Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Nietzschean Jihad]

The ugly rant aside, the most enjoyable part is the seeming identification of their conception of "Dharma" with Satan. It explains a lot.

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. YHWH is an entity that seemingly "appears" to people in the middle of the desert and promises a lot of mundane stuff in exchange for worship. See Abraham, Moses, Paul or later Muhammad. Interestingly, in the Bible Jesus has the same experience but rejects the entity as the devil. And Jesus is arguably the most Dharmic person in the entire book....

Not just mundane stuff honestly. I am not a Christian, or an Abrahamic for that matter, but Adonai made a very good bargain to Abraham. Not only would Adonai grant Abraham's wish (getting offspring), but his offspring would be as many as there are stars in the sky. I wouldn't call it mundane stuff, knowing the desires of the subject.

And even then, the bargaining between man and god(s) isn't something unique in Abrahamic religions. The gifting cycle is very important in Heathenry as well.

[Hakons]

The ugly rant aside, the most enjoyable part is the seeming identification of their conception of "Dharma" with Satan. It explains a lot.

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. YHWH is an entity that seemingly "appears" to people in the middle of the desert and promises a lot of mundane stuff in exchange for worship. See Abraham, Moses, Paul or later Muhammad. Interestingly, in the Bible Jesus has the same experience but rejects the entity as the devil. And Jesus is arguably the most Dharmic person in the entire book....

God doesn't just appear in deserts. Is that really all you gleaned from the Bible? That it's about waiting for instruction from the desert voices? When Jesus was tempted by Satan, Christ directly referred to God and explicitly not to Satan as somehow being God.

"9 "All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

11 Then the devil left him..."

Mathew 4

If you're going to make outrageous claims, at least read your own citations.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I vehemently disagree...For one thing, you left out how Byzantium, the Christian Roman Empire based in Constantinople, survived and even thrived the Fall of Rome (in 476 AD) by about 1,000 years! Furthermore, you fail to differentiate between Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches...and that's just touching on the surface.

"Thrived" is a generous way of saying "slowly declined"

Viewing history as a cycle of rise and decline is a fundamentally flawed way of viewing history.

[Nea Byzantia]

Wimps? They held back the Islamic hordes for centuries. You clearly know nothing about Byzantium.

"Held back"

Is that what you call losing all of the Holy Land, Egypt, Africa, and most of Anatolia? smgdh

They lost the Levant, Egypt and Africa in the 7th and 8th centuries, and did not lose even a sliver of Anatolia till at least the 11th century...and they recovered vast swathes of it in the 12th century...The crippling blow to Byzantium, as I have said often before, came from the Crusaders; from the West, when they turned on their fellow Christians (who practiced a different form of Christianity, Orthodox Christianity) and sacked Constantinople. Really and truly that was the pivotal moment that condemned Byzantium to the ash-heap of History.

[The Feylands]

I vehemently disagree...For one thing, you left out how Byzantium, the Christian Roman Empire based in Constantinople, survived and even thrived the Fall of Rome (in 476 AD) by about 1,000 years! Furthermore, you fail to differentiate between Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches...and that's just touching on the surface.

"Thrived" is a generous way of saying "slowly declined"

Indeed.

I understand the appeal for rooting for the underdog when reading about historical stuff.. and I won't deny that whatever survived of the classical world after the Christian onslaught was bought to us by either Byzantium and the Church of Rome. And I like the art stuff too. But Byzantium wasn't "thriving". How many of the emperors and empresses died a natural death? Around 30 out of a hundred, no?

Much thanks to X-tianity. Afaik. Generations of people killing each other over issues like "Is Jesus both Man and God or a Man-God?".... The Empire could never become more than a bleak shadow of its former self.. its soul was destroyed by Christianity. Old Rome used to be tolerant of different cults and philosophies, gods and by extension ethnic traditions. I am not a historian... but I doubt it could ever survive without that tolerance.

[Conserative Morality]

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. YHWH is an entity that seemingly "appears" to people in the middle of the desert and promises a lot of mundane stuff in exchange for worship. See Abraham, Moses, Paul or later Muhammad. Interestingly, in the Bible Jesus has the same experience but rejects the entity as the devil. And Jesus is arguably the most Dharmic person in the entire book....

Not just mundane stuff honestly. I am not a Christian, or an Abrahamic for that matter, but Adonai made a very good bargain to Abraham. Not only would Adonai grant Abraham's wish (getting offspring), but his offspring would be as many as there are stars in the sky. I wouldn't call it mundane stuff, knowing the desires of the subject.

And even then, the bargaining between man and god(s) isn't something unique in Abrahamic religions. The gifting cycle is very important in Heathenry as well.

The concept of do ut des was important in Roman religion as well. In fact, it was also a legal term for that same sort of "You have to give something for me to give something".

[Fahran]

Christianity causes social division through its totalitarian claims about other peoples eternal damnation.

Christianity actually appealed to slaves and other ostracized persons on the fringes of Roman/Hellenistic society. The old pagan religions, excepting cults dedicated to deities such as Dionysus and Isis, often served to reinforce class divisions and static hierarchies in a way that alienated the poor and downtrodden. There's a reason religions of salvation caught on and spread like wildfire amid social upheavals that the older national religions weren't adequately equipped to address.

It uproots people from their ancestors and native culture,

Christianity has become a cornerstone of Western civilization at the very least, and, as a rule, we draw more from the medieval world than a lot of people are willing to concede.

ruins peoples lives for no good reason, makes them docile, submissive and afraid, and spreads a black-and-white, streamlining mentality.

I think this misunderstands the complexities and nuances of monotheistic thought, jurisprudence, and theology in the context of Abrahamic religions.

The entire world view with a (if we are to believe the bible...) gruesomely violent dictator of the universe (who is above and not one with nature/creation and its laws) who rewards people with mundane stuff (often stolen from others) in exchange for being worshipped (this is actually rather the actions of a text book evil spirit or demon) and the idea of "salvation" through obedience to this supernatural tyrant is a pathway for being ignorant of the dignity of other living beings. In various ways. Some Christians, in line with the bible and some leading historical theologians, endorse beating up small children until don't think independently, which is "rebellion against God", for the sake of their salvation.

Deities demand an intrinsic respect. Do you believe that Jupiter, Amaterasu-no-mikoto, Ammon-Re, Inanna, or Odin behaved/behave in an altogether different manner? They demanded/demand obeisance even according to their own myths and stories. They could/do visit terrible justice on those who defy their moral precepts and divine wills.

Even classic psychopaths like the pastor who runs the infamous Hephzibah House in America (have to say the Catholic church used to have a point about freedom of religion being BS....) and used sadistic torture on vulnerable young women, are actually more in line with YWHW and the bible than with modern X-tians. And yes... the later is obviously a good thing, but as long as X-tianity is around there's always the risk that some folks will start practising a more literalist variant, especially in countries with "freedom of religion" for subversive cults and such. Just look at what's happened with Islam were they've went "back to the basics" what it was like when the Caliphate conquered and destroyed all those amazing ancient cultures by the sword.

I can't speak for Christians, but Judaism has a completely different view of G-d.

[Conserative Morality]

Viewing history as a cycle of rise and decline is a fundamentally flawed way of viewing history.

It's not about cycles. It's about Byzantium having a steady decline in nearly every reasonable measurement of success.

[Nietzschean Jihad]

Not just mundane stuff honestly. I am not a Christian, or an Abrahamic for that matter, but Adonai made a very good bargain to Abraham. Not only would Adonai grant Abraham's wish (getting offspring), but his offspring would be as many as there are stars in the sky. I wouldn't call it mundane stuff, knowing the desires of the subject.

And even then, the bargaining between man and god(s) isn't something unique in Abrahamic religions. The gifting cycle is very important in Heathenry as well.

The concept of do ut des was important in Roman religion as well. In fact, it was also a legal term for that same sort of "You have to give something for me to give something".

Oh yes, definitly. It's a common thing among all pagan religions, Abrahamic ones as well in a sense.

[Nea Byzantia]

"Thrived" is a generous way of saying "slowly declined"

Indeed.

I understand the appeal for rooting for the underdog when reading about historical stuff.. and I won't deny that whatever survived of the classical world after the Christian onslaught was bought to us by either Byzantium and the Church of Rome. And I like the art stuff too. But Byzantium wasn't "thriving". How many of the emperors and empresses died a natural death? Around 30 out of a hundred, no?

Much thanks to X-tianity. Afaik. Generations of people killing each other over issues like "Is Jesus both Man and God or a Man-God?".... The Empire could never become more than a bleak shadow of its former self.. its soul was destroyed by Christianity. Old Rome used to be tolerant of different cults and philosophies, gods and by extension ethnic traditions. I am not a historian... but I doubt it could ever survive without that tolerance.

Then how did it survive for over 1,000 years when all other Classical Civilization collapsed? I think you fundamentally misunderstand the Byzantine Empire...Christianity, explicitly Orthodox Christianity is what held the Greek-speaking Christian Roman Empire together. As a descendant of that Empire, I can confirm that not only did Orthodox Christianity preserve the Classical Culture, but it preserved the Greek Culture and People during the long, dark days of the Ottoman Empire, when the Turks attempted to quash us (a period of roughly 400 years).

[United Muscovite Nations]

Viewing history as a cycle of rise and decline is a fundamentally flawed way of viewing history.

It's not about cycles. It's about Byzantium having a steady decline in nearly every reasonable measurement of success.

You yourself said it wasn't a steady decline by saying they had periods of resurgence.

[Conserative Morality]

They lost the Levant, Egypt and Africa in the 7th and 8th centuries, and did not lose even a sliver of Anatolia till at least the 11th century...

Blatant lies. They were losing territory well into the 10th century, and the Abbasids had taken parts of Anatolia as early as the 9th.

and they recovered vast swathes of it in the 12th century...

"Vast swathes" here meaning "Not even so much as they held a century before"?

[The Feylands]

Not just mundane stuff honestly. I am not a Christian, or an Abrahamic for that matter, but Adonai made a very good bargain to Abraham. Not only would Adonai grant Abraham's wish (getting offspring), but his offspring would be as many as there are stars in the sky. I wouldn't call it mundane stuff, knowing the desires of the subject.

And even then, the bargaining between man and god(s) isn't something unique in Abrahamic religions. The gifting cycle is very important in Heathenry as well.

The concept of do ut des was important in Roman religion as well. In fact, it was also a legal term for that same sort of "You have to give something for me to give something".

But the exclusivity isn't there. Making a bargain with the one and only divinity, for taking things at the expense of others (lands, gold, fame etc.) is hardly relatable to dharmic notions of self-improvement imho.

It's in the nature of missionary abrahamism to have everyone do the same things for the sake of their so called salvation, whereas a pagan god may accept a diverse world not remade in his or her image. Viewing gods as archetypes is an important concept in paganism. What do you call the archetype of a person who wants to control everything and remake it into his or her image?

The first word that pops up into my mind.. at least.. is eh.. "psychopath". But that's just me...

[Conserative Morality]

It's not about cycles. It's about Byzantium having a steady decline in nearly every reasonable measurement of success.

You yourself said it wasn't a steady decline by saying they had periods of resurgence.

Yes, few trends are completely even in application. One good year doesn't make up for ten bad ones. Breathing life into a dying beast may give it impetus for a little while longer, but inevitably, absent fundamental changes in situation, the decline will resume and continue. I genuinely don't understand what you're driving at.

[Conserative Morality]

But the exclusivity isn't there. Making a bargain with the one and only divinity, for taking things at the expense of others (lands, gold, fame etc.) is hardly relatable to dharmic notions of self-improvement imho.

I have no fucking clue why you keep prattling about 'dharma', considering that it's a very specific religious concept that has very little to do with most of the pagan religions displaced by Abrahamic faiths.

It's in the nature of missionary abrahamism to have everyone do the same things for the sake of their so called salvation, whereas a pagan god may accept a diverse world not remade in his or her image.

I got some bad news for you regarding the tetchiness of the gods.

Viewing gods as archetypes is an important concept in paganism.

... not really. Paganism is a very broad term, and the conceptualization of gods as archetypes is very much a philosophical interpretation that was by no means universal nor dominant in historical pagan societies.

What do you call the archetype of a person who wants to control everything and remake it into his or her image?

Imperator?

[Sirocca]

As one that leans more to libertarian that sympathizes with some traditionalist beliefs in the United States and generally the West, I'm anxious about the future of my society, plus I'm relatively younger I'm 27. The future of non-left society does look bleak and even violent and a physical threat sometimes. I fear that the war has already been won by the left (if only mainstream culture) and I should just resign that things will continue to get darker for my long life until I'm old and gone.

I know this is morbid and emotional.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You yourself said it wasn't a steady decline by saying they had periods of resurgence.

Yes, few trends are completely even in application. One good year doesn't make up for ten bad ones. Breathing life into a dying beast may give it impetus for a little while longer, but inevitably, absent fundamental changes in situation, the decline will resume and continue. I genuinely don't understand what you're driving at.

That it's a flawed way of looking at Byzantine history because it ignores a great deal about it. You're viewing the Byzantine Empire as a semi-mythical story that you have to get a moral out of instead of as a social construct that changed. When you view an empire this way, things that would normally be innocuous, instead because "symptoms of the coming decline", because you're viewing the conclusion as inevitable instead of as the result of a multitude of factors.

[Novus America]

Plus it was the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 that really put the Empire in bad shape. Not religion, but an insane power mad Persian Shah.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't ascribe the Byzantines' decline wholly to Christianity. But I never pass up an opportunity to reinforce that the Byzies were W I M P S

I know you are using some hyperbole, but the ERE won the war against the Persians.
But at great cost.
Leaving them unable to fight the newly united Arabs immediately after.

[Conserative Morality]

That it's a flawed way of looking at Byzantine history because it ignores a great deal about it. You're viewing the Byzantine Empire as a semi-mythical story that you have to get a moral out of instead of as a social construct that changed. When you view an empire this way, things that would normally be innocuous, instead because "symptoms of the coming decline", because you're viewing the conclusion as inevitable instead of as the result of a multitude of factors.

I never denied that the conclusion was the result of a multitude of factors. Furthermore, applying a narrative to historical events is essential in understanding them - the idea that history can be understood as a series of events or structures without overarching connection, ironically, distorts the course of events more than simply presenting them.

History is, to drag in another conversation we had today, not a social science, but an academic discipline.

[The Feylands]

Then how did it survive for over 1,000 years when all other Classical Civilization collapsed? I think you fundamentally misunderstand the Byzantine Empire...Christianity, explicitly Orthodox Christianity is what held the Greek-speaking Christian Roman Empire together. As a descendant of that Empire, I can confirm that not only did Orthodox Christianity preserve the Classical Culture, but it preserved the Greek Culture and People during the long, dark days of the Ottoman Empire, when the Turks attempted to quash us (a period of roughly 400 years).

I'm not at all suggesting you should not be proud of your heritage. Greece is the foundation of everything "European".

If Christianity is bad, that doesn't automatically make everyone in history who is a Christian bad or not worthy of respect or interest. I'd even argue that people worshipping, say, the Virgin Mary, might essentially actually be honouring/worshipping something in the divine akin to a diluted version of the mother goddess, ie. the one known to others as Shakti, Afrodite, Venus, Freyja, Morrigan etc. However, while I can't speak for you, I'm not sure my own people would have a weaker identity or be less able to keep together if we still had Thor and Freyja around. Rather the opposite, I fear. Christianity and Islam are alike in the sense that they take away the indigenous roots of a people's spirituality and it becomes more like some sort of ideology. They are related. You did have iconoclasm after the Islamic onslaught, didn't you?

That kind of stuff shouldn't have to be necessary.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That it's a flawed way of looking at Byzantine history because it ignores a great deal about it. You're viewing the Byzantine Empire as a semi-mythical story that you have to get a moral out of instead of as a social construct that changed. When you view an empire this way, things that would normally be innocuous, instead because "symptoms of the coming decline", because you're viewing the conclusion as inevitable instead of as the result of a multitude of factors.

I never denied that the conclusion was the result of a multitude of factors. Furthermore, applying a narrative to historical events is essential in understanding them - the idea that history can be understood as a series of events or structures without overarching connection, ironically, distorts the course of events more than simply presenting them.

History is, to drag in another conversation we had today, not a social science, but an academic discipline.

Yes, some narrative is necessary, but you should adjust the narrative to fit the events, not the other way around. When you assume that the Byzantine Empire's problems were due to social decay, you selectively interpret events to exclude things that don't fit that narrative.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, some narrative is necessary, but you should adjust the narrative to fit the events, not the other way around. When you assume that the Byzantine Empire's problems were due to social decay, you selectively interpret events to exclude things that don't fit that narrative.

Ha, I see where our issue is. "Social decay" isn't quite how I'd put it, but I understand how it looks like that considering the context of the conversation I jumped in.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Well.. Islam is not only a religion, but a juridical system

That still makes it a religion.

that ranks people's value according to their religion ("pagans" have no value at all and may be enslaved and plundered from in perpetuity)

Mostly false.

and endorses various forms of cruelty and violence to humans and other animals alike.

Like?

It's Abrahamism on steroids -

That sounds weird.

the fulfilment of YHWH:s grand scheme to enslave the world. X-tianity is based on the same principles but fails to detail a juridical system to enforce YHWH:s totalitarian ideology

AlHamdulillah.

Just look at what's happened with Islam were they've went "back to the basics" what it was like when the Caliphate conquered and destroyed all those amazing ancient cultures by the sword.

This shoes ignorance of Islamic history. Also what does "going back to the basics" mean?

I don't think its in the nature of...Islam to coexist with other spirituality

Your thinking is wrong.

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. YHWH is an entity that seemingly "appears" to people in the middle of the desert and promises a lot of mundane stuff in exchange for worship

>Tfw Jannah is mundane

Wimps? They held back the Islamic hordes for centuries. You clearly know nothing about Byzantium.

"Held back"

Is that what you call losing all of the Holy Land, Egypt, Africa, and most of Anatolia? smgdh

Gang gang!

[Benuty]

As for the matter of potentially losing friends over ideology? Well, the path must be completed regardless of personal sacrifices along the way.

A person who leaves you because of your convictions isn't a personal sacrifice, rather its a liberation for yourself. Bounding yourself to others to neglect your self is rather a personal sacrifice.

Perhaps, but the neglect of the self can be a worthy sacrifice to make.

[Hanafuridake]

Christianity has become a cornerstone of Western civilization at the very least, and, as a rule, we draw more from the medieval world than a lot of people are willing to concede.

While this is true, it does feel weird for a devout Jewish woman to come out and say this, since it implies you're un-Western by your own standards.

Deities demand an intrinsic respect. Do you believe that Jupiter, Amaterasu-no-mikoto, Ammon-Re, Inanna, or Odin behaved/behave in an altogether different manner? They demanded/demand obeisance even according to their own myths and stories. They could/do visit terrible justice on those who defy their moral precepts and divine wills.

Oh, people of the world! People of the world! Think well on these things! Who within the realm, emperor or any other, can hope to live a day, or an hour, while rejecting the exalted and august mind of the Great Kami! How dreadful and awesome!