
Now talmudic jews were always unimpressed with this and came up with ideas that challenged the natural order and hierarchy. Their main project came to be known as communism, but they also made offshoots to cover more ground/minds - anarchy, democracy, liberalism, socialism, etc. They realized that the only way to destroy the old world was through violent revolutions aided by massive propaganda at the top levels of academia and culture which they managed to infiltrate through secret societies (really spy networks) and financial prowess (usury). They weaponized all kinds of degenerate ideas to subvert the existing hierarchy and people's faith in it - atheism, materialism, feminism, individualism, freemasonry, marxism, free global market, drug trafficking, degradation of culture and art, sexual immorality and deviancy (later called sexual revolution), darwinism, freudism, etc.
So no, it is not that the rulers of the old world could no longer sell their worldview to the people and the "enlightened masses" out of their own free will got to arms and liberated themselves from the tyranny of superstition and slavery. That's how the (((liberal))) history propaganda goes about what took place. What happened was that some people got brainwashed by jewed up masonic ideas of "liberty, equality, fraternity" and took part in the jewish revolutions that successfully established a new era of humanity - our beloved NWO.
Basically, very short version is that humanity has to get rid of superstitious belief in this thing called authority. Any authority. The problem is not that the government is bad or that politians are bad, or that the form of government is not the right one. The problem is that it exists at all and that masses believe in it.
So anarchy. Authority follows logically from the existence of hierarchy and power. The world you're describing doesn't exist and can't exist - it is logically impossible unless people somehow live completely alienated from one another, kinda in their own metaverse.
Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers.
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses. You say yourself that people strongly believed in power of monarch. In short, it worked. And that is precisely why rulers went with it. If it wouldn't work I can assure you that not me nor you would have even heard of such things as Christianity or the Bible.
...challenged the natural order and hierarchy...
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is not quite so. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly... Real belief in God should probably not be institutionalised and/or politicised.
So no, it is not that the rulers of the old world could no longer sell their worldview to the people and the "enlightened masses" out of their own free will got to arms and liberated themselves from the tyranny of superstition and slavery.
I agree that people did not liberate themselves. That is not what I meant. What I meant was that due to various reasons fairytale of hereditary rulership did not work anymore and had to be replaced with another fairytale: democracy. No one liberated anyone. They just exchanged one fairytale with another. It's all about justification (which would be believable enough for the peasants) of why existing power exists.
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.
Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses.
This is your interpretation because you're not a Christian. But if the Christian worldview is correct this would not be the case. I think I laid out how Christianity views government and authority well enough. You may not agree with this worldview but I'm not granting you yours (which is influenced by enlightenment and marxist ideas) as the self-evident or default interpretation either.
In short, it worked. And that is precisely why rulers went with it. If it wouldn't work I can assure you that not me nor you would have even heard of such things as Christianity or the Bible.
Again, you're leaning on your presupposition that Christianity is false and go for a pragmatic explanation. But I'd say "it worked" because it is good in the eyes of God and it mirrors the monarchy of the Father in the Trinity and the natural hierarchy of all things.
This argument sounds to me like gay "scholars" explaining away why heterosexual sex is the norm in society by arguing that it's just a social construct that happened to work historically, instead of facing the truth that it worked because of our biology and design and it has nothing to do with manmade constructs.
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is not quite so. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly... Real belief in God should probably not be institutionalised and/or politicised.
Because Christianity offers a coherent, logically consistent, historically attested and holistic worldview that can ground logic, morality and metaphysics as a whole. No other worldview can give you that. I've searched a lot in my time and was a staunch atheist for many years, reading lots of philosophy, especially by authors who critiqued Christianity (it's funny they always go against the Truth and have no axe to grind with other religions).
I always hear complaining about the Bible's supposed "atrocities" from people who can't even give an account for what's objectively good or bad from their worldview. How do you have knowledge of what's moral so that you can judge things, like God killing off everyone safe for one family because everyone was wicked, to be immoral? It always boils down to personal preferences but that's not objective at all. It's like telling me you like vanilla ice cream better than chocolate. Cool, so what?
That's a false equivalence. Weapons are tools and as such are neither good or bad inherently. It's all about how they're being used. Coming from a Christian perspective, it's easy to see degeneracy is inherently bad. It shouldn't be tolerated in society to begin with but you see it as a "freedom" because you've been desensitized to it as it became widespread. In reality, it's the opposite of freedom - sin enslaves you and is death.
Sadly, the US is premised on a false revolutionary liberal dialectic of a struggle between the state and the individual, between the public and the private. This makes it fertile ground for individuals demanding rights and liberties that ultimately destroy them, because people are easily manipulated and deceived. The function of a strong state (a monarchy) is to protect against all kind of enemies and to take care of the spiritual and physical prospering of the people. This is why jews historically promote revolution and democracy against monarchical states - they know a good monarch serves as a buffer between their power (banks, "free trade" and media) and the people. Democracy on the other hand is easy to manipulate via their powers.
Of course they don't really care for democracy or equality, they use it as a chess piece to further their agenda. Once society is weakened through liberalism and degeneracy, they get more open about their project and show the true face of their regime, which is authoritarian (1984 and any totalitarian communist regime). We're at that stage now.
In theory, yes, but I'm not sure it has ever been the case. Most probably it has always been like it is now. It's just that they could no longer sell fairytale about hereditary rulership to the public, so they came up with this thing called democracy. Most people were successfully fooled by it for a while, but now the masses are waking up to the absolute farce of it, so they have to come up with something new and come up quick. I suspect they'll try to sell AI to the public as some kind of neutral, incorruptable and just form of government. Which it very obviously is not.
In any case, I don't see a fundamental difference between monarchy and that abomination we have now. It is all the same. Small group of elite is fucking over everyone else. Probably always has been like that. Only decorations, narratives and justification change.
To believe that any government cares about its citizens is a bit naive in my opinion. Which brings us to voluntaryism (which is not the same as liberalism as you seem to believe). Basically, very short version is that humanity has to get rid of superstitious belief in this thing called authority. Any authority. The problem is not that the government is bad or that politians are bad, or that the form of government is not the right one. The problem is that it exists at all and that masses believe in it.
Democracy was well known since Ancient Greece. Plato wrote about the various forms of government and noted democracy to be one of the least desirable (compared to republic and aristocracy). Saying it has always been like this and there is no real change on a very deep level is naive and symptomatic of a modern cynicism driven by ignorance and false historical narratives - it is a cope. I'd say we are at the lowest point of out European civilization for the past 2000 years and nearing the end of it really (as historians like Oswald Spengler famously predicted in Decline of the West).
It's a very complex subject, but the historical fact of the matter is that there was a paradigm shift around the Enlightenment revolutionary period (17-18-19c) that led to the collapse of the Old world and of traditional institutions and society. For thousands of years it made sense to people that the world followed a divinely ordained hierarchy (patriarchy) and everyone had a firm place in it. It was a top-down hierarchy with God at the top, and under Him was the priest class of the Church and the king with his aristocracy. Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers. This was not viewed as a power dialectic resulting in oppression (a jewish concept btw), but as a chain of command where all parties did their part towards a common goal (the Greek called it symphonia). It was evident for everyone that power came from above (top-down), and not from below (bottom-up).
Now talmudic jews were always unimpressed with this and came up with ideas that challenged the natural order and hierarchy. Their main project came to be known as communism, but they also made offshoots to cover more ground/minds - anarchy, democracy, liberalism, socialism, etc. They realized that the only way to destroy the old world was through violent revolutions aided by massive propaganda at the top levels of academia and culture which they managed to infiltrate through secret societies (really spy networks) and financial prowess (usury). They weaponized all kinds of degenerate ideas to subvert the existing hierarchy and people's faith in it - atheism, materialism, feminism, individualism, freemasonry, marxism, free global market, drug trafficking, degradation of culture and art, sexual immorality and deviancy (later called sexual revolution), darwinism, freudism, etc.
So no, it is not that the rulers of the old world could no longer sell their worldview to the people and the "enlightened masses" out of their own free will got to arms and liberated themselves from the tyranny of superstition and slavery. That's how the (((liberal))) history propaganda goes about what took place. What happened was that some people got brainwashed by jewed up masonic ideas of "liberty, equality, fraternity" and took part in the jewish revolutions that successfully established a new era of humanity - our beloved NWO.
So anarchy. Authority follows logically from the existence of hierarchy and power. The world you're describing doesn't exist and can't exist - it is logically impossible unless people somehow live completely alienated from one another, kinda in their own metaverse.
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses. You say yourself that people strongly believed in power of monarch. In short, it worked. And that is precisely why rulers went with it. If it wouldn't work I can assure you that not me nor you would have even heard of such things as Christianity or the Bible.
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is not quite so. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly... Real belief in God should probably not be institutionalised and/or politicised.
I agree that people did not liberate themselves. That is not what I meant. What I meant was that due to various reasons fairytale of hereditary rulership did not work anymore and had to be replaced with another fairytale: democracy. No one liberated anyone. They just exchanged one fairytale with another. It's all about justification (which would be believable enough for the peasants) of why existing power exists.
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.
This is your interpretation because you're not a Christian. But if the Christian worldview is correct this would not be the case. I think I laid out how Christianity views government and authority well enough. You may not agree with this worldview but I'm not granting you yours (which is influenced by enlightenment and marxist ideas) as the self-evident or default interpretation either.
Again, you're leaning on your presupposition that Christianity is false and go for a pragmatic explanation. But I'd say "it worked" because it is good in the eyes of God and it mirrors the monarchy of the Father in the Trinity and the natural hierarchy of all things.
This argument sounds to me like gay "scholars" explaining away why heterosexual sex is the norm in society by arguing that it's just a social construct that happened to work historically, instead of facing the truth that it worked because of our biology and design and it has nothing to do with manmade constructs.
Because Christianity offers a coherent, logically consistent, historically attested and holistic worldview that can ground logic, morality and metaphysics as a whole. No other worldview can give you that. I've searched a lot in my time and was a staunch atheist for many years, reading lots of philosophy, especially by authors who critiqued Christianity (it's funny they always go against the Truth and have no axe to grind with other religions).
I always hear complaining about the Bible's supposed "atrocities" from people who can't even give an account for what's objectively good or bad from their worldview. How do you have knowledge of what's moral so that you can judge things, like God killing off everyone safe for one family because everyone was wicked, to be immoral? It always boils down to personal preferences but that's not objective at all. It's like telling me you like vanilla ice cream better than chocolate. Cool, so what?