LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Valrifell]

Kritarchy already is decentralized though.

Government is never decentralized enough.

Beautiful.

[Benuty]

So mother bears revolution has spread to Mongolia, and rather than puppeting them I am allowing them a full choice in government.

[Reikoku]

Statists begone!

The State is the servant of God

Broke: The State is the servant of God
Woke: The State is God

[Frievolk]

I must admit, While I am indeed no fan of the man, Marx's commentary on the geopolitical events of Europe in the 19th century are extremely hilarious. Dude had a sense of humor.

[Fahran]

And they wanted to spare Citoyen Bourbon, that alone was a great mistake and evil.

Allow me to respond to that in the following way. Marie Antoinette did nothing wrong.

Yes, I got my Ph.D. in sociology in 1984 and have been a full-time professor since 1985.

I've actually been debating whether or not I should take the Ph.D. route or stay with my current plans to get an M.D.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The State is the servant of God

Broke: The State is the servant of God
Woke: The State is God

"Pro: Libertarianism." -Reikoku.

[Reikoku]

Broke: The State is the servant of God
Woke: The State is God

"Pro: Libertarianism." -Reikoku.

I just wanted to make a Hegel meme. ;-;

[Fahran]

State above God, y'know!

We're not Revolutionary France, anon. Restore the Ancien Régime!

Don't you think it's awful how those Catalonian anarchists burn convents, anon?

(Or equal to him, we're not fussy)

No.

[Fahran]

I just wanted to make a Hegel meme. ;-;

Hegel did a few things wrong.

[Reikoku]

I just wanted to make a Hegel meme. ;-;

Hegel did a few things wrong.

Do you really have to tell the Kokugakusha that? I thought my anti-rationalist credentials were enough.

[Aellex]

Allow me to respond to that in the following way. Marie Antoinette did nothing wrong.

(Image)

>literally kickstarted the revolution because of her stupidity, reckless spending and downright evilness by polarizing everyone's hate on the royal family
>"""Innocent"""

She wasn't nicknamed "L'autri-chienne" (the austri-bitch) for nothing. ;'D

[Fahran]

Do you really have to tell the Kokugakusha that? I thought my anti-rationalist credentials were enough.

IRRATIONALIST GANG!

[Fahran]

>literally kickstarted the revolution because of her stupidity, reckless spending and downright evilness by polarizing everyone's hate on the royal family

She was not exclusively and not even principally responsible for France's economic problems, despite her tone-deafness and lavish spending. Louis XIV and Louis XV had effectively bankrupted the state through their numerous foreign adventures and wars for naval and continental supremacy. Beyond these massive public debts, Louis XVI inherited a deeply hated and inefficient system of taxation. This by itself would not have been an issue without multiple years of poor harvests created by poor environmental conditions. It was a combination of these factors with Enlightenment Ideals pushed by the emergent middle-class that fomented the Revolution. Marie Antoinette had minimal influence over foreign policy. The French hated her because she was a rich girl from Austria and because yellow journalists portrayed her as a bimbo who didn't care about the people. Her behavior during her imprisonment was seen as somewhat virtuous and this suggests that she was probably a pretty good person - a dedicated mother, a woman of character and courage, and a queen in most every sense of the word. Being insulated in Versailles hurt her more than anything.

>"""Innocent"""

What crimes did she commit? I mean, the radicals attempted to accuse her of incest with her son until the Parisian women balked at the manifest injustice of it all and forced them to rescind the salacious accusation. In truth, the jailers had themselves abused the young prince and compelled him under duress to accuse his mother. Really, they killed her because they thought the Revolution might founder the minute food became more available and the peasants in the countryside had time to consider the developments at greater length. There was also the distinct possibility that other European powers might act to restore the monarchy if the Revolution did not cut off that opportunity - though they failed in that given the Bourbon Restoration. She was convicted of treason. Quite the silly charge given that it came from rebels who would go on to murder 50,000 French citizens.

She wasn't nicknamed "L'autri-chienne" (the austri-bitch) for nothing. ;'D

France hated Austria?

[Minzerland II]

How very Parisian.

The Girondins did nothing wrong.

>Parisian
For that insult alone, Sulphur shall be added to the equation!

And they wanted to spare Citoyen Bourbon, that alone was a great mistake and evil.

[Reikoku]

Do you really have to tell the Kokugakusha that? I thought my anti-rationalist credentials were enough.

IRRATIONALIST GANG!

Bergson, Nietzsche, and Motoori will Make Vitalism Great Again.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Rationalism is for robots, not people.

"Hey, want to talk politics? Sure, first chop off half of yourself and shove it in a jar in the corner until we're done".

[Frievolk]

And they wanted to spare Citoyen Bourbon, that alone was a great mistake and evil.

Allow me to respond to that in the following way. Marie Antoinette did nothing wrong.

I see you're a woman of culture as well

[Ostroeuropa]

Rationalism is for robots, not people.

"Hey, want to talk politics? Sure, first chop off half of yourself and shove it in a jar in the corner until we're done".

Satanism makes the mistake of allowing the Abrahamics and their baseless assertions define their worldview. Even if you up and decide to form the opposite of their ethics (carefully, so as to avoid senseless destruction of others), you're still basing your worldview around their pronouncements. The "Left hand path" is pretty much that, a rejection of much of the principles of the abrahamics and following a different route.

Modern secular humanism is more liberated from the religious than the satanic church is imo, though elements of Satanism have influenced my worldview and I consider it to be an important post-religious endorsement of ritual and such being necessary for human wellbeing.

I suppose i'd fall in between Laveyan Satanism and Secular Humanism. I reject the relentlessly individualistic nature of Satanism and skew for the more collective wellbeing focus of Humanism, but I endorse the Satanic interpretations of magic and ritual and their importance to the adherent. It's difficult to quantify in materialistic terms, but there is a poetry to a lot of things that can leave people uncomfortable when that is upended for materialistic reasons (rightly) without replacing it with other rituals. This is why I'm skeptical of things like humanistic condemnation of various styles (like, say, nazis) and artistic choices, and acting like humans are a blank slate. There's a reason people think they look stylish, and we shouldn't cede that ground to a hate ideology. Materialistic condemnations of practices, styles, and rituals shouldn't be given much credence compared to criticism of the underlying narrative of the choices. The left would do better to adopt more style alongside the substance and engage in more ritualism, especially encouraging ritualism and allegory surrounding science and scientific discoveries.

Understanding religion as allegory and ritual to describe human experience and history through imagery, metaphor, etc, doesn't mean we should reject it for cold scientism, pure materialism and critical theories should provide the bare bones of our script, not the entirety of it.

The challenge for adherents is trying to marry style and substance, to construct rituals to allegorically talk about material reality and our place in it in a manner that prompts reflection and improvement, etc.

The allegory, art, poetry etc of our history should provide insights into our cultural soft spots, and how to strike the right notes. The "truths" religion points to are emotional truths, they should not be abandoned.

Prior attempts at "New Church" things tended to skew heavily for the "Cold scientism" rather than adopting ritualism and allegory. There will always be the risk of Literalists, but a disclaimer at the front of a new holy book should take care of that, plus, if it's based around the tribes history and materialistic understanding of the universe, new editions will be constantly in print anyway, in this way a "New Church" is constantly new, refreshing the doctrine each time and so on. Understanding religion as allegory and ritual to describe human experience and the mechanics of the universe means that prior religions won't be forgotten, but become a vital piece of history to preserve in order to understand prior cultures and their attempts, and to see the chain of events that led to the current view, becoming a scene in the overall play, no longer the entirety of it, but still there.

[Aellex]

(Image)

[Torrocca]

(Image)

The Terror was actually pretty unjustifiable in many regards actually tbqh.

[Frievolk]

The Terror was actually pretty unjustifiable in many regards actually tbqh.

I mean the guy who originally said the whole "The terror is totes no unjustified guys" was one of the main propagators of the Terror in the first place. What did you expect?

[Torrocca]

The Terror was actually pretty unjustifiable in many regards actually tbqh.

I mean the guy who originally said the whole "The terror is totes no unjustified guys" was one of the main propagators of the Terror in the first place. What did you expect?

Wasn't the Terror also an excuse to further oppress the peasants and lower-classes who were fighting for their own liberty - separate from the Liberal revolution - at the time?

[Frievolk]

I mean the guy who originally said the whole "The terror is totes no unjustified guys" was one of the main propagators of the Terror in the first place. What did you expect?

Wasn't the Terror also an excuse to further oppress the peasants and lower-classes who were fighting for their own liberty - separate from the Liberal revolution - at the time?

That's... open to one's interpretation. It is also likely that it was an event borne out of the necessity of a centralized, 'efficient' government to deal with the continued war waged against France in the Coalition Wars.

[Aellex]

The Terror was actually pretty unjustifiable in many regards actually tbqh.

That sounds like Royalist talk, Jean-Pierre, get the guillotine!

[Frievolk]

The Terror was actually pretty unjustifiable in many regards actually tbqh.

That sounds like Royalist talk, Jean-Pierre, get the guillotine!

Tfw you kill those who aren't revolutionary enough, those who are revolutionary but not in the correct boy band, and those who are too revolutionary because the revolution (which, at this point, should have probably ended) needs to go on.