Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

This is especially true when establishing a Pan-American Union of some kind, as I think would be beneficial. The core region of the “Technocratic Republic” would be the lands formerly known as the USA, Canada, and Mexico, under a largely federal system. I’m not sure if you’re all aware, but this region is rather culturally diverse, and the civic religion can provide a unifying force. The principles of said institution would be based upon Confucianism and Legalism, with the trappings of the current American civil religion.

Nearly all of North America speaks English, Spanish or French.
We all use the Latin Alphabet. Our culture is predominantly European with other influences.
The majority are Christian. So while diverse it is much less so than other places that are one country. We are less linguistically diverse than India for example.

But sure North America is still diverse. But I do not think too radical change is needed, and I am not sure legalism and Confucianism a great fit for us.

“Confucianism With North American Characteristics” perhaps?

[Novus America]

Nearly all of North America speaks English, Spanish or French.
We all use the Latin Alphabet. Our culture is predominantly European with other influences.
The majority are Christian. So while diverse it is much less so than other places that are one country. We are less linguistically diverse than India for example.

But sure North America is still diverse. But I do not think too radical change is needed, and I am not sure legalism and Confucianism a great fit for us.

“Confucianism With North American Characteristics” perhaps?

Maybe. Some aspects of it maybe.
I would like to see a return to stronger families for example.

[Northern Davincia]

Fuck is with the bazillion Pennsylvanians on NSG?

The Western part is especially screwed economically up here.

*laughs in New Yorker*
I envy you, southern neighbor.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

The Western part is especially screwed economically up here.

*laughs in New Yorker*
I envy you, southern neighbor.

Isn’t upstate New York a fucking wasteland anyways?

New York City is a monstrous head without a body, just like Vienna.

[Northern Davincia]

*laughs in New Yorker*
I envy you, southern neighbor.

Isn’t upstate New York a fucking wasteland anyways?

New York City is a monstrous head without a body, just like Vienna.

It's a cold wasteland, which is worse than regular wastelands. We're not very fond of urbanites up here.

[Fahran]

American civic religion is not atheistic nor anti clerical. Besides cynicism is not necessarily bad.

That depends on the form which it takes. A cult of reason or cult of personality, in the absence of the church and a deity/force with transcendent and immanent properties, can be broadly described as atheistic. When it exists as an alternative to the religions practiced by the masses as opposed to an extension of them, it can be broadly described as anti-clerical. The Cult of Reason and the odd mystical musings of Julius Evola both stand at odds with how religion has been conceived historically. If you're referring to cultural pageantry and holidays like Christmas and Easter, those aren't what raise my objection. It's atheists and secularists trying to fashion something in which they have no genuine belief as a means of projecting their own biases onto the universe.

In a multi ethnic, religiously diverse society it provides the role of a unifying force. People generally need some form of symbols and rituals.

We have those while retaining religion.

The point of civic religion is to create one everyone can follow.

Not to give obeisance to something greater than the ourselves and the community because it is right to do so?

If you have a religiously homogeneous society it is not really needed, but is useful in a more religiously diverse one.

A useful lie is still a lie.

[Volkari]

Totalitarianism appears to make the state swallow the individual, and to absorb into authority completely the liberty that should be set against every authority that limits it. But one might say just the opposite; for in this conception the state is the will of the individual himself in its universal and absolute aspect, and thus the individual swallows the state, and since legitimate authority cannot extend beyond the actual will of the individual, authority is resolved completely in liberty. The true absolute democracy is not that which seeks a limited state but that which sets no limit to the state that develops in the inmost heart of the individual conferring on his will the absolutely universal force of law.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

American civic religion is not atheistic nor anti clerical. Besides cynicism is not necessarily bad.

That depends on the form which it takes. A cult of reason or cult of personality, in the absence of the church and a deity/force with transcendent and immanent properties, can be broadly described as atheistic. When it exists as an alternative to the religions practiced by the masses as opposed to an extension of them, it can be broadly described as anti-clerical. The Cult of Reason and the odd mystical musings of Julius Evola both stand at odds with how religion has been conceived historically. If you're referring to cultural pageantry and holidays like Christmas and Easter, those aren't what raise my objection. It's atheists and secularists trying to fashion something in which they have no genuine belief as a means of projecting their own biases onto the universe.

In a multi ethnic, religiously diverse society it provides the role of a unifying force. People generally need some form of symbols and rituals.

We have those while retaining religion.

The point of civic religion is to create one everyone can follow.

Not to give obeisance to something greater than the ourselves and the community because it is right to do so?

If you have a religiously homogeneous society it is not really needed, but is useful in a more religiously diverse one.

A useful lie is still a lie.

The problem in my view is clearly plain to see, the masses grow ever apathetic, with a lack of something greater to transcend the petty cruelties of the self. It saddens me that most people aren’t sages who act with virtuous propriety in word, thought, and deed, in accordance with the Good and with the love of thy neighbor. The masses thus need religion in order to flourish, since apparently they do not automatically see the self-evident moral truths of compassion and justice and respect for the dignity of humankind and such. Does that make any sense?

[Northern Davincia]

That depends on the form which it takes. A cult of reason or cult of personality, in the absence of the church and a deity/force with transcendent and immanent properties, can be broadly described as atheistic. When it exists as an alternative to the religions practiced by the masses as opposed to an extension of them, it can be broadly described as anti-clerical. The Cult of Reason and the odd mystical musings of Julius Evola both stand at odds with how religion has been conceived historically. If you're referring to cultural pageantry and holidays like Christmas and Easter, those aren't what raise my objection. It's atheists and secularists trying to fashion something in which they have no genuine belief as a means of projecting their own biases onto the universe.


We have those while retaining religion.


Not to give obeisance to something greater than the ourselves and the community because it is right to do so?


A useful lie is still a lie.

The problem in my view is clearly plain to see, the masses grow ever apathetic, with a lack of something greater to transcend the petty cruelties of the self. It saddens me that most people aren’t sages who act with virtuous propriety in word, thought, and deed, in accordance with the Good and with the love of thy neighbor. The masses thus need religion in order to flourish, since apparently they do not automatically see the self-evident moral truths of compassion and justice and respect for the dignity of humankind and such. Does that make any sense?

Absolutely Nietzsche.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

The problem in my view is clearly plain to see, the masses grow ever apathetic, with a lack of something greater to transcend the petty cruelties of the self. It saddens me that most people aren’t sages who act with virtuous propriety in word, thought, and deed, in accordance with the Good and with the love of thy neighbor. The masses thus need religion in order to flourish, since apparently they do not automatically see the self-evident moral truths of compassion and justice and respect for the dignity of humankind and such. Does that make any sense?

Absolutely Nietzsche.

I beg your pardon? If God is “dead” then we must resurrect It.

[Northern Davincia]

Absolutely Nietzsche.

I beg your pardon?

Despite all his rampant nihilism, Nietzsche came to the same conclusion you did: man needs religion for a moral, functioning society.

[Novus America]

American civic religion is not atheistic nor anti clerical. Besides cynicism is not necessarily bad.

That depends on the form which it takes. A cult of reason or cult of personality, in the absence of the church and a deity/force with transcendent and immanent properties, can be broadly described as atheistic. When it exists as an alternative to the religions practiced by the masses as opposed to an extension of them, it can be broadly described as anti-clerical. The Cult of Reason and the odd mystical musings of Julius Evola both stand at odds with how religion has been conceived historically. If you're referring to cultural pageantry and holidays like Christmas and Easter, those aren't what raise my objection. It's atheists and secularists trying to fashion something in which they have no genuine belief as a means of projecting their own biases onto the universe.

In a multi ethnic, religiously diverse society it provides the role of a unifying force. People generally need some form of symbols and rituals.

We have those while retaining religion.

The point of civic religion is to create one everyone can follow.

Not to give obeisance to something greater than the ourselves and the community because it is right to do so?

If you have a religiously homogeneous society it is not really needed, but is useful in a more religiously diverse one.

A useful lie is still a lie.

Sure, it depends on the Civic religion.
American civic religion is not mutually exclusive with other religions, by design.
See the “under God” in the pledge of allegiance.
Actually in some cases our civic religion is actually anti-atheistic.

If a civic religion it cannot coexist with (most) existing religions it is actually divisive and has to be imposed by force.

Obviously Juche or the Cult is Reason unify only by destroying other religions, but that is not the only route to take.

American civic religion is very different from those in it allows for the practice of your own religion within it.

Same thing with languages. Having a national language everyone understands does not necessitate the destruction of all other languages because you can speak more than one.

Not all lies are always bad.
Plus a civic religion need not exactly be a lie, it depends on the route you take.

Sure if you go full crazy cult with supernatural like Juche it is a lie.
But that is just the most extreme.

But if you just focus on some unifying holidays and rituals, historical figures that get some respect and generation without outright worship or giving them supernatural godly powers, it does not have to be a actual lie. Myths can be okay as long as people are aware they are symbolic, not history.

It really depends on how it is applied.
Our current civic religion works pretty well, though we need to bring it back a bit to what it was, it has become de emphasized too much.

[Volkari]

The problem in my view is clearly plain to see, the masses grow ever apathetic, with a lack of something greater to transcend the petty cruelties of the self. It saddens me that most people aren’t sages who act with virtuous propriety in word, thought, and deed, in accordance with the Good and with the love of thy neighbor. The masses thus need religion in order to flourish, since apparently they do not automatically see the self-evident moral truths of compassion and justice and respect for the dignity of humankind and such. Does that make any sense?

Absolutely Nietzsche.

Even a great man such as Nietzsche had pessimistic notions that weighed his lofty soul down.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I beg your pardon?

Despite all his rampant nihilism, Nietzsche came to the same conclusion you did: man needs religion for a moral, functioning society.

I came to the conclusion from the opposite perspective; despite my lack of (traditional) theism I firmly maintain that moral values exist in the external world independently of and external to our comprehension of them, that they can be found and known, and that they must be used as principles for human judgments and conduct. The problem is that humans are emotional and instinctual beings as well, with tendencies towards shortsightedness and egoism, and not the optimally-rational morality automatons I’d prefer. As such, religion allows the shortsighted “self” to be transcended, and religion plays a role in illustrating the principles behind the Good, via the use of allegory and parable. As such, religion is highly beneficial.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Absolutely Nietzsche.

Even a great man such as Nietzsche had pessimistic notions that weighed his lofty soul down.

Then you have Max Stirner, who summed up humanity as "We’re innate douchebags".

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Even a great man such as Nietzsche had pessimistic notions that weighed his lofty soul down.

Then you have Max Stirner, who summed up humanity as "We’re innate douchebags".

And then you have me: “That’s not an excuse, m8.”

[Volkari]

Despite all his rampant nihilism,

Pardon? I'm not sure we read the same guy.

[Northern Davincia]

Despite all his rampant nihilism,

Pardon?

Life has meaning my dude.

[Bienenhalde]

Wait, are you in the Western, Central, or Eastern part of the Commonwealth? Northern or Southern? I live in the Northeastern part of the state.

I am from the suburbs of Philadelphia.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Despite all his rampant nihilism,

Pardon?

Yes, I take issue with that bit. Nietzsche is better described as quasi-Existentialist (Trash-tier if you ask me) and perhaps best described as a follower of Romanticism at heart, at least from what I’ve read.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Wait, are you in the Western, Central, or Eastern part of the Commonwealth? Northern or Southern? I live in the Northeastern part of the state.

I am from the suburbs of Philadelphia.

Oh, so you’re from the civilized part of the Commonwealth, then?

[Volkari]

Even a great man such as Nietzsche had pessimistic notions that weighed his lofty soul down.

Then you have Max Stirner, who summed up humanity as "We’re innate douchebags".

Look at Stirner, look at him, the peaceful enemy of all constraint.
For the moment, he is still drinking beer,
Soon he will be drinking blood as though it were water.
When others cry savagely "down with the kings"
Stirner immediately supplements "down with the laws also."
Stirner full of dignity proclaims;
You bend your willpower and you dare to call yourselves free.
You become accustomed to slavery
Down with dogmatism, down with law.

[Bienenhalde]

I am from the suburbs of Philadelphia.

Oh, so you’re from the civilized part of the Commonwealth, then?

Yeah, basically.

[Kowani]

Pardon?

Life has meaning my dude.

Nope.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Life has meaning my dude.

Nope.

Yep. I am obligated to seek the benefit of my fellow persons, and to obey my duties to society.