You may like to read about Julian the Apostate, if you haven't already. You've essentially advocated for his version of Neoplatonism with a more monotheistic bent (if I've understood you correct).
I just can't advocate for any sort of monotheism. It's far too easy for an individual to kill a god. If you only have one responsible for everything, nihilism, hedonism, and decadence will follow.
Nice, but we don't need Jesus, or any form of Christianity because the Northern European world view has already integrated the lowers cast and women, already practiced love, charity and forgiveness via wiergild and other forms of Common Law long before they had heard of Jesus. Have you not read the Hovamol?
@@aunmarie7629 I’m basically fine with that. And perhaps this came off as more pro-Christianity than I intended. In fact I prefer European paganism personally. It’s just that Christianity is the default moral framework today and the religion isn’t going to disappear anytime super soon, I think. So we should find what’s actually of lasting value in it and consciously preserve that while suppressing the lies and calling out the myth/parables/wisdom literature for what it is (fiction) rather than pretending it’s fact
You’re not going to be able to subvert Christianity into some Christian/European Pagan hybrid religion/philosophy. There will always be a remnant. God’s glory will prevail. Every knee will bow and tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is the KING of Kings and THE LORD of Lords. Amen.
@@aunmarie7629 Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through him. No one. Repent and put your faith in Jesus Christ.
Great video, well-researched, and I like where your head's at. But I do think you're a little off the mark on some things. This is going to be massively condensed: I believe in living in accordance with nature and acknowledging biological truths, but the core issue with the immigration crisis is not that they are a different race, it is a disparity of values. (And that the migrants are treated differently than the natives) A little ethnic diversity in the gene pool has actually been proven to increase fitness (like added resistance against certain diseases; we can even see this principle play out with dog breeds). Even if genetic diversity makes us objectively stronger as a species (or even genetic formalization), this is not worth basing a culture around. It's character and values. Like you mentioned, people are not driven wholly by reason or rational thought. I think humanity thrives best in smaller communities like tribes and villages because everyone values different things, and that won't change any time soon with how the last few decades have played out. Nations must ultimately use coercion and force to maintain themselves and they inevitably succumb to tyranny. Ireland was stateless for a thousand years, civil matters being presided over by brehons and a king who acted more as a spiritual advisor than a true ruler. The native American tribes might have had nasty disputes, some tribes like the Comanches were straight up evil, but it was a very natural human system of tribes where they had a sustainable relationship with the natural world. Evil is ultimately self-defeating, and humanity must learn through trial and error. Often after a few cycles of trial and error. There is no utopia. What we see with the prideful, entitled activists and politicians is not sustainable, and is doomed to fail on its own merits. Virtue is what we should focus on, and taking care of our little corner of the world and nurturing our immediate community. Mysticism will always be a part of the human experience because humans experience the world symbolically. "The world might be round, but we experience it as flat," to echo a crude Eastern Orthodox sentiment. We can strive to remain as objective as possible - and we should - but our senses and methods are ultimately fallible, and we will never know every truth of the cosmos. Man didn't know about radio waves for the longest time, or electricity. Who knows how many other dimensions there are. Does that mean we should exhaust every resource to find them? No. Focus on values, virtues, and community. Leave exploration to the hobbyists and adventurers. Take it from someone who was a hardcore materialist for the last decade: we are all ignorant apes who know fuck-all about this world and need to chill out. Not everyone needs to have children (some outright shouldn't); whiteness, blackness, browness, jewyness, or yellowness is not something that needs to be actively preserved (though none should be demonized); and humanity will continue to evolve. We may wipe ourselves out, but would that not be natural selection? We all die, and ultimately must focus on making our own little corner of the world better than when we arrived. Nature, or God, will always trump humanity. And that, my friend, is objective. Also, totally agree Stoicism is a great general religion for the west! Maybe I misinterpreted some parts of your video, but overall I really enjoyed it! I actually intend on making a similar video soon about what we can take from religions of the past moving forward, so thank you for the fortuitous content to chew on!
Thanks. Here's some pushback: You say you believe in living in accordance with nature, but that the core issue with the immigration crisis is a disparity of values. I agree, but racial homogeneity is a value, i.e. something we demonstrate an interest in having, maintaining, and defending. Thus to disallow the freedom of association (and disassociation) would not be living in accordance with nature. By the way, one important reason we naturally express racial preference is that intra-racial status is more beneficial for the majority and status controls access to mates. So this preference will not disappear with more diversity and inclusivity education. It is a hard-wired feature of human behavior (a natural law). Second, you mentioned that a little ethnic diversity in the gene pool has actually been proven to increase fitness. This is true to a degree, and not true past that point. As Martin has pointed out, out-breeding too far allows a high probability of expression of deleterious recessive genes and/or foreign incompatible ones. Risks of in-breeding go away really fast as you move away from immediate relations (past second cousins); thus I don’t believe we need interracial mixing to attain those genetic benefits, and we do accrue losses by doing so. I agree that not everyone needs to reproduce, in fact one of the biggest mistakes we made in the West is dropping soft eugenics. However I do value my genetic material and don’t want to see it lost, and so I do actively seek to preserve it. I suppose not everyone consciously feels that way, and that’s fine-let people disperse and associate how they will, according to their preferences. That’s what FOA is all about. Or as Curt says, let people sort into the nations, governments, institutions, traditions, and norms that suit their genetic distributions. We are only equal in trade. And trade is the only equality we need. Pretty much everything else I agree with. One quick note about mysticism: it may well always be a part of society, but lying and fictionalisms don’t have to continue to pollute our informational commons or inform rule of law, which should be based on what’s decidable (the formal, natural, evolutionary, and physical laws of the universe). This is one reason why Curt’s work is so important as it clearly demarcates which grammars belong in which arena, and which do not, allowing for maximum choice in the realm of personal life (the via positiva - one’s philosophy and religion, etc.) and maximum suppression of falsehoods in the realm of law (the via negativa), facilitating maximum evolutionary computation and extending mankind’s war against the ultimate foes of entropy and time.
@@exquofonte Thanks for the detailed response! Seems I'll need to read some Curt Doolittle then. Some people hold the value of racial homogeneity, but the way history has gone it'll be a hard sell for humanity as a whole to see that unless they burn their hand on the stove a few times and experience what kind of damage overt out-breeding entails. But I think most people naturally gravitate towards their own race. I don't foresee it being a problem as long as the general attitude towards diversity is that it may add flavor but is not a virtue. Demonize it, it becomes attractive. Glorify it, and people rebel. This seems to have become a more significant trend since the Enlightenment so I'm a big fan of "long-term de-escalation" through diplomacy and reconciliation. There's a place for freedom of association and dissociation in nature, as people who no longer identify with their communities should be allowed to leave and tend to. This was much easier before the Industrial Revolution and rise of surveillance technology, as even under monarchies peasants tended to have more freedom than the average modern man; one village isn't working out, find another one, move to the city, or become a hermit with few barriers. I don't think this paradigm shift has put any truly permanent constraints on how humanity as a whole must function to survive. Am I correct in inferring you're talking more about an ideal society that grows as an organism by itself that may eventually expand across the entire West as more societies follow that initial society's lead? (Based on what you said about letting people sort themselves) Because the average person isn't too concerned about maximizing the gains of the species, they simply want stability. It'll be difficult to get the kind of society you're talking about through our current political structures unless it's all torn down and built back up under a unified vision. I would argue entropy and time are only natural. Every one of us has an expiration date, humanity has an expiration date, the earth has an expiration date, the sun, and even the universe. I feel like maxing out our attributes isn't as meaningful a use of time as sharing memories, stories, hardships, and connecting with each other, even if there's a few hiccups along the way. Humans aren't perfect, and shouldn't try to perfect each other. We may be at an impasse to some extent seeing as I have a pretty hands-off approach to politics, as in I think humanity is evolving however it is meant to and needs to burn itself a few times in order to learn better. Also deep in my heart-of-hearts I'm an anarcho-tribalist, (if we're getting labelly) and would prefer to see the world's nations splinter and become small as possible. And phase out most technology, but that's a whole other can of worms. Do you have thoughts about the concept of the Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40K? Like would you view that as an ideal future? Apologies if I'm annoying you with these long responses, I just don't normally get to have these conversations.
@@ScoundrelousMoose No problem, most people like us don't have much opportunity for such conversation. The sort of ideal society i’m talking about is simply one in which there is true rule of law by reciprocity, which suppresses parasitism and deceit. Curt has all the details on how to do this if you go to the NLI website or wait for his books to come out shortly. When we reform the constitution and implement Curt’s method in court (Testimonialism), I have little doubt that the results will be highly (and quickly) successful and other nations will likely attempt to follow suit. You said you’d like to see the nations splinter and become small; the NLI’s logo says “let a thousand nations bloom.” You would definitely like Curt’s ideas on this subject. The current state boundaries are woefully inadequate and unjust which becomes obvious when you look at the map of who voted red/blue by county. You’re right that selling racial homogeneity is a hard sell; in America this is pointless as a critical mass is genetically predisposed to oppose that; once we have freedom of association and sovereign polities (federated for military insurance of course) however then birds of a feather can flock together
I wish that were true. I’ve had the misfortune of dealing with foreigners up close and interacting with many. The amount of times I’ve heard them conspiring against myself or other Whites(read: Americans) is astounding. I once heard 2 Indians discussing how much they despise Whites and would willingly lie thru their teeth to us until we are a minority in our own country, and then they wouldn’t need to “obey us”. The reason they view it this way is many Indians see people above them as needing to be obeyed, but not respected. It’s completely normal in Indian culture to harm or bait into hazard those below you on the status hierarchy. After dealing with it for so long among Indians in America, I do not think it is just cultural. It is at least in part genetic
Man does not create religion to worship God as they please . God creates religion to dictate his law , will an worship . God did not create all people equal . If God had wanted us equal we would be .
@@MarkNoonan-vb4wp If you can’t even name them, than maybe folk are on to something when it comes to doing as they please, but I can see why the “Oughts” are hesitant when it’s for the worst.
I've been thinking about these post modern fragmented hippies religion "new age" folks on psychedelics Like what do I do when they talk about chakra balancing and past life and remote-viewing reincarnation etc lol
Well, those sorts of things may or may not be real. They're posited as experienced, but without a means of decidability, they remain positions of belief, spiritual philosophies. There's nothing wrong with Via Positiva (we need that too, and it can facilitate group relations) but these sorts of non-falsifiable philosophies don't inform the legal basis of a polity, which is founded on the science of natural law
@@exquofonte ah, personal philosophy, individual internal dimension (search AQAL Ken Wilber) those hippie practices are in the domain of Individual spirituality / Group Rituals. which can cultivate social fabric between people. while external collective, the legal framework, provide a structure where society can ground itself. a good "harmful" example would be wokeness invading legal system messing up everything
bruh....most of the stuff you blabbered about islam is nonsense. it's mostly baseless assumptions with some conclusions sprinkled in based on said baseless assumptions ...heck even Christianity isn't entirely correct in your explanation
I am the best person , I was given a greater mind, talent and was trained by Powers beyond our understanding, I should be given a special role in society, I was put through the enlightenment, was picked to be a God on Earth , was told the secrets of Jesus, I am the first Mind Deist, all deities are part of the collective consciousness
OMG this is fantastic. Thank you so much. I'm floored. New NLI Canon. ;) -Curt Doolittle.
@@TheNaturalLawInstitute thank you! More to come. Happy to do my part and contribute
23:28 'What would Gandalf want me to do?'
"All we have to decide, is what to do with the time that is given to us."
Brilliant composition. Clean, concise, and necessary.
This is excellent, I hope you'll be making more videos related to NLI ^^
@@BlackIce777-b6h I definitely will, stay tuned 🫡
Brought to this by the Natural Law Institute. Good stuff! I love it
You may like to read about Julian the Apostate, if you haven't already. You've essentially advocated for his version of Neoplatonism with a more monotheistic bent (if I've understood you correct).
We need a new religion. A religion for a future space age Chandrilla.
Great!
You’ve earned a new subscriber. Excellent presentation.
Subscribed!!! Found you in a vitalism group
I just can't advocate for any sort of monotheism. It's far too easy for an individual to kill a god. If you only have one responsible for everything, nihilism, hedonism, and decadence will follow.
@@Joutube_is_trash if gods effectively exist as information to function as systems of measurement (among other things), then clearly more is better
The future religion is probably gonna be something like universalism or the perennial philosophy (Baha’i Faith? Idk)
Or the West needs to allow Buddha in the Churches, instead of the “My God can beat up your God” debate Bros we have today.
Nice, but we don't need Jesus, or any form of Christianity because the Northern European world view has already integrated the lowers cast and women, already practiced love, charity and forgiveness via wiergild and other forms of Common Law long before they had heard of Jesus. Have you not read the Hovamol?
@@aunmarie7629 I’m basically fine with that. And perhaps this came off as more pro-Christianity than I intended. In fact I prefer European paganism personally. It’s just that Christianity is the default moral framework today and the religion isn’t going to disappear anytime super soon, I think. So we should find what’s actually of lasting value in it and consciously preserve that while suppressing the lies and calling out the myth/parables/wisdom literature for what it is (fiction) rather than pretending it’s fact
You’re not going to be able to subvert Christianity into some Christian/European Pagan hybrid religion/philosophy. There will always be a remnant. God’s glory will prevail. Every knee will bow and tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is the KING of Kings and THE LORD of Lords. Amen.
@@clarkmedia1609 Sounds more like Spiritual Bootcamp is needed.
@@aunmarie7629 Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through him
@@aunmarie7629 Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through him. No one. Repent and put your faith in Jesus Christ.
Supurb.
Great video, well-researched, and I like where your head's at. But I do think you're a little off the mark on some things. This is going to be massively condensed:
I believe in living in accordance with nature and acknowledging biological truths, but the core issue with the immigration crisis is not that they are a different race, it is a disparity of values. (And that the migrants are treated differently than the natives) A little ethnic diversity in the gene pool has actually been proven to increase fitness (like added resistance against certain diseases; we can even see this principle play out with dog breeds). Even if genetic diversity makes us objectively stronger as a species (or even genetic formalization), this is not worth basing a culture around. It's character and values.
Like you mentioned, people are not driven wholly by reason or rational thought. I think humanity thrives best in smaller communities like tribes and villages because everyone values different things, and that won't change any time soon with how the last few decades have played out. Nations must ultimately use coercion and force to maintain themselves and they inevitably succumb to tyranny. Ireland was stateless for a thousand years, civil matters being presided over by brehons and a king who acted more as a spiritual advisor than a true ruler. The native American tribes might have had nasty disputes, some tribes like the Comanches were straight up evil, but it was a very natural human system of tribes where they had a sustainable relationship with the natural world.
Evil is ultimately self-defeating, and humanity must learn through trial and error. Often after a few cycles of trial and error. There is no utopia. What we see with the prideful, entitled activists and politicians is not sustainable, and is doomed to fail on its own merits. Virtue is what we should focus on, and taking care of our little corner of the world and nurturing our immediate community.
Mysticism will always be a part of the human experience because humans experience the world symbolically. "The world might be round, but we experience it as flat," to echo a crude Eastern Orthodox sentiment. We can strive to remain as objective as possible - and we should - but our senses and methods are ultimately fallible, and we will never know every truth of the cosmos. Man didn't know about radio waves for the longest time, or electricity. Who knows how many other dimensions there are. Does that mean we should exhaust every resource to find them? No. Focus on values, virtues, and community. Leave exploration to the hobbyists and adventurers. Take it from someone who was a hardcore materialist for the last decade: we are all ignorant apes who know fuck-all about this world and need to chill out.
Not everyone needs to have children (some outright shouldn't); whiteness, blackness, browness, jewyness, or yellowness is not something that needs to be actively preserved (though none should be demonized); and humanity will continue to evolve. We may wipe ourselves out, but would that not be natural selection? We all die, and ultimately must focus on making our own little corner of the world better than when we arrived. Nature, or God, will always trump humanity. And that, my friend, is objective.
Also, totally agree Stoicism is a great general religion for the west! Maybe I misinterpreted some parts of your video, but overall I really enjoyed it!
I actually intend on making a similar video soon about what we can take from religions of the past moving forward, so thank you for the fortuitous content to chew on!
Thanks. Here's some pushback: You say you believe in living in accordance with nature, but that the core issue with the immigration crisis is a disparity of values. I agree, but racial homogeneity is a value, i.e. something we demonstrate an interest in having, maintaining, and defending. Thus to disallow the freedom of association (and disassociation) would not be living in accordance with nature. By the way, one important reason we naturally express racial preference is that intra-racial status is more beneficial for the majority and status controls access to mates. So this preference will not disappear with more diversity and inclusivity education. It is a hard-wired feature of human behavior (a natural law).
Second, you mentioned that a little ethnic diversity in the gene pool has actually been proven to increase fitness. This is true to a degree, and not true past that point. As Martin has pointed out, out-breeding too far allows a high probability of expression of deleterious recessive genes and/or foreign incompatible ones. Risks of in-breeding go away really fast as you move away from immediate relations (past second cousins); thus I don’t believe we need interracial mixing to attain those genetic benefits, and we do accrue losses by doing so.
I agree that not everyone needs to reproduce, in fact one of the biggest mistakes we made in the West is dropping soft eugenics. However I do value my genetic material and don’t want to see it lost, and so I do actively seek to preserve it. I suppose not everyone consciously feels that way, and that’s fine-let people disperse and associate how they will, according to their preferences. That’s what FOA is all about. Or as Curt says, let people sort into the nations, governments, institutions, traditions, and norms that suit their genetic distributions. We are only equal in trade. And trade is the only equality we need.
Pretty much everything else I agree with. One quick note about mysticism: it may well always be a part of society, but lying and fictionalisms don’t have to continue to pollute our informational commons or inform rule of law, which should be based on what’s decidable (the formal, natural, evolutionary, and physical laws of the universe). This is one reason why Curt’s work is so important as it clearly demarcates which grammars belong in which arena, and which do not, allowing for maximum choice in the realm of personal life (the via positiva - one’s philosophy and religion, etc.) and maximum suppression of falsehoods in the realm of law (the via negativa), facilitating maximum evolutionary computation and extending mankind’s war against the ultimate foes of entropy and time.
@@exquofonte Thanks for the detailed response! Seems I'll need to read some Curt Doolittle then.
Some people hold the value of racial homogeneity, but the way history has gone it'll be a hard sell for humanity as a whole to see that unless they burn their hand on the stove a few times and experience what kind of damage overt out-breeding entails. But I think most people naturally gravitate towards their own race. I don't foresee it being a problem as long as the general attitude towards diversity is that it may add flavor but is not a virtue. Demonize it, it becomes attractive. Glorify it, and people rebel. This seems to have become a more significant trend since the Enlightenment so I'm a big fan of "long-term de-escalation" through diplomacy and reconciliation.
There's a place for freedom of association and dissociation in nature, as people who no longer identify with their communities should be allowed to leave and tend to. This was much easier before the Industrial Revolution and rise of surveillance technology, as even under monarchies peasants tended to have more freedom than the average modern man; one village isn't working out, find another one, move to the city, or become a hermit with few barriers. I don't think this paradigm shift has put any truly permanent constraints on how humanity as a whole must function to survive.
Am I correct in inferring you're talking more about an ideal society that grows as an organism by itself that may eventually expand across the entire West as more societies follow that initial society's lead? (Based on what you said about letting people sort themselves) Because the average person isn't too concerned about maximizing the gains of the species, they simply want stability. It'll be difficult to get the kind of society you're talking about through our current political structures unless it's all torn down and built back up under a unified vision.
I would argue entropy and time are only natural. Every one of us has an expiration date, humanity has an expiration date, the earth has an expiration date, the sun, and even the universe. I feel like maxing out our attributes isn't as meaningful a use of time as sharing memories, stories, hardships, and connecting with each other, even if there's a few hiccups along the way. Humans aren't perfect, and shouldn't try to perfect each other.
We may be at an impasse to some extent seeing as I have a pretty hands-off approach to politics, as in I think humanity is evolving however it is meant to and needs to burn itself a few times in order to learn better. Also deep in my heart-of-hearts I'm an anarcho-tribalist, (if we're getting labelly) and would prefer to see the world's nations splinter and become small as possible. And phase out most technology, but that's a whole other can of worms. Do you have thoughts about the concept of the Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40K? Like would you view that as an ideal future?
Apologies if I'm annoying you with these long responses, I just don't normally get to have these conversations.
@@ScoundrelousMoose No problem, most people like us don't have much opportunity for such conversation.
The sort of ideal society i’m talking about is simply one in which there is true rule of law by reciprocity, which suppresses parasitism and deceit. Curt has all the details on how to do this if you go to the NLI website or wait for his books to come out shortly. When we reform the constitution and implement Curt’s method in court (Testimonialism), I have little doubt that the results will be highly (and quickly) successful and other nations will likely attempt to follow suit.
You said you’d like to see the nations splinter and become small; the NLI’s logo says “let a thousand nations bloom.” You would definitely like Curt’s ideas on this subject. The current state boundaries are woefully inadequate and unjust which becomes obvious when you look at the map of who voted red/blue by county.
You’re right that selling racial homogeneity is a hard sell; in America this is pointless as a critical mass is genetically predisposed to oppose that; once we have freedom of association and sovereign polities (federated for military insurance of course) however then birds of a feather can flock together
@ Makes sense, thanks for the great conversation! I think the YT gods deleted my comment
@@ScoundrelousMoose shoot, sorry about that. Second time its happened on my channel..
I don't want religion in my life, I only need philosophy and alone time
Many can relate
Me… I can have everything my conscience & The All Conscience assisted me created for only myself
I am getting some really confusing messages from this video.
Priests are scholars and drill sergeants.
Have you ever considered that other groups don't actually want to hurt you and you're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy?
@@lysofdev yes, I used to be a child. Then I grew up
I wish that were true. I’ve had the misfortune of dealing with foreigners up close and interacting with many. The amount of times I’ve heard them conspiring against myself or other Whites(read: Americans) is astounding. I once heard 2 Indians discussing how much they despise Whites and would willingly lie thru their teeth to us until we are a minority in our own country, and then they wouldn’t need to “obey us”. The reason they view it this way is many Indians see people above them as needing to be obeyed, but not respected. It’s completely normal in Indian culture to harm or bait into hazard those below you on the status hierarchy. After dealing with it for so long among Indians in America, I do not think it is just cultural. It is at least in part genetic
Concidering the situation in the UK right now, your argument is gonna be a bit hard to make...
Certain crime statistics prove otherwise.
Jesus is alive, and he Will return
Fucking relevant.
Man does not create religion to worship God as they please . God creates religion to dictate his law , will an worship . God did not create all people equal . If God had wanted us equal we would be .
Which God?
@@burgundy5222 You need to come to that realization on your own .
@@MarkNoonan-vb4wp If you can’t even name them, than maybe folk are on to something when it comes to doing as they please, but I can see why the “Oughts” are hesitant when it’s for the worst.
How exactly are people "unequal"?
☀️
12:00
um...I don't think you understand the gospel.
elaborate
I've been thinking about these post modern fragmented hippies religion "new age" folks on psychedelics
Like what do I do when they talk about chakra balancing and past life and remote-viewing reincarnation etc lol
Well, those sorts of things may or may not be real. They're posited as experienced, but without a means of decidability, they remain positions of belief, spiritual philosophies. There's nothing wrong with Via Positiva (we need that too, and it can facilitate group relations) but these sorts of non-falsifiable philosophies don't inform the legal basis of a polity, which is founded on the science of natural law
@@exquofonte
ah, personal philosophy, individual internal dimension (search AQAL Ken Wilber)
those hippie practices are in the domain of Individual spirituality / Group Rituals.
which can cultivate social fabric between people.
while external collective, the legal framework, provide a structure where society can ground itself.
a good "harmful" example would be wokeness invading legal system messing up everything
Remote viewing is real and was used by kgb and cia in the 70’s. Dean Radin talks about that
You remind me of Europos.
very nice, but don't worship curt - he has his issues.
who doesn't?
bruh....most of the stuff you blabbered about islam is nonsense. it's mostly baseless assumptions with some conclusions sprinkled in based on said baseless assumptions ...heck even Christianity isn't entirely correct in your explanation
@@Hero-yu4om what baseless assumptions?
I am the best person , I was given a greater mind, talent and was trained by Powers beyond our understanding, I should be given a special role in society, I was put through the enlightenment, was picked to be a God on Earth , was told the secrets of Jesus, I am the first Mind Deist, all deities are part of the collective consciousness