While I’d call myself a Pagan Esotericist (Mostly an Armanist), blood comes first, My blood is my faith simple ‘as, It meerley explains the nature of, and rewards of, the struggle we’re in. This video here is essentially what I’ve always said so great work 😁
I should be the leader of this civil religion, I was given a greater mind, I was put through spiritual bootcamp, no one knows what is going on except me
The nature of leadership is that no one follows the leader. The GENUINE leader is the first or most important follower. Other followers copy that follower. Attesting to your own value as a leader is a fool's arrogance. Other people have to do that for you. The better your prime follower, the faster other followers will join the chorus. But testifying on your own behalf is just not credible.
official civil religion sound interesting :) it reminds me of confucianism being somewhat compartible all sorts of religions as it is about organizing society in the order, respect the elders, respect the king etc, follow the rule and law, even king themselves.
Brother, the religion of yesteryear was wignat. Everything that has happened since then has been a downward decline. The problem is we abandoned faith in God. We stopped believing in Truth, and we're now suffering the spiritual and timely consequences of it. Everything you described has already been and gone.
Please tell me one “truth” from the Bible or any religion, the word “truth” hardly even belongs in the same sentence as religion. how about the fact that this century is the most prosperous we’ve ever had? People have more money than ever, people live longer than ever, very few people starve(relatively) and we can treat many of the most common diseases that would have killed millions just 100 years ago(the life expectancy doubled from around 1900-2000) yet we are also the least religious we’ve ever been? Surely “god” would want to punish us for such a terrible sin? Yet what we see is that when we abandon those medieval, barbaric, cultish ideas we actually progress as a society.
Statements like "we strayed from God" are sure indicators that you're dealing with an idiot incapable of grasping complex social mechanics. Explaining won't help. Your time may as well be spent teaching cats to drive. If you want to supplant their current thinking, you've got to give them something even simpler.
@Somejaun lmao if you're suggesting we are better off today then people were 1,000 years ago you couldn't be more wrong. The fact that people are killing themselves at unprecedented rates and using mind altering substances to cope with the hell that is the modern world makes that suggestion laughable. Literally everyone knows this is a uniquely horrible time to be alive. People are so dead spiritually that they no longer wish to be alive physically. Before, people were so alive spiritually that they had a borderline reckless disregard for their physical wellbeing. I'll let you guess which of those states of being is "better."
Much of this is in line with what National Socialism is. Prioritizing blood and heritage above all. A nation holding itself, its gods, heroes, history, and destiny to be the highest good. This is part of the definition of N.S. Which is something I've always agreed with. A nation must be united and cohesive in order to flourish. Personally I think the more cohesive and homogenous a nation, the closer it can be to God or its gods.
in the age of thinking machines, how do you think we should organize our society? AI definitely matters and no one in this world got any single idea about it, marx had some ideas about industrial society and capitalism, which helped capitalism to adapt from it's collapse
I think you are onto something great, because there are multiple factions on the (pro - european) right that are incomplete on their own and you are one of the first to truly unite them. Folkish paganism should probably be the best form of religion for the new state, because the emphasis is on the fact that you can only be a pagan, if you are of the people of that form of paganism, the faith is of, about and for our folk, also because of the ancestor worship. Integrating that with classical philosophers and the (non christian) western canon should suffice. The problem with christianity is the eternal egotism that it has, it will not put itself in service of anything esle but itself. If you let it play out to the ultimate end, you cannot go for anything but a total and global theocracy no matter what ethnicity the people are from. Plus, as you mention in another video of yours, it puts another (and hostile) group over our kin. Just a more tangible example, lets suppose the imagined state exists and christians inside it want to import other christians of a different ethnicity because of christian solidarity, that alone shows that they are doctrinally forced to go against our folk interests. No matter if the law says so, there are always the martyrs waiting in the shadows to jump out.
The central idea here is that various religions could exist and flourish within a polity so long as they did not violate its summum bonum, which would be made explicit by the terms and conditions of the state's 'civil religion' which essentially ensures nothing supersedes the good of the folk in the polity. Thus there could be people practicing Christian religion, but they would not be permitted to 'import' other Christians of a different genetic stock; we thereby allow plurality of religious expression without at the same time being vulnerable to seditious forms of any religion. This might be difficult to imagine currently as there isn't per se anything comparable, although the de facto summum bonum of modern liberal democracy is 'equality', so we'd just replace 'equality' with 'quality' (i.e. our ethnic stock and their flourishing)
@@exquofonte Alright I understand. Would you say, that over long enough stretches of time we could modify chrisitanity so far, that it turns into another paganism so to speak? What would you think about the following scenario: We become a minority like the "tribe", obviously we would be more like the amish I guess, but anyway in that scenario we no longer have our nations like we used to and live in pockets of survival. How would your policy change, in what light would you see christianity and especially the paganism vs christianity dichotomy then? Would you see the christian half of our people merge into other ethnicities as the different churches would still exist and be dominated by other ethnicities over time? Would you see the ethnocentric half of the christians merge with the pagans or would you see them as two different competing tribes of whites? Would a constitution, like you propose, be able to work?
@@sapiensfromterra5103 I think it’s possible, perhaps even likely, that Christianity will mutate substantially in the coming centuries. It tends to do so about every half-millennium, and the reformation was 500 years ago. So I do think it’s possible much of Christianity could become repaganized in a sense. Also, in my experience, a lot of racially-conscious Christians are pretty ecumenical when it comes to working together with pagans for the common good of our people. As far as I know, Germans in the 1930s of both Lutheranism and Catholicism more or less got along as they were united by something more fundamental they held in common (German ethnicity and culture) which was essentially made the core of the National Socialist ‘state religion.’ But even if Christians and pagans didn’t want to ‘cross-pollinate’, that’s not necessarily a problem. We would have markets in everything, including religion.
@@exquofonte True and even some ardent defenders of catholicism like the Distributist are saying that it needs a new reformation. Yes in general the "30's Germans" were going in the right direction, reintroducing paganism, changing the angle of christianity to be ethnocentric. In eastern germany, I am not from there but from the western half, they continued the "30s Germany idea", despite communism and the defacto religion of a lot of them is "30s german ideas". Also unlike the anglosphere, most of them are not seeking a return to trad christianity but to the "30s Germany idea". So in a few generations the problem could be solved rapidly. It is a hopeful prospect though, that the repaganization of christianity is a likely possibility. Of course a true man doesn't hope but do, so lets create dynasties that continue those ideas.
1 timothy 5:8 "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own kin, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." If you put foreigners before your people then you're worse than a non believer. Don't let you ignorance of christianity be the reason for your dismissal of it.
Why are "law" and "state" represented as 2 different things? The state is split into 3 independent (or at least should be) branches: legislative, executive and judicial. The law is made and upheald in reality by the 2 latter ones so they are the same. Law is a subset of the things the state does.
@@lordvader5246 we don’t have to agree on the (posited, non-verifiable) transcendent meaning OF life to know empirically that there is meaning *within* life, and all peoples demonstrate that this includes the preservation and advancement of their people
@exquofonte "preservation (survival)" is just a biological trait, known even to the lowest organisms (like bacteria). "Advancement" still begs the question, "to what end?" Advancement is not an end in it of itself. You need a teleological answer for that question. Humans are more than just the most intelligent monkeys. We weren't given ability to perceive the divine to help us build roads, rockets or Dyson spheres. What's your measure of "advancement" or progress? GDP? lol
Pretending that islam and Western Christian Civilization are the same is not something I would call a 'point' in any way, shape or form. 'The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith'
@@exquofonte Before I say anything, I want to make it clear that I understand where you are coming from because I myself thought like this for a long time. The thing is, no matter how nice-sounding your proposition is, you have to ask yourself, is it sustainable? I argue that it isn't. In fact, I would say that a secular religion run by the state would be a fate worse than anything we can imagine. The state is already quite powerful, so to grant it even more power, on the spiritual front, would foist a truly hellish society on all of us. I would argue that, rather than squandering the civilization that Christendom built for us, we hold fast to our roots, learn from it, revivify it and make the most of it. One thing that is clear to me is that we sure as hell are not able to create currently anything that can stand up to the beauty of a Gothic Cathedral, a Bach mass or a Fra Angelico. Why flush it down the toilet thinking we can do better, when we can instead enrich our souls with such unparallalled greatness and preserve it to the best of our abilities? To think that Christianity can be extirpated from the West without completely destroying it, is quite an arrogant idea.
This is my first time engaging with this channel, so I might be missing the larger picture, but here's a few thoughts: 1. The framework presented at the beginning seems a little reductive. What even is "law" as opposed to the state's will? Certainly the people who made the sculpture from the thumbnail believed in no such thing. Besides, if we were to accept this framework, it would make the entire Medieval period somehow non-Western, or at least less Western than the Ummayad age in Syria(!!!), as the latter gave notably less precedence to religion than the former. 2. In what way a civic religion that is non-supernatural and meant to be a replacement for neoliberalism anything more than just an ideology? What rituals could it possibly have that wouldn't rub the remaining Christians and other zealots the wrong way? Mandatory goat sacrifice for empire and folk is out of the question, at least for now, and the kind of "rituals" that the current order has are not nearly intense enough to count as religious at all. Am I misunderstanding something or is this "civil religion" proposal exactly the same as simply having an official state ideology?
Good questions. The West's roots go back to the Indo-Europeans, militia which had laws, i.e. mutual insurance, and contractual relationships between sovereign men capable of bearing arms, insured by themselves. Think of the dynamics aboard a pirate ship, and apply it to the vast landmass of Eurasia. States came later. As for your second point, I suppose 'folk first' is an ideology, but it's not Platonic; it is empirically based. The specifics of rituals are not specified here because those would emerge organically and differ based on the region and group in question. Think of it less as involving mandatory goat sacrifices and more as seasonal festivals and parades celebrating the culture (arts, crafts, science & tech, agriculture) of the group, as well as holidays and monuments remembering important historical figures. No zealous Christian need feel threatened by this. This has most recently been tried in National Socialist Germany. Regardless what you think about them, their 'civil religion' worked to facilitate group cohesion within and across classes and to instill the group's identity and values. Reich Harvest Thanksgiving Festivals at Bückeberg, annual party rallies in Nuremberg, and incorporation of Germanic folk culture (dance, music, etc.) along with popular Christian holidays like Christmas. The group's official ideology is thus just the intentional remembrance, preservation, and persistence of the group identity itself, which both binds the group together and safeguards against undesirable seditious ideologies.
12 วันที่ผ่านมา
@@exquofonte I see what you mean now. In hindsight, it made sense to call this phenomenon "civic religion", even though initially I found this choice of words confusing. Thanks for responding!
European civilization was built by Catholicism. It began to die when it abandoned Catholicism. Any group who does the same will suffer the same. You cannot abandon the universal author of Order and have a civilization.
@@lordvader5246 European civilization is rooted in rule of law, truth telling, heroism, and Aristotelianism (empirical science), which all precede Christianity. The Church contributed both positively and negatively, and I don’t make a judgment here about whether it was a net negative or positive
Why then are african countries who are >80% catholic shitholes, why didn't they build the great gothic cathedrals? Why on the other hand is Japan not a shithole, even though it suffers from modernity as much as all the other christian countries, why is its demographics better than ours? Why is china then the strongest power on the horizon and it is the oldest continuing civilization on the planet? Answer: christianity was merely an overlay over an european core
Absolutely loving these videos
Love it. Very useful content
While I’d call myself a Pagan Esotericist (Mostly an Armanist), blood comes first, My blood is my faith simple ‘as, It meerley explains the nature of, and rewards of, the struggle we’re in. This video here is essentially what I’ve always said so great work 😁
@@WitchHunterSiegfried88 God is the author of your blood. Why would you disregard or offend that which blessed you with your most prized possession?
This exactly sums up how I think.
Welcome aboard
Don't worry. Supranational globalist organizations are working hard on bringing about a one world religion.
I should be the leader of this civil religion, I was given a greater mind, I was put through spiritual bootcamp, no one knows what is going on except me
Stick to juggling bucko
slow down rudy
The nature of leadership is that no one follows the leader. The GENUINE leader is the first or most important follower. Other followers copy that follower.
Attesting to your own value as a leader is a fool's arrogance. Other people have to do that for you. The better your prime follower, the faster other followers will join the chorus.
But testifying on your own behalf is just not credible.
Commenting so the algorithm with pickup this video
official civil religion sound interesting :)
it reminds me of confucianism being somewhat compartible all sorts of religions as it is about organizing society in the order,
respect the elders, respect the king etc, follow the rule and law, even king themselves.
Brother, the religion of yesteryear was wignat. Everything that has happened since then has been a downward decline. The problem is we abandoned faith in God. We stopped believing in Truth, and we're now suffering the spiritual and timely consequences of it. Everything you described has already been and gone.
Please tell me one “truth” from the Bible or any religion, the word “truth” hardly even belongs in the same sentence as religion. how about the fact that this century is the most prosperous we’ve ever had? People have more money than ever, people live longer than ever, very few people starve(relatively) and we can treat many of the most common diseases that would have killed millions just 100 years ago(the life expectancy doubled from around 1900-2000) yet we are also the least religious we’ve ever been? Surely “god” would want to punish us for such a terrible sin? Yet what we see is that when we abandon those medieval, barbaric, cultish ideas we actually progress as a society.
Statements like "we strayed from God" are sure indicators that you're dealing with an idiot incapable of grasping complex social mechanics. Explaining won't help. Your time may as well be spent teaching cats to drive.
If you want to supplant their current thinking, you've got to give them something even simpler.
@Somejaun I'd copy and past the catechism of the Catholic church here if I could but that's the answer to your demand for "truth."
@Somejaun lmao if you're suggesting we are better off today then people were 1,000 years ago you couldn't be more wrong.
The fact that people are killing themselves at unprecedented rates and using mind altering substances to cope with the hell that is the modern world makes that suggestion laughable.
Literally everyone knows this is a uniquely horrible time to be alive. People are so dead spiritually that they no longer wish to be alive physically. Before, people were so alive spiritually that they had a borderline reckless disregard for their physical wellbeing.
I'll let you guess which of those states of being is "better."
In America, this civil religion should focus on Goddess Columbia.
Much of this is in line with what National Socialism is. Prioritizing blood and heritage above all. A nation holding itself, its gods, heroes, history, and destiny to be the highest good.
This is part of the definition of N.S.
Which is something I've always agreed with. A nation must be united and cohesive in order to flourish. Personally I think the more cohesive and homogenous a nation, the closer it can be to God or its gods.
in the age of thinking machines, how do you think we should organize our society? AI definitely matters and no one in this world got any single idea about it, marx had some ideas about industrial society and capitalism, which helped capitalism to adapt from it's collapse
I think you are onto something great, because there are multiple factions on the (pro - european) right that are incomplete on their own and you are one of the first to truly unite them.
Folkish paganism should probably be the best form of religion for the new state, because the emphasis is on the fact that you can only be a pagan, if you are of the people of that form of paganism, the faith is of, about and for our folk, also because of the ancestor worship. Integrating that with classical philosophers and the (non christian) western canon should suffice.
The problem with christianity is the eternal egotism that it has, it will not put itself in service of anything esle but itself. If you let it play out to the ultimate end, you cannot go for anything but a total and global theocracy no matter what ethnicity the people are from. Plus, as you mention in another video of yours, it puts another (and hostile) group over our kin.
Just a more tangible example, lets suppose the imagined state exists and christians inside it want to import other christians of a different ethnicity because of christian solidarity, that alone shows that they are doctrinally forced to go against our folk interests.
No matter if the law says so, there are always the martyrs waiting in the shadows to jump out.
The central idea here is that various religions could exist and flourish within a polity so long as they did not violate its summum bonum, which would be made explicit by the terms and conditions of the state's 'civil religion' which essentially ensures nothing supersedes the good of the folk in the polity. Thus there could be people practicing Christian religion, but they would not be permitted to 'import' other Christians of a different genetic stock; we thereby allow plurality of religious expression without at the same time being vulnerable to seditious forms of any religion. This might be difficult to imagine currently as there isn't per se anything comparable, although the de facto summum bonum of modern liberal democracy is 'equality', so we'd just replace 'equality' with 'quality' (i.e. our ethnic stock and their flourishing)
@@exquofonte Alright I understand.
Would you say, that over long enough stretches of time we could modify chrisitanity so far, that it turns into another paganism so to speak?
What would you think about the following scenario:
We become a minority like the "tribe", obviously we would be more like the amish I guess, but anyway in that scenario we no longer have our nations like we used to and live in pockets of survival. How would your policy change, in what light would you see christianity and especially the paganism vs christianity dichotomy then? Would you see the christian half of our people merge into other ethnicities as the different churches would still exist and be dominated by other ethnicities over time? Would you see the ethnocentric half of the christians merge with the pagans or would you see them as two different competing tribes of whites? Would a constitution, like you propose, be able to work?
@@sapiensfromterra5103 I think it’s possible, perhaps even likely, that Christianity will mutate substantially in the coming centuries. It tends to do so about every half-millennium, and the reformation was 500 years ago. So I do think it’s possible much of Christianity could become repaganized in a sense. Also, in my experience, a lot of racially-conscious Christians are pretty ecumenical when it comes to working together with pagans for the common good of our people. As far as I know, Germans in the 1930s of both Lutheranism and Catholicism more or less got along as they were united by something more fundamental they held in common (German ethnicity and culture) which was essentially made the core of the National Socialist ‘state religion.’ But even if Christians and pagans didn’t want to ‘cross-pollinate’, that’s not necessarily a problem. We would have markets in everything, including religion.
@@exquofonte True and even some ardent defenders of catholicism like the Distributist are saying that it needs a new reformation.
Yes in general the "30's Germans" were going in the right direction, reintroducing paganism, changing the angle of christianity to be ethnocentric. In eastern germany, I am not from there but from the western half, they continued the "30s Germany idea", despite communism and the defacto religion of a lot of them is "30s german ideas". Also unlike the anglosphere, most of them are not seeking a return to trad christianity but to the "30s Germany idea".
So in a few generations the problem could be solved rapidly.
It is a hopeful prospect though, that the repaganization of christianity is a likely possibility.
Of course a true man doesn't hope but do, so lets create dynasties that continue those ideas.
1 timothy 5:8
"Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own kin, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
If you put foreigners before your people then you're worse than a non believer.
Don't let you ignorance of christianity be the reason for your dismissal of it.
Why are "law" and "state" represented as 2 different things?
The state is split into 3 independent (or at least should be) branches: legislative, executive and judicial.
The law is made and upheald in reality by the 2 latter ones so they are the same. Law is a subset of the things the state does.
The Indo-Europeans were roving land pirates with law but no state. Sovereign men bound by contractual relations. State comes later
"Preservation and advancement" to what end? You cannot answer that temporally, just spiritually.
@@lordvader5246 we don’t have to agree on the (posited, non-verifiable) transcendent meaning OF life to know empirically that there is meaning *within* life, and all peoples demonstrate that this includes the preservation and advancement of their people
@exquofonte "preservation (survival)" is just a biological trait, known even to the lowest organisms (like bacteria).
"Advancement" still begs the question, "to what end?" Advancement is not an end in it of itself. You need a teleological answer for that question.
Humans are more than just the most intelligent monkeys. We weren't given ability to perceive the divine to help us build roads, rockets or Dyson spheres.
What's your measure of "advancement" or progress? GDP? lol
Pretending that islam and Western Christian Civilization are the same is not something I would call a 'point' in any way, shape or form. 'The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith'
I disagree with Belloc. I also did not say Islam and the Christian West are the same, how on earth did you get to that conclusion?
@@exquofonte Before I say anything, I want to make it clear that I understand where you are coming from because I myself thought like this for a long time. The thing is, no matter how nice-sounding your proposition is, you have to ask yourself, is it sustainable? I argue that it isn't. In fact, I would say that a secular religion run by the state would be a fate worse than anything we can imagine. The state is already quite powerful, so to grant it even more power, on the spiritual front, would foist a truly hellish society on all of us. I would argue that, rather than squandering the civilization that Christendom built for us, we hold fast to our roots, learn from it, revivify it and make the most of it. One thing that is clear to me is that we sure as hell are not able to create currently anything that can stand up to the beauty of a Gothic Cathedral, a Bach mass or a Fra Angelico. Why flush it down the toilet thinking we can do better, when we can instead enrich our souls with such unparallalled greatness and preserve it to the best of our abilities? To think that Christianity can be extirpated from the West without completely destroying it, is quite an arrogant idea.
Where in the heck did you het that idea lol
This is my first time engaging with this channel, so I might be missing the larger picture, but here's a few thoughts:
1. The framework presented at the beginning seems a little reductive. What even is "law" as opposed to the state's will? Certainly the people who made the sculpture from the thumbnail believed in no such thing. Besides, if we were to accept this framework, it would make the entire Medieval period somehow non-Western, or at least less Western than the Ummayad age in Syria(!!!), as the latter gave notably less precedence to religion than the former.
2. In what way a civic religion that is non-supernatural and meant to be a replacement for neoliberalism anything more than just an ideology? What rituals could it possibly have that wouldn't rub the remaining Christians and other zealots the wrong way? Mandatory goat sacrifice for empire and folk is out of the question, at least for now, and the kind of "rituals" that the current order has are not nearly intense enough to count as religious at all. Am I misunderstanding something or is this "civil religion" proposal exactly the same as simply having an official state ideology?
Good questions. The West's roots go back to the Indo-Europeans, militia which had laws, i.e. mutual insurance, and contractual relationships between sovereign men capable of bearing arms, insured by themselves. Think of the dynamics aboard a pirate ship, and apply it to the vast landmass of Eurasia. States came later.
As for your second point, I suppose 'folk first' is an ideology, but it's not Platonic; it is empirically based. The specifics of rituals are not specified here because those would emerge organically and differ based on the region and group in question. Think of it less as involving mandatory goat sacrifices and more as seasonal festivals and parades celebrating the culture (arts, crafts, science & tech, agriculture) of the group, as well as holidays and monuments remembering important historical figures. No zealous Christian need feel threatened by this.
This has most recently been tried in National Socialist Germany. Regardless what you think about them, their 'civil religion' worked to facilitate group cohesion within and across classes and to instill the group's identity and values. Reich Harvest Thanksgiving Festivals at Bückeberg, annual party rallies in Nuremberg, and incorporation of Germanic folk culture (dance, music, etc.) along with popular Christian holidays like Christmas.
The group's official ideology is thus just the intentional remembrance, preservation, and persistence of the group identity itself, which both binds the group together and safeguards against undesirable seditious ideologies.
@@exquofonte I see what you mean now. In hindsight, it made sense to call this phenomenon "civic religion", even though initially I found this choice of words confusing. Thanks for responding!
European civilization was built by Catholicism. It began to die when it abandoned Catholicism.
Any group who does the same will suffer the same. You cannot abandon the universal author of Order and have a civilization.
@@lordvader5246 European civilization is rooted in rule of law, truth telling, heroism, and Aristotelianism (empirical science), which all precede Christianity. The Church contributed both positively and negatively, and I don’t make a judgment here about whether it was a net negative or positive
Why then are african countries who are >80% catholic shitholes, why didn't they build the great gothic cathedrals?
Why on the other hand is Japan not a shithole, even though it suffers from modernity as much as all the other christian countries, why is its demographics better than ours?
Why is china then the strongest power on the horizon and it is the oldest continuing civilization on the planet?
Answer: christianity was merely an overlay over an european core
Europe and the world developed quite well before that barbaric cult started ruining everything
European civilisation was built long before Catholocism
Like I’d follow some Klaus Schwab lover who thinks it’s sinful to not want 1000s of foreigners to come in.