Religion Christian Society Grooming (or Lack Thereof)

[PsihoKekec]

It's the undercurrent of degeneracy that has been running through the upper classes for a long time, gradually getting stronger through the years. The need for competence and unified front against the common menace of communism kept the current down, but once the threat from the unifying enemy was gone, this current surfaced and started becoming the mainstream. So now we have what amounts t human sacrifices to Moloch, which conservatives will soon accept as the new norm, while progressives move to a new frontiers of degeneracy.

 

[Cherico]

It's the undercurrent of degeneracy that has been running through the upper classes for a long time, gradually getting stronger through the years. The need for competence and unified front against the common menace of communism kept the current down, but once the threat from the unifying enemy was gone, this current surfaced and started becoming the mainstream. So now we have what amounts t human sacrifices to Moloch, which conservatives will soon accept as the new norm, while progressives move to a new frontiers of degeneracy.

The pendulum will swing.

But yeah way I see it were heading for a period of civilizational weimar republic levels of corruption, when said elite getting ever more controlling, corrupt and stupid as the masses get madder and madder.

We've seen this story play out numerous times, while I doubt we will see the end of it these guys are not going to win.

 

[LordsFire]

which conservatives will soon accept as the new norm

People keep saying things like this, and I really do not get why.

The Conservative position is basically unchanged since Reagan.

As is the RINO position, 'compromise with the left to show what a gentleman you are,' which is what I think you are referring to.

 

[Sobek]

I think think he means that the western "conservatives" will just move to accepting trannies and abortion as normal like spineless cuckholds. Like the meme:

Which I have to say seeing how hard people like Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham fought against MAGA and how Murdoch is willing to throw Tucker off the air and kill his media company along with people like that one faggot donor who says he doesn't want Republicans fighting "culture war issues" and so on and so forth it is believable.

 

[LordsFire]

I think think he means that the western "conservatives" will just move to accepting trannies and abortion as normal like spineless cuckholds. Like the meme:

Which I have to say seeing how hard people like Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham fought against MAGA and how Murdoch is willing to throw Tucker off the air and kill his media company along with people like that one faggot donor who says he doesn't want Republicans fighting "culture war issues" and so on and so forth it is believable.

Again, are we talking about actual conservatives, or are we talking about political establishment types who happen to be in the Republican Party?

 

[mrttao]

People keep saying things like this, and I really do not get why.

Because they have eyes
The only thing conservatives conserve is liberalism

It is telling that pretty much all the churchs are now pro LGBTQP
Or how christian schools are "apologizing" for promoting chastity.
Or any of the other cuckoldry from the conservicucks

 

[LordsFire]

Because they have eyes
The only thing conservatives conserve is liberalism

It is telling that pretty much all the churchs are now pro LGBTQP
Or how christian schools are "apologizing" for promoting chastity.
Or any of the other cuckoldry from the conservicucks

...Except that none of these people are conservatives.

I was reading articles in the 90's about how the political left and secularism were consolidating their control over some denominations in the USA.

'Here look, all these people who believe nothing that conservatives actually believe, what a bunch of losers these conservatives are!'

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

...Except that none of these people are conservatives.

No true scotsman fallacy?
I entirely understand what you mean, if you use a textbook definition they are certainly not conserving anything.

But they call themselves conservatives, others call them conservatives, and as far as anybody is concerned, that is what being a 'conservative' is about now.

'Actual' conservatives need to give themselves a new name to detract from the shitty politics of the nu-conservatives.

 

[LordsFire]

No true scotsman fallacy?
I entirely understand what you mean, if you use a textbook definition they are certainly not conserving anything.

But they call themselves conservatives, others call them conservatives, and as far as anybody is concerned, that is what being a 'conservative' is about now.

'Actual' conservatives need to give themselves a new name to detract from the shitty politics of the nu-conservatives.

No, 'scotsman' is an ethnicity, 'Conservative' is an ideological movement. In order to be a member of the movement, you need to adhere to the principles of said movement, or at least strive to.

In America, that ideological movement is 'Conserving the founding values of the nature. The movement was shaped/forged by Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Will Rogers, and a fair number of others, but those are generally the standard-bearers.

An argument can be made that once a movement has been sufficiently hijacked by people who claim the name but don't act on the ideology, a new name is needed. The thing is, the establishment hacks do not dominate the movement, the 'country club Republicans' have always been around, have always been embarrassed to share the Republican party with actual conservatives.

Just because a bunch of long-time leftists and young millenials/zoomers catching up with politics now are disgusted with the parasites latched onto the movement, doesn't mean that it's time to play the post-modern leftist game and start redefining words.

This has been a problem since the 80's at least. Just because it still exists now doesn't mean we're going to give up the term.

 

[King Arts]

People keep saying things like this, and I really do not get why.

The Conservative position is basically unchanged since Reagan.

As is the RINO position, 'compromise with the left to show what a gentleman you are,' which is what I think you are referring to.

Conservatives haven’t changed since Reagin? Do you know what the common conservative thought about gays in the 80s. They were thought on the same level as pedos. Some states like Texas had sodomy laws. So no don’t talk nonsense about that when conservatives have fully accepted the live and let live attitude.

Because they have eyes
The only thing conservatives conserve is liberalism

It is telling that pretty much all the churchs are now pro LGBTQP
Or how christian schools are "apologizing" for promoting chastity.
Or any of the other cuckoldry from the conservicucks

To be fair it’s not all church’s the traditional ones Orthodoxy and Catholics haven’t gone like that Protestantism has. We really should stop considering Protestantism Christianity at this rate.

 

[mrttao]

To be fair it’s not all church’s the traditional ones Orthodoxy and Catholics haven’t gone like that Protestantism has. We really should stop considering Protestantism Christianity at this rate.

The pope has made some pro LGBTQP statements.

Rachel Martin speaks with Fr. Bryan Massingale, priest and professor at Fordham University, about Pope Francis' statements regarding the rights of LGBTQ people to civil unions.

 

[Morphic Tide]

'Actual' conservatives need to give themselves a new name to detract from the shitty politics of the nu-conservatives.

It's called "Paleoconservative", funnily enough, because the "Neoconservatives" that are now just the Red-Team Window Dressing for the "country club" uniparty got almost all the party machinery and media attention. Indeed, Reagan is one of the icons of the Neocon economic policy with the whole "Reaganomics" screwball.

 

[LordsFire]

Conservatives haven’t changed since Reagin? Do you know what the common conservative thought about gays in the 80s. They were thought on the same level as pedos. Some states like Texas had sodomy laws. So no don’t talk nonsense about that when conservatives have fully accepted the live and let live attitude.

...No, conservative positions on homosexuality have not changed.

It's sinful.

'Love the sinner, hate the sin' is a gross simplification, but handy for describing the attitude in less than a page.

And yes, that includes keeping open, and especially activist homosexuals, out of roles where they have privileged access to children.

This is the same as it's ever been.

 

[Jormungandr]

...No, conservative positions on homosexuality have not changed.

It's sinful.

'Love the sinner, hate the sin' is a gross simplification, but handy for describing the attitude in less than a page.

And yes, that includes keeping open, and especially activist homosexuals, out of roles where they have privileged access to children.

This is the same as it's ever been.

Not all conservatives are religious, nor do they abhor homosexuality like religious conservatives do, though. Abhor the shit the Groomers United are doing, yeah, but homosexuality in itself? Nope.

Never make the mistake of equating all conservatives with being religious.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Again, "Paleoconservative" vs. "Neoconservative" is rather important to note. This was seriously The Big Question for Republicans back in the '60s through the '90s, of full-blast "roots-only" isolationist/pacifist conservatism or adjusting to the quite radically different material conditions by engaging globally. Neither could really excommunicate eachother from "The Right" nor "Conservatism", because even with the neocons fully displaying "tradition is Your Grandfather's Axe" there's still so much overlap in policy that it takes some political acumen to grasp the difference. Unlike the progolodytes and neoliberals.

With the current state of affairs, a lot of what sets Paleoconservative positions apart are seen as, if not unambiguously are, unconstitutionally theocratic policy because arguments so rapidly degenerate to bible-thumping rather than having hard data. Because to Paleoconservatives, "because the Bible says so" is plenty enough for massive legal repercussions for homosexual activity with secular logic showing it being a very distant and poorly-considered second, while to almost literally everyone else it's a giant First Amendment red flag that they actually bring up the scripture as the premise in the first place.

 

[Terthna]

No, 'scotsman' is an ethnicity, 'Conservative' is an ideological movement. In order to be a member of the movement, you need to adhere to the principles of said movement, or at least strive to.

In other words, you have no idea what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is.

 

[Scottty]

@ThatZenoGuy

So you are going to quote a liberal series for that? Anyway the examples of Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon disprove your point. Great men seek power and to dominate the world. They would spit on those who want to make "small government"

Don't confuse "big empire" with "big government". Military leaders who dream of conquest, whose goal is to be the ruler of entire continents, are generally not the sort of people who want to micromanage the lives of all the people in that empire.

 

[Scottty]

In other words, you have no idea what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is.

What is a Scotsman? Can you be an Igubu tribesman from Nigeria and count as a Scotsman? If you are born a Scotsman, is there some action you could take, some possible transgression, that would revoke your status as a Scot?

If you are an Atheist, and then start believing in God and praying to Him, are you still an Atheist?

 

[Terthna]

What is a Scotsman? Can you be an Igubu tribesman from Nigeria and count as a Scotsman? If you are born a Scotsman, is there some action you could take, some possible transgression, that would revoke your status as a Scot?

If you are an Atheist, and then start believing in God and praying to Him, are you still an Atheist?

Well, we know a Scotsman is someone who doesn't put sugar on his porridge; beyond that though, you got me.

 

[S'task]

It is telling that pretty much all the churchs are now pro LGBTQP

No they aren't. Many of what are called the "Mainline Protestant" Churches are, but "Mainline Protestant" is the MINORITY OF PROTESTANTS in the US. Yes I know this sounds oxymoronic, but that is because they got to be called "mainstream protestants" back in the 19th century when they were the majority of Protestants and the name has stuck for them ever since, even though they've long since become a minority. Further, mainline protestants have not been bastions of any form of conservatism since the Modernist/Fundamentalist Split in the 1920s and 30s in which Modernists took complete control over the theology of the Mainline Churches and went full bore into multiple heresies.

And many of you are conflating what is known as "Mainline Protestants" with all "Protestant Christianity" in the US. Of course this is understandable, as much of the media like the use leaders from the Mainline to act as spokespeople for all Protestant Christians in the country because they tend to be leftist. It's meant to try and shame and gaslight non-mainline Protestant groups into conforming with the Mainline even though they have no power over them and theologically diverged a century ago.