I've come up with a way to fix everything, the economy, inequality, climate change, housing, geopolitical tensions, falling birth rates in developed nations, absolutely everything all at once.
The idea came to me after seeing this guy on the internet say we need to end farming to stop climate change, at first I thought it was a bad idea, but then I considered it some more and realized he was right, indeed the only problem with his idea is that he's not taking it far enough.
Basically we just need to kill off 90% of the global population, even at 90% that still leaves 10 million people for every billion that currently exists, well and truly a viable gene-pool.
I think Hitler was ahead of his time, I think he realized this and if you're going to cull the population well you don't start with the pretty ones do you?
Am I right, or is this wrong? Tell me what you think.
What is the criteria for who should live and who decides that? Why do they have the right over the majority of the world's population to decide that?
This wouldn't work as the majority of the population isn't going to volunteer themselves to be sacrificed. In order for the 10% to accomplish this genocide wouldn't they need to value strength, cruelty and psychopathic traits in order to carry it out? Are those the kinds of people we want left on the planet?
Maybe humility and kindness would be better traits for a new humanity, and they're the exact people who wouldn't carry out this kind of plan.
Well cutting down the food supply would obviously affect the poor the most, however a plague has its merits too as it will tend to kill more elderly and infirm people.
Who am I trolling, people who believe we should enact policies that will kill millions of people for the sake of climate change, the very same people who would consider outright killing millions of people immoral?
I think they're trolling themselves.
I think it's important to actually think things through and not just go with what sounds right or feels right, because reality isn't a morning cartoon.
See that's my point, they would, they just wouldn't realize they're doing it.
Because they don't think, they feel.
These are the people who would "end farming" and then complain when the government isn't doing enough to solve mass starvation.
These are the people who advocate for less stringent laws and defunding the police and then complain to the government that crime is out of control.
These are the people who want open borders and then complain that the government isn't doing enough to protect their communities from invading drug cartels.
I just had a brainwave, we setup suicide booths with a 95% chance that rather than killing you it gives you $100, and people can enter the booth as many times as they like, then we just sit back and let nature happen.
Well cutting down the food supply would obviously affect the poor the most, however a plague has its merits too as it will tend to kill more elderly and infirm people.
Who am I trolling, people who believe we should enact policies that will kill millions of people for the sake of climate change, the very same people who would consider outright killing millions of people immoral?
I think they're trolling themselves.
I think it's important to actually think things through and not just go with what sounds right or feels right, because reality isn't a morning cartoon.
See that's my point, they would, they just wouldn't realize they're doing it.
Because they don't think, they feel.
These are the people who would "end farming" and then complain when the government isn't doing enough to solve mass starvation.
These are the people who advocate for less stringent laws and defunding the police and then complain to the government that crime is out of control.
These are the people who want open borders and then complain that the government isn't doing enough to protect their communities from invading drug cartels.
I just had a brainwave, we setup suicide booths with a 95% chance that rather than killing you it gives you $100, and people can enter the booth as many times as they like, then we just sit back and let nature happen.
I've come up with a way to fix everything, the economy, inequality, climate change, housing, geopolitical tensions, falling birth rates in developed nations, absolutely everything all at once.
The idea came to me after seeing this guy on the internet say we need to end farming to stop climate change, at first I thought it was a bad idea, but then I considered it some more and realized he was right, indeed the only problem with his idea is that he's not taking it far enough.
Basically we just need to kill off 90% of the global population, even at 90% that still leaves 10 million people for every billion that currently exists, well and truly a viable gene-pool.
I think Hitler was ahead of his time, I think he realized this and if you're going to cull the population well you don't start with the pretty ones do you?
Am I right, or is this wrong? Tell me what you think.
If resource consumption is an issue which will eventually lead to "overgrazing," then all you can really do is warn people that when they decide to "be fruitful and multiply" past replacement rate (or possible even a little below) that those future individuals will be consumers, and that the more of them there are, the faster we blow through resources. If they choose not to listen in the face of overwhelming evidence, then they have consented to the demise of either themselves or their offspring. It is not informed consent if they are lied to, however. It is in the short-term interests of business and other interests to have more consumers and workers (for now), but it certainly is in the long-term interests of all of us to maybe ration a bit and not blow through our supply of resources so quickly. I mean, our economic model is built upon the necessity of infinite growth. Companies are not really interested in staying stagnant, after all. Increasing the value of the stock for shareholders means you have to increase consumption either by expanding the number of consumers, or expanding the demand of the individual consumer. Anyways, it is pointless. All the data is there for people who want to look, you can try warning people, but it won't matter. We just have to sit back and watch things unfold as the "overgrazing" plays out.
My take on the trolley problem is that choosing not to make a choice is itself a choice, you have chosen inaction, you have chosen whatever track the junction is already set to.
So if we're on track to ecological collapse and consequently mass human death, then it makes perfect sense to take action now rather than later, to choose the track with the least people tied to it.
Anyways, it is pointless. All the data is there for people who want to look, you can try warning people, but it won't matter. We just have to sit back and watch things unfold as the "overgrazing" plays out.
My take on the trolley problem is that choosing not to make a choice is itself a choice, you have chosen inaction, you have chosen whatever track the junction is already set to.
So if we're on track to ecological collapse and consequently mass human death, then it makes perfect sense to take action now rather than later, to choose the track with the least people tied to it.
Anyways, it is pointless. All the data is there for people who want to look, you can try warning people, but it won't matter. We just have to sit back and watch things unfold as the "overgrazing" plays out.
Plenty of people talk about what they think needs to happen, and the world does not have problems that are as simple as pulling a lever. Also, what if innovation saves us? Is that not a possible outcome? Would you dispute the claims of potential future ecological collapse? What would you propose to do? Thanos-ing the masses against their will (as you had suggested) is a violation of their right to life. Convincing them to consume less or to have fewer children comes with its own issues (economic). Perhaps incentivize them to be sterilized (not saying this is the solution, simply postulating)? This again, would threaten economic growth and therefore the people who have an interest in economic growth. I don't know that there is a solution.
If we go that rote all those who survive are the ones with strongest immune systems, and people who are best at group think and tribalism.
Literally everyone else is dead.
My take on the trolley problem is that choosing not to make a choice is itself a choice, you have chosen inaction, you have chosen whatever track the junction is already set to.
So if we're on track to ecological collapse and consequently mass human death, then it makes perfect sense to take action now rather than later, to choose the track with the least people tied to it.
Anyways, it is pointless. All the data is there for people who want to look, you can try warning people, but it won't matter. We just have to sit back and watch things unfold as the "overgrazing" plays out.
Plenty of people talk about what they think needs to happen, and the world does not have problems that are as simple as pulling a lever. Also, what if innovation saves us? Is that not a possible outcome? Would you dispute the claims of potential future ecological collapse? What would you propose to do? Thanos-ing the masses against their will (as you had suggested) is a violation of their right to life. Convincing them to consume less or to have fewer children comes with its own issues (economic). Perhaps incentivize them to be sterilized (not saying this is the solution, simply postulating)? This again, would threaten economic growth and therefore the people who have an interest in economic growth. I don't know that there is a solution.
There are more than two tracks. For example, if birth-rates decline when countries develop, then the problem solves itself if we raise people up. The solution is in your own premises, but that no doubt would be communism or something? Can't have that, much better to go full giga-Hitler than to share.
Why immigration does nothing to solve global poverty, indeed it actually makes it worse because we're stealing the best and brightest from the places that most desperately need them:
Also there's my whole rant about primary industries and how they are the foundation of an economy, those are industries that produce the essentials like food, water and shelter, or produce something that facilitates trade thereby acquiring food, water or shelter from elsewhere. Because if you don't have a sufficient supply of the essentials and you don't have something to sell, to then buy those essentials from elsewhere, then you don't have enough. And again these are the ESSENTIALS.
If you have 10 million people and you've only have enough food, water or shelter for 9 million people what you actually have is a crisis that could very quickly spiral into civil war and/or anarchy.
Continuous replacement, the nation becomes a human meat grinder, eternally bringing in fresh meat to be crushed by systemic inequality and churned out onto the street as burned out homeless people once they can no longer feed the machine.
Congratulations you found something worse than genocide, endless genocide.
Right, but hypothetically, as an individual, I have determined that the authority of the land are not competent enough to serve my interests, and the cost/benefit of trying to change that is not in my favor either.
So I have a couple choices, among least destructive of them I think being, just move somewhere else with a different status quo.
So, it is about individual freedom, something that does not come cheap. This is the driving notion behind many colonial states post revolutionary constitutions, and such things were understood as tradeoffs even back then.
If you want to say that there are negative side-effects of "freedom" then you can go ahead. There is obviously a big counter movement of people who think that this (lax border policies) inhibits their own freedoms. The almost implicit association of this sentiment with conservative viewpoints makes us blind to the fact that these people can exist and operate openly because these freedoms are afforded to everyone. Before now, it didn't matter what anyone but royal people thought.
I don't mean to get relativistic, I see it as being holistic to look at history. I'm fairly sure that you oppose Nationalist reservations, but see them as somewhat necessary, but from where I stand, that comes from a place of luxury that was afforded to us by people who made apt decisions in the past that contradict what you are refuting.
I've come up with a way to fix everything, the economy, inequality, climate change, housing, geopolitical tensions, falling birth rates in developed nations, absolutely everything all at once.
The idea came to me after seeing this guy on the internet say we need to end farming to stop climate change, at first I thought it was a bad idea, but then I considered it some more and realized he was right, indeed the only problem with his idea is that he's not taking it far enough.
Basically we just need to kill off 90% of the global population, even at 90% that still leaves 10 million people for every billion that currently exists, well and truly a viable gene-pool.
I think Hitler was ahead of his time, I think he realized this and if you're going to cull the population well you don't start with the pretty ones do you?
Am I right, or is this wrong? Tell me what you think.
Who am I trolling, people who believe we should enact policies that will kill millions of people for the sake of climate change, the very same people who would consider outright killing millions of people immoral?
Who am I trolling, people who believe we should enact policies that will kill millions of people for the sake of climate change, the very same people who would consider outright killing millions of people immoral?
Suppose you had a leaking faucet. The plumber comes over and say: "I know what will fix this", and he kills you. You no longer exist, therefor you no longer have a leaking faucet. Because you no longer have a "you".
Would you consider that a way to fix your problem?
Suppose you had a leaking faucet. The plumber comes over and say: "I know what will fix this", and he kills you. You no longer exist, therefor you no longer have a leaking faucet. Because you no longer have a "you".
Would you consider that a way to fix your problem?
Suppose you had a leaking faucet. The plumber comes over and say: "I know what will fix this", and he kills you. You no longer exist, therefor you no longer have a leaking faucet. Because you no longer have a "you".
Would you consider that a way to fix your problem?
Technocratic messianism is not the solution, but the problem. The voice which proposes such homicidal schemes as yours is the voice of the devil, who "was a murderer from the beginning, and...stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him" (John 8:44); it is the voice of Lucifer, who in his envy of God said: "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High” (Isaiah 14:13-14). The same was for his apostasy and usurpation "brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit" (Isaiah 14:15), where he now burns with murderous envy for men because we are still capable of loving and being loved by God for all time and eternity. "For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: And they follow him that are of his side" (Wisdom 2:23-25).
The solution is for every man, woman, and child on the planet to become a Catholic—not in the sense of a 'low-T' Catholicism which suppresses everything which is ‘offensive to modern ears’ in Catholic tradition, to the point of tolerating a diabolical liturgy that mocks our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by its effeminacy, and dares not claim that it is the only religion which is ordained by and pleasing to God, but in the sense of an 'alpha' Catholicism which knows by supernatural faith in divine revelation that "no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12), than that of Jesus, Who will deny us if we deny Him (cf. Matthew 10:33), and that, in the words of Don Juan before the Battle of Lepanto, "There is no paradise for cowards"; the solution is for every man, woman, and child on the planet to acknowledge their sin, receive Baptism, and be incorporated into the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church of Christ. "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16).
Western civilization has been disintegrating ever since half of Europe followed that debauched blasphemer Martin Luther into schism with the Apostolic See. To his Luciferian rebellion against the authority of the Roman Pontiff succeeded the rationalism of what is falsely called the Enlightenment, which really consisted in a great Obscuration of the relation between faith and reason; to this rationalism succeeded Romantic skepticism, which, despairing of the competence of reason to furnish motives of faith, asserts that faith is an emotion or desire; and the successor of this skepticism is the communistic insanity which prevails today and which, having reduced all knowledge to opinion and opinion to carnal appetites, makes irrational belief in the impious dogmas proposed by the Synagogue of Satan (cf. Apocalypse 2:9) through ‘secular’ education and other media—that all men are created equal and have an equal right to participate in the government of the state, that miracles are impossible, etc.—into a virtue, even as it calumniously accuses the saints of God of 'blind faith.' "For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22).
Against this insanity, the Vicar of Christ has been the principal bulwark (cf. The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy, by Henry Edward Cardinal Manning), but the restrainer has been taken out of the way (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:7), the shepherd has been struck and the sheep have been dispersed (cf. Matthew 26:31, Zacharias 13:7, John 21:17), the Vatican has been captured by the forces of antichrist. The Church as a juridical institution founded on the rock that is St. Peter (cf. Matthew 16:18, Luke 22:32) must exist and does exist, but it is not necessarily easy to access. Seek Christian baptism, pray the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary every day, and ask the Holy Ghost to make you holy.
Immaculately-conceived Queen of Angels and Martyrs, you alone have crushed the head of the hoary serpent and destroyed all heresies, once and for all, by bearing into the world the last Adam, Who is the Light of all men, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Pray for us that we will not succumb to the temptations of the adversary, who goes about seeing whom he may devour, but hear and keep the Word of God as you have. Amen.
I mean, something can only disintegrate for so long before, you know, it's gone. For something that was disintegrating, it has sure taken its time. I thought Martin Luther was a lil' sus myself, but that's because there might have been some ulterior motives the dude had in mind.
Well, what would you call it then? We have to name things. I guess from your perspective it might not seem enlightening. Sure, we can argue definitions.
I'm still waiting for this "communism" thing to happen that some people keep on talking about. Every time I remind myself of its definition, and someone says "hey that person over there is a communist, or that government over there is doing a communism," I realize we have access to different vocabularies.
I also know my controversial fallacies. Another is the motte-and-bailey, in which the controversialist conceals the absurdity of his thesis by proving a different thesis which he expresses in the same words, but which his opponent has never denied. For example, we are assured by the partisans of communism that those ‘man-made horrors beyond our comprehension’ which it inspires are not due to pure ‘communism’ at all, but to another doctrine, perhaps a mutation of the original doctrine of Karl Marx. Such a bait-and-switch, however, rather reinforces than allays the suspicion that communism is a misanthropic death cult, since Marx was himself a follower of the devil.
At an age when most young men have beautiful dreams of doing good to others and preparing a career for themselves, the young Marx wrote the following lines in his poem "Invocation of One in Despair":
So a god has snatched from me my all,
In the curse and rack of destiny.
All his worlds are gone beyond recall.
Nothing but revenge is left to me.
I shall build my throne high overhead,
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
For its bulwark - superstitious dread.
For its marshal - blackest agony.
Who looks on it with a healthy eye,
Shall turn back, deathly pale and dumb,
Clutched by blind and chill mortality,
May his happiness prepare its tomb.
Marx dreamt about ruining the world created by God. He said in another poem:
Then I will be able to walk triumphantly,
Like a god, through the rains of their kingdom.
Every word of mine is fire and action.
My breast is equal to that of the Creator.
The words "I shall build my throne high overhead" and the confession that from the one sitting on this throne will emanate only dread and agony remind us of Lucifer's proud boast, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" (Isaiah 14:13).
Another is the motte-and-bailey, in which the controversialist conceals the absurdity of his thesis by proving a different thesis which he expresses in the same words, but which his opponent has never denied.
Well, if it was such a misanthropic death cult, wouldn't you expect it to have done a better job of killing people off in countries where it was attempted to be implemented assuming a degree of success? There are still plenty of people in the former USSR states and China today. As for Marx, I had no idea he was a Luciferian. I think I had heard he was an Atheist, but I wouldn't say that would make him a follower of the devil. What makes someone classified as a follower?
Another is the motte-and-bailey, in which the controversialist conceals the absurdity of his thesis by proving a different thesis which he expresses in the same words, but which his opponent has never denied.
Unfortunately, the informal or controversial fallacies are, by their very nature, difficult to spot. The enemies of truth will use equivocation as a smokescreen to cover their lies; they will use ambiguous terms to call good what is really evil. Not every fallacy is as obvious as a logician making a visible error manipulating the chess-pieces of his mechanistic propositional calculus.
Tesla said this less than a generation before 1917. It seems he has been proven right.
As for Marx, I had no idea he was a Luciferian. I think I had heard he was an Atheist, but I wouldn't say that would make him a follower of the devil. What makes someone classified as a follower?
I have already posted some of Marx's manifestly Luciferian poetry. If you read a little further into Wurmbrand's book, you will find further evidence of his sympathy for the devil. If you desire a definition of the term 'follower of the devil,' I believe I have already given the implicit definition of sacred Scripture: "by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: And they follow him that are of his side" (Wisdom 2:24-25). The mark of a follower of the devil is that he shares the evil one's consuming envy and hatred of God and of His created image, humanity. This perverse malice is quite characteristic of communism, which proceeds from a materialistic metaphysic that tacitly denies what is best in man, intellect, free will, and personality, and which promises men a bogus 'liberation' that consists in reducing them to an interchangeable cog of the machinery of the state. It is not necessary to explicitly venerate Lucifer and participate in 'black masses' to be at least an unconscious follower of the devil, though Marx evidently did.
Western civilization has been disintegrating ever since half of Europe followed that debauched blasphemer Martin Luther into schism with the Apostolic See.
Catholics love to help the sick and the poor. One of the ways to help the poor is not by making everyone poor, except an anonymous clique of politicians and bureaucrats and their satraps, by surrendering all property to an impersonal and unaccountable 'state.'
Edit: On the topic of followers of Satan, here are some of the edifying sayings of the glorious 'reformer' of the Church, Martin Luther:
As we approach the five hundred year anniversary of the Protestant reformulation on October 31, 2017, it is good to look back examine how that all worked out for them. For, how are we to judge the fruit of tree over the last 500 years unless we first examine its seed? Therefore, let us start...
Well, there were definitely horrors present in history prior to this period. Was 1914 not horrific? Was the Civil War not horrific? If your argument is that "communism kills people," so communism is bad, even if true, I think it neglects the bigger picture. Would it be fair to say "Catholicism kills people," when one looks at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion ? Or would you say that the Protestants killed people but Catholics did not? Maybe its something else that kills people. Maybe it is the person who says, "you know what, I'm fine with killing this person for x y or z ideology ," who kills people. What led them to this conclusion?
This perverse malice is quite characteristic of communism, which proceeds from a materialistic metaphysic that tacitly denies what is best in man, intellect, free will, and personality, and which promises men a bogus 'liberation' that consists in reducing them to an interchangeable cog of the machinery of the state.
I don't see how malice is a necessary product of having a materialistic metaphysical perspective. Sure, one could argue that communism proceeded from that precursor, but I also fail to see how it denies intellect, or personality.
Alright, how do these individuals become cogs of the state in a classless, stateless society, or are you arguing that this state of affairs is impossible and therefore the end result is state tyranny? If that's your conclusion, well, it would be hard to single that ideology out here as the sole idea leading to "cogism."
One of the ways to help the poor is not by making everyone poor, except an anonymous clique of politicians and bureaucrats and their satraps, by surrendering all property to an impersonal and unaccountable 'state.'
By observing that the former endeavours to make the position of the latter appear ridiculous, I suppose.
Well, there were definitely horrors present in history prior to this period. Was 1914 not horrific? Was the Civil War not horrific? If your argument is that "communism kills people," so communism is bad, even if true, I think it neglects the bigger picture. Would it be fair to say "Catholicism kills people," when one looks at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion ?
No, for, without Protestantism, there would have been no European Wars of Religion, but the essence of Protestantism is rejection of Catholicism.
I don't see how malice is a necessary product of having a materialistic metaphysical perspective. Sure, one could argue that communism proceeded from that precursor, but I also fail to see how it denies intellect, or personality.
My opinion is not that malice is a product of materialism, but that both communism and the materialistic metaphysical Weltanshauung in which it is embedded, inasmuch as it serves as the 'scientific' justification for communism, are products of malice. Communism, in its hatred of religion, contemptuously dismisses all talk of God and of spiritual things as the result of 'false consciousness' induced by the propaganda of the ruling class, of which the clergy are an instrument; materialism justifies this contempt by its denial that anything exists besides matter. How does this denial include a tacit denial of intellect? In that intellect, or spirit (they are more or less one and the same), is essentially immaterial; for matter is essentially what exists only potentially until it is made actual by some form, but an intellect is a thing that exists as such; or, alternatively, it is proper to the intellect to know, but matter can only be an object of knowing. (These two explanations, one epistemological and the other ontological, seem to me to be complementary, since, as Aristotle said, "The soul is all that it knows.") No matter how much and in how many ways you analyze and scrutinize matter, you will never find in it a 'self' that knows, unless it be the ever-present 'I' who witnesses the experiments and records the observations. As Schopenhauer said, "Materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take into account himself."
The fact that we human beings can actually know some things is, in fact, inexplicable within the communist-materialistic framework. Why 'false consciousness' and not simply falsehoods that stand in the way of perceiving the truth, that the economic plight of the proletariat outweighs all other considerations from a practical perspective? If our intellects are so crippled by the oppressive propaganda of the ruling class that we can believe our 'false consciousness' to be knowledge of truth, why should we trust our 'true consciousness' of the truth of communism? The very idea of truth is inconvenient to the fomenters of communistic revolution. A subversive agitator does not need conscientious thinkers, he needs brutish enforcers to put his own plans into action without worrying about 'bourgeois' notions like truth, goodness, honour, beauty, family, and love. Therefore the communists reduce "all knowledge to opinion and opinion to carnal appetites" which can be shaped, B.F.-Skinner-wise, through education and other media.
The Grey Man said:
One of the ways to help the poor is not by making everyone poor, except an anonymous clique of politicians and bureaucrats and their satraps, by surrendering all property to an impersonal and unaccountable 'state.'
Under Feudalism, the state was not "impersonal and unaccountable" but concretely embodied by the person of the monarch, who could be deposed by a decree of the Pope releasing the people from their oath of allegiance to him if his rule became insupportable. All property was not concentrated in the hands of an "anonymous clique of politicians and bureaucrats" but widely distributed among publicly-known lords and vassals of various ranks, who were born and bred for their roles and had a personal stake in the prosperity of their respective territories. This resulted in a well-ordered and stable society in which everyone knew what their obligations were and to whom. Also, the property of the Church was respected, unlike in communist lands. So no, I would not say so.
Yeah, but my understanding of history would suggest that Catholics picked up the sword as well. Then there were the Crusades, and numerous other squabbles between kingdoms that were considered Catholic. I'm not going to argue that those wars were a result of Catholicism, but would you claim that the Catholic Church denounced those behaviors?
Communism, in its hatred of religion, contemptuously dismisses all talk of God and of spiritual things as the result of 'false consciousness' induced by the propaganda of the ruling class, of which the clergy are an instrument
Well, I'd imagine one would have to put things into perspective here. If you were a historian and philosopher looking back on history, how would you be able to reconcile the various atrocities that had occurred under the watch of the clergy? If the Catholic Church did not successfully intervene against unjust rulers, people might wonder why this wasn't so. It might not be too much of a stretch to say that the Church was propaganda of the rulers if the rulers failed in their duties to the people and the Church did not depose them. Do you have evidence of times when the Church stepped in against tyrants who terrorized their people?
Something could exist other than matter, but how would we know? It would be impossible to prove, using material means, the existence of anything other than the material. The "bold" materialist who claims that nonmaterial things do not exist with absolute certainty, is claiming omnipotence.
If false consciousness is the idea that certain ideas obscure reality, then true consciousness would be an attempt to get a more objective look at it. I would not say that communism is this truth. To my knowledge there are zero examples of a communist society existing in the modern era. Some would argue that such societies used to exist, but they existed under dramatically different environmental and social circumstances, Trying "communism" today would be very risky without a full understanding of society and its systems, as it is experimental in nature. I say, be skeptical but thoughtful, as in all things.
Under Feudalism, the state was not "impersonal and unaccountable" but concretely embodied by the person of the monarch, who could be deposed by a decree of the Pope releasing the people from their oath of allegiance to him if his rule became insupportable.
All property was not concentrated in the hands of an "anonymous clique of politicians and bureaucrats" but widely distributed among publicly-known lords and vassals of various ranks, who were born and bred for their roles and had a personal stake in the prosperity of their respective territories.
I'd wonder just how anonymous these cliques were to the average serf. Also, it would seem to me that they were in possession of the lion's share of the wealth (including the land which had been granted to them by the monarch). How could you say that this system was fair to the poor?
This resulted in a well-ordered and stable society in which everyone knew what their obligations were and to whom. Also, the property of the Church was respected, unlike in communist lands. So no, I would not say so.
Do you think it was always well-ordered and stable? The stability was lost at some point, after all. It might be a little reductionist to blame Martin Luther for all of it. After all, he would not have gained traction without the printing press, nor the economic system and the rise of the merchant class which helped it along : https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2039/the-printing-press--the-protestant-reformation/
Yeah, but my understanding of history would suggest that Catholics picked up the sword as well. Then there were the Crusades, and numerous other squabbles between kingdoms that were considered Catholic. I'm not going to argue that those wars were a result of Catholicism, but would you claim that the Catholic Church denounced those behaviors?
Catholicism is not a pacifistic religion like Anabaptistry or Quakerism. The Church does not desire wars, but they are sometimes necessary. The Holy League, which was led by Pope St. Pius V and which was victorious in the Battle of Lepanto, is an example of a perfectly justified and successful Crusade. Other Crusades were not so fortunate partly because of the squabbling you mentioned. Generally speaking, the in-fighting and rapacity got worse the further the crusaders strayed from the influence of the center of unity of Christendom, the Papacy.
Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that … <a...
www.papalencyclicals.net
We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords‘ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard‘ [Mt 26:52]. Therefore, both are in the power of the Church, namely, the spiritual sword and the material. But indeed, the latter is to be exercised on behalf of the Church; and truly, the former is to be exercised by the Church. The former is of the priest; the latter is by the hand of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.
Do you have evidence of times when the Church stepped in against tyrants who terrorized their people?
The most conspicuous examples are the few times when the Pope has actually used his power of deposition (e.g. against Henry IV and Frederick II of Germany), but this is the nuclear option, as it were. By far the most important and consistent thing that the Church did for both ruler and subject in medieval times was to feed them the Word of God. It is tempting to assume that people were as cynical then as they are now, but most of the people of every social stratum really did hear the Gospel on a regular basis, and "faith cometh by hearing" (Romans 10:17). The weak heard the words "Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land" (Matthew 5:4) and were thus consoled; the strong heard the words "Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me" (Matthew 25:40) and were thus taught clemency. We should not be suprised to find that the influence of the Church was thus not explosive, but quiet and nutritive in nature since the Church, which is the Bride of Christ (cf. Ephesians 5:27), is, after all, feminine, pia Mater Ecclesia. "The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened" (Matthew 13:33).
Something could exist other than matter, but how would we know? It would be impossible to prove, using material means, the existence of anything other than the material. The "bold" materialist who claims that nonmaterial things do not exist with absolute certainty, is claiming omnipotence.
I do not think that we know of the existence of even matter itself by material means. It seems to me that we know matter is 'there' through the senses. Of course, materialists will assert that what we know through sensory experience is all there is, but this claim is not itself supported by any empirical evidence.
I could attempt an a priori definition, but it is easier to answer this question, or begin to answer it, by enumerating examples. I am myself. You are yourself. God is preeminently Himself because He subsists in His own eternal Act of self-knowing.
The Grey Man said:
that the economic plight of the proletariat outweighs all other considerations from a practical perspective?
My point was that, if nothing more is meant by the term 'false consciousness' than falsehood or failure to perceive reality, then the term is superfluous, but if 'false consciousness' means something more, that the realities which I perceive and the truths which I express are to be ignored and suppressed if they do not conform to the 'truth,' or perhaps the 'pravda,' of communism, then the term is not superfluous, but something which is quite sinister and which shows that the notion of truth—which is either one, universal, and absolute, or nothing at all, pure 'bourgeois cant'—is indeed, as I have said, "inconvenient" to communist activists.
Still, since your question brings us, after a long digression, back to the actual topic of this thread, I will answer it.
The best reason for every man, woman, and child on the planet to become a Catholic is not because feudalism is superior to communism. The feudalism of medieval Europe was, I say, superior to both modern capitalism and communism, and this largely because the foundation of the whole feudal system was the Papacy, which is also the foundation of the Catholic Church; but the best reason for every man, woman, and child on the planet to become a Catholic is because Jesus of Nazareth is who He claimed to be two thousand years ago, the "Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16), and, when the Apostle Simon Bar-Jona confessed this truth in His presence during His sojourn on earth, He gave him a new name—"And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:17-18)—and promised him the keys of the kingdom of heaven—"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). This promise was fulfilled when, after His glorious Resurrection and shortly before He ascended into Heaven, the good Shepherd (cf. John 10:11) commissioned Peter to "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17).
According to the Second Council of Constantinople, the 'gates of hell' which shall not prevail against the Church are the "death-dealing tongues of heretics". It should not surprise us, then, that these tongues, "being set on fire by hell" (James 3:6), lash the rock on which the Church is founded with a special ferocity, for if the foundation of a building is destroyed, the rest of the building is sure to fall. It is asserted, for example, by Protestants, who resemble a veritable pandemonium in their conflicting witnesses (cf. Mark 14:59) against the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy, that the rock on which Christ vowed to build His Church is not Peter but his confession, or that Peter was to have a primacy of honour only and not jurisdiction, or that Peter was to have primacy of juridiction in the Church but no successors, or that Peter was to have succesors in the primacy of ecclesiastic juridiction but these have fallen away and ceased to enlighten the world with the true Gospel. Against this discordant chorus of accusers, the Vicar of Christ indeed appears as a "sign which shall be contradicted" (Luke 2:34), destined to bear all kinds of injuries and calumnies for the sake of Him of Whom he is the Vicar. Indeed, some Protestants will even claim that the command 'Feed my sheep' refers merely to Peter's martyrdom in Rome—but then they will turn around and deny that Peter was ever in Rome to avoid acknowledging the claim of the Bishop of Rome to be the successor of Peter! In short, they will say anything to avoid admitting that the doctrine of the Papacy is true and that, since they do not gather with the fisher of men (cf. Matthew 4:19), they are scatterers (cf. Matthew 12:30), seducers "erring, and driving into error" (2 Timothy 3:13). Against these seducers, four facts must be stressed:
1. The 'rock' is Peter. It is objected that since St. Matthew uses two different Greek words for 'rock,' 'Petros' for Peter and 'petra' for the rock on which Christ will build His Church, he must mean two rocks; but Christ spoke Aramaic, not Greek. Besides, such a duplication of rocks implies that Christ's founding of His Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, and his conferral of the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter are only loosely associated, but this hardly seems probable given the insoluble symbolic connection between, on one hand, gates and keys and, on the other, the kingdom of heaven and the Church.
2. The 'keys of the kingdom of heaven' are the plenitude of ecclesiastic jurisdiction. Yes, Christ also gave the rest of the Apostles the power of binding and loosing a little while later (cf. Matthew 18:18), but the keys He gave to Peter alone, nor did incarnate Wisdom change His mind about whether He wanted His Church to be a monarchy or an aristocracy. The aristocratic power of binding and loosing must be exercised in union with the monarchic power of the keys. This interpretation comports with the analogy between 'binding and loosing' and 'opening and shutting' in sacred Scripture (cf. Isaias 22:22, Apocalypse 3:7). It is also confirmed by the Christ's injunction to Peter to "confirm they brethren" (Luke 22:32).
3. In this plenary ecclesiastic jurisdiction, Peter was to have successors until the end of time. Christ's whole purpose in giving Peter this jurisdiction was so that the Church would have a visible governor after His Ascension into Heaven. This need for a visible governor did not cease with the death of Peter, but, on the contrary, became more intense as the "mystery of iniquity" (2 Thessalonians 2:7) progressed. Remember, the person of Peter is the rock on which the Church is built, but the foundation of a building cannot be removed without destroying the whole edifice. Moreover, before ascending into Heaven, the Master of the Apostles told them "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20). If the Apostolic College is to enjoy divine assistance until end of time, then must not the office of Peter, which 'confirms' them?
4. No one has ever even claimed that he is the successor of Peter in this jurisdiction except the Bishop of Rome. This one is self-explanatory. Even antipopes have never claimed to be anything but the Bishop of Rome.
To finally answer your question, very briefly, the consideration I have in mind is the wellbeing of our eternal souls. "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16); and the Papacy is an essential doctrine.
Pope Boniface VIII said:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Generally speaking, the in-fighting and rapacity got worse the further the crusaders strayed from the influence of the center of unity of Christendom, the Papacy.
Ok, well, my understanding of the early history of the Church and its split into two (Orthodox and Roman) involved quite a degree of infighting that ultimately allowed several Islamic nations to spread their conquests into Europe since the countries were divided in allegiance. The Orthodox Byzantines could not have fended off the invaders without the help of Catholic nations, and they didn't.
The feudalism of medieval Europe was, I say, superior to both modern capitalism and communism, and this largely because the foundation of the whole feudal system was the Papacy, which is also the foundation of the Catholic Church
This is debatable. Feudalism was ultimately an economic system, but I can assume you are referring to the notion of the "divine right of kings," here. If it is true that their reign was instituted and approved by God, and that your iteration of God's truth is the truth, then I would see why you see it as superior. You'll must recognize, however, that there is validity to some of the claims made by historians and philosophers when it came down to seeing that Feudalism sowed the seeds of its own demise. Remember, the merchant class (and many of the nobility) were loyal to profit over God. There will always be those among them who dissent and refuse to listen to Papal authority. If you decide to align with that economic system, it will seriously hamper your efforts. The same is true with communism, of course. As I have said prior, I'm no communist, but I have read a variety of things. Perhaps something new is needed.
It was helpful to me. You are well versed on your material. I've said some thought-provoking things before, many that you may interpret to be threatening. They shouldn't be so, if you can refute them. Take, for example, when I spoke of certain religions as being a "system of behavioral control." Now, someone could get offended by this, but objectively, if one is trying to emulate Christ, then they are trying to control their behavior. If the rulers of a nation fail to emulate Christ, and then punish those who do not, then one begins to question their sincerity. In any case, thank you for the discussion. There's a lot more to learn about your church and I found the resources to that you provided to be resources I have not consumed before.
I've come up with a way to fix everything, the economy, inequality, climate change, housing, geopolitical tensions, falling birth rates in developed nations, absolutely everything all at once.
The idea came to me after seeing this guy on the internet say we need to end farming to stop climate change, at first I thought it was a bad idea, but then I considered it some more and realized he was right, indeed the only problem with his idea is that he's not taking it far enough.
Basically we just need to kill off 90% of the global population, even at 90% that still leaves 10 million people for every billion that currently exists, well and truly a viable gene-pool.
I think Hitler was ahead of his time, I think he realized this and if you're going to cull the population well you don't start with the pretty ones do you?
Am I right, or is this wrong? Tell me what you think.
I've come up with a way to fix everything, the economy, inequality, climate change, housing, geopolitical tensions, falling birth rates in developed nations, absolutely everything all at once.
The idea came to me after seeing this guy on the internet say we need to end farming to stop climate change, at first I thought it was a bad idea, but then I considered it some more and realized he was right, indeed the only problem with his idea is that he's not taking it far enough.
Basically we just need to kill off 90% of the global population, even at 90% that still leaves 10 million people for every billion that currently exists, well and truly a viable gene-pool.
I think Hitler was ahead of his time, I think he realized this and if you're going to cull the population well you don't start with the pretty ones do you?
Am I right, or is this wrong? Tell me what you think.
I would disagree with that.
Would you say the living conditions of people in the world have deteriorated with population increasing? Or up?
I would argue that the more people there exist to be dissatisfied with their lot in life... the more motivation there is for "everybody" to work towards them being satisfied. And the more we all profit by shutting them up.
The problem is always distribution and merit.
How does one acquire what one needs, and create abundance.
The bottom bitches always die off.
We see this today enslavement and disparity.
Key is that humanity is producing beyond its necessities.
But the distribution methods are based on financial games made by winners, so the winners win more.
Kind of like playing monopoly and being the banker.
We are looking at the poor as if they are the enemy.
They are made the enemy.
Rich are our saviors of course. If it were not for them we die of thirst and hunger.
Only problem is the rich made the game and rigged it.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
