Moral relativism invariably leads to the demise of any moral standing, a much worse outcome than the previous, often derided framework. I cannot shake the feeling that this is the desired effect, part of the deliberate destruction of Western Civilization. Who are the monsters behind this effort?
Like with the mentioning of virtually total US media control by Mr. Putin in his conversation with Tucker Carlson, this is what is never asked. We note, in passing, that it's a certainty that the latter knows this as well as the former, which begs the question: is Mr. Carlson's Twitter-enabled journalism simply the next iteration of (partially) controlled mass media?
Neither Carlson nor Putin are what they are usually perceived to be. The Imperial Oligarchy supports people on all sides while creating hyper partisanship through which they sucker us into siding with one group or another. In all such cases they win and we lose. They’ve supported both Bolsheviks and Nazis. It is reasonable to assume they have not changed their MO which means they continue to support all sides, at least remain in active contact with all sides.
They start conflicts and wars always with an overarching goal of moving us closer to their dream of a total planetary control. I can only guess that they believe their greatest potential impediment to the realization of their dream lies in the people’s of the West, not in Russia or China. While they are clearly creating tensions with Russia and China, their real target is the Western Civilization whose people are the only ones who can still mount a successful rebellion against them.
In their strategy, Russia is probably slated for dismemberment with China gaining a large portion of resource rich territory. The aim is to ultimately merge with Chinese oligarchy, forming their New World Order. This would not be the first time they pulled off such a feat. British Empire had exhausted its home base before they incorporated the US oligarchy into the new Anglo American Empire. The plan is to do something similar with China. The only thing standing in their way are the “peasants” of their own domain who still believe in their own “sovereignty”. It is precisely this “sovereignty” that is under attack, through multiples of vectors. Uncontrolled immigration is a major vector. Another is attack on everything traditional, family, religious and moral frameworks, etc. They will not stop until they get what they want, unless a critical mass of us Westerners wake up and act.
You're probably correct about 'them' trying to 'assimilate' (co-opt) everyone into their 'Borg' (mind you, I'm borrowing these words from Gene Roddenberry as his 'planetary federation' is a kind of one-universe de facto Bolshevik/Globalist régime, and I fear this is also what's in store for us mere mortals).
The one thing standing in the way is but a fraction of their own populations, I'd argue, but it's still sizeable enough to throw the odd monkey-wrench into the machine they're desiring. Consider the Covid scam, and you'd learn that some 20-30% of the population of our 'Western' countries refused to participate, thus denying total victory. This won't be permitted next time around.
Speaking of 'next time around', I read 'somewhere' (can't find the link right now) that Moderna is planning to roll out more modRNA jabs in 2025…
EDIT: you write:
'They will not stop until they get what they want, unless a critical mass of us Westerners wake up and act.'
They don't care, they will try anyways; they will never stop, and I doubt that there will be 'more' of 'us' the 'next time around'.
Look around right now and remember; your life may depend on remembering the 'right' people.
Indeed. Moral relativism is for enabling comparisons between moral systems (cultures, et cetera): as an ideology or a moral system in its own right, it can't be anything but destructive, no matter if it's done on purpose or not.
And sometimes, things that come about as unforseen consequences becomes the purpose.
We do not need a discussion of morals. We just have to apply to the 10 commandments, with or without belief and care for our own business. All "Überbau" must be deleted. All politics just regards our lives for the profits of monsters. Don't comply.
Just skimmed it because it is the same here, so I've already seen this play out and could immediately notice that all the remarks, arguements, et cetera plus the media treatment is identical and follow the same script(ure) and method.
Now, me not being christian - never was and never will be, nor do I bow to any interpretation of the god of jews - I couldn't in one sense care less. The christians perverts their cult in new way? So what else is new? They've always done this to remain in or close to the seat of power, and have revisioned the interpretation of scripture accordingly so that the church "has always been at war with Eastasia", to borrow a phrase.
But: I do respect faith, actual faith, which can only be expressed via action. Thus, the trans-lunatic called a priest has his beliefs, and the actual christians (which are and will continue to) leave the state church in droves have theirs.
And therein lies the problem: rather than founding his own cult or join a pre-existing one idolising trans-sexuals, he only has the choice of the state church; it's virtually "the only game in town", especially if one wants a career in the business of religion.
Had the natural state been allowed to exist throughout history - poly-/pantheism - where people pick the god(s) of their choice or what they feel the situation warrants, this problem wouldn't exist at all. The trans-sexual would join a cult already fitting his belief-system and the christians would have been able to refuse him entry, if they can point to what he vilates re: rules & commandments.
But if wishes were dishes, I'd be fat or something like that - it is what it is. Look to those cults trans- don't try to join? And look at why they don't try.
Had the issue not been thoroughly politicised by globohomo-fascists for ther last 40 years, it could easily have been solved in a neat and clean way: church leaders declaring with basis in scripture (with references as to where in scripture and why that part and so on) that trans-somethings are a-okay. Not the ideology-faith now firmly connected to all things trans-, just the specific individuals. But that ship has been burnt long ago, ever since the churches retreated into thinking "everything will go back to normal (i.e. 19th century christianity) eventually" or did as in Sweden: elect a marxist-communist archbishop with "Allah Akbar" as her motto.
Anyway. Look at the free churches instead. Many, many actual christians will flock there. Plus the usual grifters-in-frocks, smarmy literalists who pick-and-choose scripture as it benefits them, and the rest of the fleas in the wool of the lamb of god, to try a little poesy.
The free churches are a growing base for a renewal of the faith: their biggest problem is that they put islam and moslems up as allies against secularism, thinking their christian tolerance and kindness will be reciprocated by moslems in the future.
I do think that organised religion is on a downward, if not death, spiral: just look at the Catholic Church under the current pope: same shit, different smell--and, of course, on a much, much larger scale than mainstream Lutheranism.
Your point about free churches is well taken--just look at the massive growth in the US of 'traditional' (i.e., pre-Vatican II) Catholicism. It's the same thing.
As to the last point about perceived 'partnership' with Moslems, well, what shall I say but: there's more than 50 Moslem countries with all the theological varieties, but somehow they migrate to 'the West'. To expect any sympathy once for anything--religion being the first, but freedoms and liberties will follow suit--is delusional.
Politicians claim that it’s going to be fine (but that’s because they’re installed by the de facto Bolshevik rulers to destroy Christianity via mass immigration, among other things).
I'm 100% for adults being whatever gender they want to be because its their business. We live, we die, we go nowhere afterwards. Life is brief. My problem is with the hypocrisy of religion. Religion is discrimination. Any attempt to welcome people previously hated is nefarious marketing or submission to the will of State liberalism.
The offspring of Black slaves subjugated by old Christians becoming modern Christians is ridiculous. The same applies to gay people. It comes down to people not being taught to stand on their own feet, and needing a crutch, the invitation of all religion except when indoctrination began with childhood.
As a Christian, you have a choice - hateful superiority or hypocrisy (and the latter doubles as self-hate).
It more logical to embrace all non-religious people. Unfortunately, ours is a world of hate so we have to find common ground which is secularism. The catch-22 is that dilution makes all religions hypocritical to their faith. So maybe the consequence is that we all have to smile awkwardly because that's better than hurting trans pastors, hetero paedo priests, and those evangelists supporting Zionism whilst Zionism hates them etc. (don't think that I'm showing equivalence with those examples, cause the first is the only one I'm willing to drink tea with).
But, hells bells, what's the deal with the USA's government's tolerance for criminal Scientologists. Maybe religion is just a mystery and all those in it a mystery to themselves... and I know nothing about realism and morality at all.
In the 1990s, a Norwegian author named Johan Filip Løvgren had a revival in German-speaking evangelical circles. His novel "Våre lamper slokner" (referring to the Parable of the Ten Virgins) was translated into German ("Und ihre Lampen verlöschen") and saw many editions - presumably with many more copies than the 32,000 mentioned here (they still swamp used-book sites like booklooker.de):
Løvgren died in 1959, was rediscovered 30 years later, and now it has been another 30 years. My copy even refers to Laodicea (you know, the lukewarm ones) on the back cover...
Thanks for the reference, I shall now check this out.
You know, the above-related episode is so absurd, it boggles my mind (and I'm not even religious). If one goes to Statistics Norway, though, one sees a huge spike in people exiting the Church of Norway at around the time the bishops' conference voted to perform same-sex marriages in 2015/16.
I'd think that the 'old' institutions are crumbling, partially because they were 'lukewarm' and didn't withstand these (admittedly enormous) pressures, but then again, the churches withstood a lot of other BS coming their way--apparently, this 'trans' thing is at a different level; if I@d had to venture a guess, it's because it's not adversarial but subversive as in: let me in, c'mon on, all I require is a little bit of space…
It seems the underlying aim is to band religion with mental illness to aid its destruction. 'The they' need to destroy organised religion - which I believe has been on the rise recently - in order easier to control the people. Or at least try and regain more control as people break free.
I believe 'the they' used religion in times past for just this reason, control, and control through fear of people who knew no better. Now people are turning to traditional religions as an escape from 'the they' this has to be taken down in favour of the new religion and control of the minds foisted on people through the screens.
It's an interesting piece Epimetheus, looking from the outside as having no part in organied religion and, other than reading a few substacks, have no interaction with the new religions of social media. As a free bystander I look forward to reading part two. My main take on it all is that it is all so very, very sad.
That's a good point--I think, much like with 'Covid', the mental illness aspect is pushed to first 'normalise' it and subsequently to pathologise its practice: 'oh, you're with *these* people…'
Your point about the past (ab)uses of religion is well taken, and I do get the impression that the 'new' media is in the process of being taken over, and in this regard, it's irrelevant if it's Tucker Carlson on 'X' who's a monopolist or the NYT in the 'good old days' for the end result is the same.
It is all very sad, and, given that nothing in life is static, also inevitable; what I find most troubling, though, is the cognitive dissonance it creates or reinforces.
Moral relativism invariably leads to the demise of any moral standing, a much worse outcome than the previous, often derided framework. I cannot shake the feeling that this is the desired effect, part of the deliberate destruction of Western Civilization. Who are the monsters behind this effort?
Exactly the right question to ask.
Like with the mentioning of virtually total US media control by Mr. Putin in his conversation with Tucker Carlson, this is what is never asked. We note, in passing, that it's a certainty that the latter knows this as well as the former, which begs the question: is Mr. Carlson's Twitter-enabled journalism simply the next iteration of (partially) controlled mass media?
Neither Carlson nor Putin are what they are usually perceived to be. The Imperial Oligarchy supports people on all sides while creating hyper partisanship through which they sucker us into siding with one group or another. In all such cases they win and we lose. They’ve supported both Bolsheviks and Nazis. It is reasonable to assume they have not changed their MO which means they continue to support all sides, at least remain in active contact with all sides.
They start conflicts and wars always with an overarching goal of moving us closer to their dream of a total planetary control. I can only guess that they believe their greatest potential impediment to the realization of their dream lies in the people’s of the West, not in Russia or China. While they are clearly creating tensions with Russia and China, their real target is the Western Civilization whose people are the only ones who can still mount a successful rebellion against them.
In their strategy, Russia is probably slated for dismemberment with China gaining a large portion of resource rich territory. The aim is to ultimately merge with Chinese oligarchy, forming their New World Order. This would not be the first time they pulled off such a feat. British Empire had exhausted its home base before they incorporated the US oligarchy into the new Anglo American Empire. The plan is to do something similar with China. The only thing standing in their way are the “peasants” of their own domain who still believe in their own “sovereignty”. It is precisely this “sovereignty” that is under attack, through multiples of vectors. Uncontrolled immigration is a major vector. Another is attack on everything traditional, family, religious and moral frameworks, etc. They will not stop until they get what they want, unless a critical mass of us Westerners wake up and act.
You're probably correct about 'them' trying to 'assimilate' (co-opt) everyone into their 'Borg' (mind you, I'm borrowing these words from Gene Roddenberry as his 'planetary federation' is a kind of one-universe de facto Bolshevik/Globalist régime, and I fear this is also what's in store for us mere mortals).
The one thing standing in the way is but a fraction of their own populations, I'd argue, but it's still sizeable enough to throw the odd monkey-wrench into the machine they're desiring. Consider the Covid scam, and you'd learn that some 20-30% of the population of our 'Western' countries refused to participate, thus denying total victory. This won't be permitted next time around.
Speaking of 'next time around', I read 'somewhere' (can't find the link right now) that Moderna is planning to roll out more modRNA jabs in 2025…
EDIT: you write:
'They will not stop until they get what they want, unless a critical mass of us Westerners wake up and act.'
They don't care, they will try anyways; they will never stop, and I doubt that there will be 'more' of 'us' the 'next time around'.
Look around right now and remember; your life may depend on remembering the 'right' people.
panem et circenses; and nobody looks behind the curtain.
Indeed. Moral relativism is for enabling comparisons between moral systems (cultures, et cetera): as an ideology or a moral system in its own right, it can't be anything but destructive, no matter if it's done on purpose or not.
And sometimes, things that come about as unforseen consequences becomes the purpose.
We do not need a discussion of morals. We just have to apply to the 10 commandments, with or without belief and care for our own business. All "Überbau" must be deleted. All politics just regards our lives for the profits of monsters. Don't comply.
Just skimmed it because it is the same here, so I've already seen this play out and could immediately notice that all the remarks, arguements, et cetera plus the media treatment is identical and follow the same script(ure) and method.
Now, me not being christian - never was and never will be, nor do I bow to any interpretation of the god of jews - I couldn't in one sense care less. The christians perverts their cult in new way? So what else is new? They've always done this to remain in or close to the seat of power, and have revisioned the interpretation of scripture accordingly so that the church "has always been at war with Eastasia", to borrow a phrase.
But: I do respect faith, actual faith, which can only be expressed via action. Thus, the trans-lunatic called a priest has his beliefs, and the actual christians (which are and will continue to) leave the state church in droves have theirs.
And therein lies the problem: rather than founding his own cult or join a pre-existing one idolising trans-sexuals, he only has the choice of the state church; it's virtually "the only game in town", especially if one wants a career in the business of religion.
Had the natural state been allowed to exist throughout history - poly-/pantheism - where people pick the god(s) of their choice or what they feel the situation warrants, this problem wouldn't exist at all. The trans-sexual would join a cult already fitting his belief-system and the christians would have been able to refuse him entry, if they can point to what he vilates re: rules & commandments.
But if wishes were dishes, I'd be fat or something like that - it is what it is. Look to those cults trans- don't try to join? And look at why they don't try.
Had the issue not been thoroughly politicised by globohomo-fascists for ther last 40 years, it could easily have been solved in a neat and clean way: church leaders declaring with basis in scripture (with references as to where in scripture and why that part and so on) that trans-somethings are a-okay. Not the ideology-faith now firmly connected to all things trans-, just the specific individuals. But that ship has been burnt long ago, ever since the churches retreated into thinking "everything will go back to normal (i.e. 19th century christianity) eventually" or did as in Sweden: elect a marxist-communist archbishop with "Allah Akbar" as her motto.
Anyway. Look at the free churches instead. Many, many actual christians will flock there. Plus the usual grifters-in-frocks, smarmy literalists who pick-and-choose scripture as it benefits them, and the rest of the fleas in the wool of the lamb of god, to try a little poesy.
The free churches are a growing base for a renewal of the faith: their biggest problem is that they put islam and moslems up as allies against secularism, thinking their christian tolerance and kindness will be reciprocated by moslems in the future.
I do think that organised religion is on a downward, if not death, spiral: just look at the Catholic Church under the current pope: same shit, different smell--and, of course, on a much, much larger scale than mainstream Lutheranism.
Your point about free churches is well taken--just look at the massive growth in the US of 'traditional' (i.e., pre-Vatican II) Catholicism. It's the same thing.
As to the last point about perceived 'partnership' with Moslems, well, what shall I say but: there's more than 50 Moslem countries with all the theological varieties, but somehow they migrate to 'the West'. To expect any sympathy once for anything--religion being the first, but freedoms and liberties will follow suit--is delusional.
I as a Christian am under no delusion about moslem reciprocity of Christian tolerance.
Politicians claim that it’s going to be fine (but that’s because they’re installed by the de facto Bolshevik rulers to destroy Christianity via mass immigration, among other things).
Lots of truth here
I'm 100% for adults being whatever gender they want to be because its their business. We live, we die, we go nowhere afterwards. Life is brief. My problem is with the hypocrisy of religion. Religion is discrimination. Any attempt to welcome people previously hated is nefarious marketing or submission to the will of State liberalism.
The offspring of Black slaves subjugated by old Christians becoming modern Christians is ridiculous. The same applies to gay people. It comes down to people not being taught to stand on their own feet, and needing a crutch, the invitation of all religion except when indoctrination began with childhood.
As a Christian, you have a choice - hateful superiority or hypocrisy (and the latter doubles as self-hate).
It more logical to embrace all non-religious people. Unfortunately, ours is a world of hate so we have to find common ground which is secularism. The catch-22 is that dilution makes all religions hypocritical to their faith. So maybe the consequence is that we all have to smile awkwardly because that's better than hurting trans pastors, hetero paedo priests, and those evangelists supporting Zionism whilst Zionism hates them etc. (don't think that I'm showing equivalence with those examples, cause the first is the only one I'm willing to drink tea with).
But, hells bells, what's the deal with the USA's government's tolerance for criminal Scientologists. Maybe religion is just a mystery and all those in it a mystery to themselves... and I know nothing about realism and morality at all.
You are still blind if you don't see the source of this.
Please read part two, now available.
In the 1990s, a Norwegian author named Johan Filip Løvgren had a revival in German-speaking evangelical circles. His novel "Våre lamper slokner" (referring to the Parable of the Ten Virgins) was translated into German ("Und ihre Lampen verlöschen") and saw many editions - presumably with many more copies than the 32,000 mentioned here (they still swamp used-book sites like booklooker.de):
https://www.bokebloggen.no/2022/05/13/johan-filip-lovgren-glassverksarbeider-og-kristen-forfatter/
Løvgren died in 1959, was rediscovered 30 years later, and now it has been another 30 years. My copy even refers to Laodicea (you know, the lukewarm ones) on the back cover...
Thanks for the reference, I shall now check this out.
You know, the above-related episode is so absurd, it boggles my mind (and I'm not even religious). If one goes to Statistics Norway, though, one sees a huge spike in people exiting the Church of Norway at around the time the bishops' conference voted to perform same-sex marriages in 2015/16.
I'd think that the 'old' institutions are crumbling, partially because they were 'lukewarm' and didn't withstand these (admittedly enormous) pressures, but then again, the churches withstood a lot of other BS coming their way--apparently, this 'trans' thing is at a different level; if I@d had to venture a guess, it's because it's not adversarial but subversive as in: let me in, c'mon on, all I require is a little bit of space…
It seems the underlying aim is to band religion with mental illness to aid its destruction. 'The they' need to destroy organised religion - which I believe has been on the rise recently - in order easier to control the people. Or at least try and regain more control as people break free.
I believe 'the they' used religion in times past for just this reason, control, and control through fear of people who knew no better. Now people are turning to traditional religions as an escape from 'the they' this has to be taken down in favour of the new religion and control of the minds foisted on people through the screens.
It's an interesting piece Epimetheus, looking from the outside as having no part in organied religion and, other than reading a few substacks, have no interaction with the new religions of social media. As a free bystander I look forward to reading part two. My main take on it all is that it is all so very, very sad.
That's a good point--I think, much like with 'Covid', the mental illness aspect is pushed to first 'normalise' it and subsequently to pathologise its practice: 'oh, you're with *these* people…'
Your point about the past (ab)uses of religion is well taken, and I do get the impression that the 'new' media is in the process of being taken over, and in this regard, it's irrelevant if it's Tucker Carlson on 'X' who's a monopolist or the NYT in the 'good old days' for the end result is the same.
It is all very sad, and, given that nothing in life is static, also inevitable; what I find most troubling, though, is the cognitive dissonance it creates or reinforces.