LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[LordsFire]

Your problem, is that you think everyone having their own system of beliefs is a problem; meanwhile I accept it as an unchangeable fact inherent to human existence. Even if you try to force your set of texts and beliefs onto people who reject them, all that will result from that folly is death and destruction.

There's a reason I used to refer to the American Right as the American Taliban, before Trump came along, and Fried is like a walking, talking advert for for why those reasons are not just 'liberal lies'.

What you do not recognize, is that this is exactly what you are trying to do yourself.

"Accept my morality or be exiled from the public square."

You have no grounds to castigate others for what you are currently engaged in.

His type won't stop with same-sex marriage, and they won't stop at US borders either. If the paleo-cons get power, prepare for literal American Crusades against heretics and non-believers, once they are done 'purifying' things at home.

Yes, because that's what America was noted for before the secularists took over the cultural institutions. Our militant religious occupation of other nations-

Oh wait, no, it was and still is sending missionaries to proselytize peacefully. You can accuse Europeans of starting wars where they tried to force conversion, you can even accuse some specific parts of American Christianity of being forceful with their rhetoric (and political/military malefactors of doing horrific things to some of the native tribes), but this is not a nation that has ever mounted a religious crusade to occupy and forcefully convert another nation or people.

And I've yet to find any American advocating for such either, though I suspect Solaris Reich might be the first.


My family moved to the Muslim World when I was four years old, to be missionaries. I have known dozens of people who have gone out into places where they risked their lives to try to show people the Gospel of God's Love. I met people who were living in hiding for converting away from Islam, or were sent to prison for proselytizing. I've seen and read about the hospitals and schools that Christians went and founded in poor and destitute parts of the world, which often still continue to serve the communities they were built in decades or centuries later.

You can rant about the excesses of theocratic Europe, the Catholic Church, and other denominations all you want, and much of that criticism is completely justified, but until you also acknowledge the positive accomplishments of Christianity, you will not come across as anything except disingenuous.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Of course. I wasn't saying those two groups were a unified group or that they only fight amongst themselves because their newest converts are kind of a larp.

Just that, the particular continent now has some infighting issues that are semi born from cluelessness

Right, not at all to say you are incorrect about the inability of the so called American ‘right’ religious or not, to organize an orgy in whorehouse.

I just do not see any way past the curses/prophecies of RL Dabney and Oswald Spengler other than death and rebirth.

We have sown the wind for so long, the reaping of the whirlwind will only be justice in the end.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Right, not at all to say you are incorrect about the inability of the so called American ‘right’ religious or not, to organize an orgy in whorehouse.

I just do not see any way past the curses/prophecies of RL Dabney and Oswald Spengler other than death and rebirth.

We have sown the wind for so long, the reaping of the whirlwind will only be justice in the end.

There's a way out of that...Mostly the far right immigrants, we really only need 3% support to completely change the face of a country. We can make America based again...but some of you may not like the way we'll go about doing it.

Less death and rebirth though and more using a king cobra to solve a rat problem in a house admittely.

 

[Morphic Tide]

What you do not recognize, is that this is exactly what you are trying to do yourself.

"Accept my morality or be exiled from the public square."

You have no grounds to castigate others for what you are currently engaged in.

It's actually quite different, because it's more or less a declaration of the typical solution to the Paradox of Tolerance: You and yours would be exiled from the public square if you refused to allow their morality, not for refusing to follow it.

Whereas your side has in fact explicitly stated that ours ought to be converted or expelled until there's nobody who refuses your basis of morality, beyond even just demanding everyone in society have a single view of what's right and wrong.

I'll point back to the bitchfits about how different religions cannot be reconciled into a single coherent society, which is rather bluntly disproven by quite the variety of historic cohabitation, among a number of other things.

Not in the least being how proselytizing is something that actually works, which would not be the case if they did in fact possess such grand differences, because you'd have to very blatantly demolish their previous worldview at large.

Edit: Oh, and as for militancy? We are talking about a movement that was imprisoning and torturing children for what has been firmly established as unchangable psychological aspects less than thirty years ago. Combined with the historic precedent you're appealing to being death sentences, I find your confidence in the restraint of your movement absurd.

Especially with you not having a single word of criticism for DocSolarisReitch repeatedly saying exactly this kind of bullshit. And the entire "Moral Majority" thing being born of secular pragmatism because the various denominations weren't politically relevant individually so they had to form a voting bloc despite their doctrinal conflicts to not be crushed underfoot.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

There's a way out of that...Mostly the far right immigrants, we really only need 3% support to completely change the face of a country. We can make America based again...but some of you may not like the way we'll go about doing it.

Less death and rebirth though and more using a king cobra to solve a rat problem in a house admittely.View attachment 548

I question the premise however, that immigrant Central American peasant indios are going to form some sort of right wing block under the banner of the first Caudillo to appeal to them.

However, American manos blancas turning on the baizuo who imported them to replace the old white working class would tickle me a bit.

 

[Stargazer]

Because I value all of those things, because those things should be valued and are entirely good. Because they give meaning to your life, because it makes for a sad life. We are heirs to a lengthy legacy of great men and people who did incredible things, we squander it, don’t appreciate it, and are fat and miserable. I want what is good for the American people because everything you listed is demonstrably not so. There’s been this heavy trend in social issues and in education to “deconstruct” everything and make it all a “critique” because they provide little of value and substance themselves and want to keep their influence and power, but these things used to not be controversial or questioned by hardly anyone and we were better for it.

What makes them good though? "Gives meaning to life" is an entirely subjective answer. What if someone says that everything you value actually makes for a sad life for them? How can you say those things are "demonstrably not good for America" when you haven't provided a standard to measure whether or not something is "good" to begin with? To me it doesn't seem like you have any objective moral foundation for your views, just subjective and arbitrary feelings of what you think would be good for people and for the country. You have nothing more than preference. What right do you have to go around forcing your preference on others?

First, thanks for clarifying on the other part.

On the subject of whether the state has to adopt the institution of marriage, it seemed to me that you were saying so earlier:

I agree that certain protections should be put in place by the government. But I am not sure why such protection must be inextricably linked to the "marriage" that you want to remain untainted by morals/values not in keeping with your specific religion. Why can't the government extend such protection and have it not be marriage?

The three main problems that occurred with respect to civil unions etc., as I understand it, were (1) the federal government refused to recognize such civil unions until the SCOTUS decision in 2013; (2) they were not offered in all states and some states refused to recognize those issued in other states until the SCOTUS decision in 2015; (3) in some states, the protections, privileges, etc. given were less than those afforded by the status of being married (in the eyes of the government). These doesn't strike me as insoluble problems. In fact, isn't it true that the government instrument would in all likelihood give more benefits and protections to individuals than marriage as compatible with your religion? (No-fault divorce, for example, unless I'm confusing you with another poster.) If Congress had stepped in before the SCOTUS then perhaps we'd have nationwide civil unions but not marriage today.

So almost all people wanting government endorsement, protection, etc. of their homosexual union should be perfectly happy with such an arrangement that put them on an equal footing with all secular heterosexual unions. And if any wanted to have a "marriage" recognized by a church, that would be up to the church in question; the government would certainly have no place forcing a church to recognize such marriage and I assume your particular church wouldn't be likely to do so on its own. I suspect your biggest problem area would be in heterosexuals unhappy that the state was getting out of the business of endorsing "marriage" specifically instead of mere civil unions.

Ok, "necessity" wasn't the right word for me to use there. My point was that it's a beneficial thing for government to be involved in marriage. At the same time, the government doesn't have to be involved in marriage. You could argue that it is not one of the government's essential responsibilities to its citizens to recognize marriage relationships. It's a question of if the benefits of having the government involved in marriage makes it worthwhile.

I am somewhat open to the idea of government dropping the use of the word "marriage" altogether and simply recognizing "civil unions". However, to me it seems that battle was already fought in the US, and rather than continuing to fight for civil unions, the end result was the Supreme Court presuming to redefine marriage itself. And I hesitate with the idea to begin with because it begs the question, what should the definition of "civil union" be? If it's not limited to "one man and one woman", why limit it to two people? Why limit it to only having one civil union at a time? Why limit it to people? Culturally the effect may just be the same as redefining marriage, opening a Pandora's Box of sorts of relationships that governments -- and therefore businesses - have to recognize.

The problem is that Christians can't even agree on what god does and does not consider a sin; even though they're all working from the same text, they all have vastly different interpretations on what it says, and like to pick and choose which parts they believe in. It's one of the reasons why there are so many denominations. Some would argue seeing a doctor is a sin; others, that using any technology more advanced than a horse-drawn carriage is a sin. Heck; I've read the Bible, and I recall seeing a passage that proscribed crop rotation, though I couldn't quote it to you. Then there's the prohibitions against shaving your facial hair and eating pork or crustaceans; things most Christians agree they shouldn't treat as sins, even though it's in the Bible that they are.

As for homosexuality, the only part I've been able to find that specifically denotes it as a sin is in a direct quote from Paul; so that may have just been his personal opinion. Everywhere else in the Bible, in the parts that most people quote as evidence for why homosexuality is sinful, it's specifically talking about sodomy being a sin, NOT homosexuality. In other words, the act of sticking your dick in another dude's mouth in and of itself isn't a sin, according to the Bible, but putting it in a woman's butt, is. Unless of course you take the view that any sexual act that doesn't result in pregnancy is sinful, even if you happen to be married; and that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Neither of which every Christian believes.

This is getting way off topic for the thread, but this post was...highly erroneous, to say the least. It would be off topic to get into this here, but if you're interested I could start a thread to politely continue this line of discussion. Same goes for @Bacle .

 

[LindyAF]

It's actually quite different, because it's more or less a declaration of the typical solution to the Paradox of Tolerance: You and yours would be exiled from the public square if you refused to allow their morality, not for refusing to follow it.

Whereas your side has in fact explicitly stated that ours ought to be converted or expelled until there's nobody who refuses your basis of morality, beyond even just demanding everyone in society have a single view of what's right and wrong.

That argument would be valid if the people we were arguing against were run-of-the-mill totally morally degenerate social liberals. But you guys aren't quite that bad, for the most part. I haven't been paying a ton of attention to what you're specific stance is, and there are certainly people here who are that bad, so this might not apply to you. But for the most part the people here on the "other side" have moral lines should be set in stone and imposed by force if necessary, levels of degeneracy they're not "live and let live" about.

What makes them good though? "Gives meaning to life" is an entirely subjective answer. What if someone says that everything you value actually makes for a sad life for them? How can you say those things are "demonstrably not good for America" when you haven't provided a standard to measure whether or not something is "good" to begin with? To me it doesn't seem like you have any objective moral foundation for your views, just subjective and arbitrary feelings of what you think would be good for people and for the country. You have nothing more than preference. What right do you have to go around forcing your preference on others?

You seem like you're doing the "what's objective morality without god" bit, in which case, I think @FriedCFour has said he's Catholic.

This has some applicability to myself, though, so I thought I might respond, if that's alright?

 

[Stargazer]

You seem like you're doing the "what's objective morality without god" bit, in which case, I think @FriedCFour has said he's Catholic.

This has some applicability to myself, though, so I thought I might respond, if that's alright?

That's sort of what I'm getting at. The reason I'm pressing FriedC on this has to do with him being a self declared "paleoconservative". There's some overlap between his views and my views, which I describe first as being a conservative Christian. But he's also said quite a lot that I disagree with. I'm trying to get to the heart of that disagreement, which I think lies in our moral foundations. FriedC may profess to be a Catholic, but in his answers I think there's been a distinct lack of appealing to any divine revelation, something outside his own preference about just what is "good".

If you'd like to answer for yourself, you certainly can, though a broader discussion about objective morality may stray a bit off topic.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I think the lesson I'm learning from all of this is that free will is the arch nemesis of vision.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

I question the premise however, that immigrant Central American peasant indios are going to form some sort of right wing block under the banner of the first Caudillo to appeal to them.

Who said anything about central Americans my man? No estoy hablando del gran mestizaje

Though hilariously Nicas and Costa Ricans can be astoundingly paleocon.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Who said anything about central Americans my man? No estoy hablando del gran mestizaje

Though hilariously Nicas and Costa Ricans can be astoundingly paleocon.

I’ll bite then, whence are these far right immigrants to come from?

And frankly even if your scenario comes about, it would seem to me what you’re really talking about is colonization of our degenerate anti-society, replacing our current neoliberalism with something else.

Yes, rather like your King Cobra example.

 

[LindyAF]

If you'd like to answer for yourself, you certainly can, though a broader discussion about objective morality may stray a bit off topic.

Alright, then.

Hmm. I'm still having trouble with the why. What are the values at the root of the the things you support and oppose? To put it another way, so what? So what if feminism and the radical left win? So what if birth rates keep declining? So what if men become weaker and weaker? So what if immigrants keep flowing into the the country? So what if America ceases to be America? Let's say you're talking with someone and they say they want all those things, that they see them as good. How would you explain to them that's all actually bad?

This sort of mirrors a question I heard someone pose on the issue of objective vs subjective morality / morality without god. It was a rhetorical question posed to an absent opponent, but it went something like "let's say someone demands your wallet- without an objective morality / God, how can you say this is wrong for him to do and it is right for you to keep your wallet? You prefer to keep your wallet, but he says he prefers to take it, and why should your preference come before his?"

But objective morality gets you nothing in this scenario either, unless you think telling the mugger that what he is doing is wrong is going to dissuade him. It's the same with your question, here. Actually, I'm curious how you would respond to the same question you asked. Let's say you're talking with someone, explaining your own stances on the issues, and they say they have the complete opposite stances, that they see everything you see as bad as good. How would you explain to them it's all actually bad? They say that they don't care about what God has commanded, or that they think they have a moral obligation to do the opposite. How do you respond?

My answer to the mugger version of your question would be that I wouldn't try to say it's wrong, or give explanation as to why I should keep it. If I had the opportunity, I would shoot the mugger. If I didn't, I would comply while looking for a counter-ambush. My answer to your question here would be roughly analogous. How would I explain that's all actually bad? I wouldn't. I'd say "Right, then. Cheers." and leave. And then seek out and network with likeminded people, and organize for power.

There is room for reasonable disagreement, obviously, and if we agree on most things I'll try to talk someone around. I'm not saying I think everyone who disagrees with me on something should be put against the wall. But if someone's at "so what if America ceases to be America?" or can see stuff like the desmond naples shit or this freak, and go 'actually I think that's good' then there's no merit in good faith dialogue.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

I’ll bite then, whence are these far right immigrants to come from?

TBH more and more of them are coming from Mexico of all places now. Which I think is due to Obrador neglecting the Catholics and what little remained of Mexico's old middle class. It also helps that a new brand of Evangelism has taken root in Mexico and has permeated into Mexican American homes as well.

But South America and Caribbean Latinos..and if you want an example of those guys, see how the Dominican community in Chicago responded to the Fentanyl Floyd sieges.

Namely they formed their own Right Wing DeathSquads and went ape shit on BLM and began posting videos on twitter declaring that "Any Latino they catch giving aid and comfort to the black savages will be visited a hundred fold the violence we give to them for the crime of betraying your own races". Not that I'm endorsing any of this mental insanity...Mind ye, what they did was way out of line and the fact that the media refused to cover it and the majority democrat Prosecutors in Chicago won't even touch it with a ten foot poll is more an indication of how confused the Left was by this than an exoneration.

I'm merely pointing out that this was their first and only response and that doesn't bode well for the left or the center or the center right when Dominicans while a minority within a minority have a great deal of softpower within that greater minority and that minority will soon become the second largest demographic in the country, if it hasn't already.


The face of the Latin American identity is changing and honestly the biggest reason why so many mestizos voted Democrat was welfare...Even those guys are militantly Catholic and think LGBT people should be registered. They're also ardent protectionists and have a love for populism and you're starting to see a shift in even that.

So even in the Dems new shiny voterbase the cracks were always present and once the Republicans started flirting with populism and doles...well...Let's just say things are going to change.


When you factor in Indian Americans, African immigrants and Asians and their attitudes and sentiments towards the LGBT to bring this back on topic..the coming cultural shift won't favor anyone to the left of Richard Nixon and anyone that isn't someone married with multiple children.

Whether that's a good thing or bad thing is a matter of personal conviction of course.

And frankly even if your scenario comes about, it would seem to me what you’re really talking about is colonization of our degenerate anti-society, replacing our current neoliberalism with something else.

Yes, rather like your King Cobra example.

It would be more the bastard offspring of our Right wing cultures and American exceptionalism. I don't think America is so weak that its core cultural tenants wouldn't survive a Civic Legion style party managing a cultural takeover of the US for example.

I think, what'll happen is that your culture would be a crucible for our sub cultures and all the impurities and dead weight will get burned away and in the galvanization process the rust comes off said crucible.

But it is still a bit like putting a King cobra in a house to take care of rats...Cultural corrections like that tend to be..brusque on their better days after all.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

TBH more and more of them are coming from Mexico of all places now.

<Snipus Biggus>

Ah, I was rather given to understand that the majority of the cross border flow was CA Indio rather than Norteno Castillo. That sort of Castillo Futurism I can certainly make my peace with, even if my snobbish aesthetics frown at evangelicalism. Low churches why, just... why? (Yes, I am aware of the twin guttings of the Mexican Church between the Christero war and the wreckivation of Vatican II)

It would be more the bastard offspring of our Right wing cultures and American exceptionalism. I don't think America is so weak that its core cultural tenants wouldn't survive a Civic Legion style party managing a cultural takeover of the US for example.

And there's the other thing, 'America' isn't one culture or even one nation, the Plutocratic Yankee Empire holds multiple nations captive. There is the Puritan Roundhead Yankee Nation that occupies the North East and the West Coast as their strongholds, the largely Germanic-Scandinavian with Southron and Central European admixture Amerikaners of the Mid West, The mixed Cavalier and Scots-Irish borderer Southrons, the largely Mormon Westrons in the Mountain West, whose blood is largely a mingling of Yankee, Southron, and Americaner... And that's just the blancos, and they all have major sub-nations as well (Compare a Pentecostal Kentuckian with a Catholic Louisianan from Cajun country). Of course we have Northern Indio tribes and the Africans with a belt in the South and colonies in every major metro, as well as various Casta from points South.

I don't think all these peoples can be held together much longer with the thin gruel of the myths of the 20th century and television programming.

 

[Stargazer]

Alright, then.



This sort of mirrors a question I heard someone pose on the issue of objective vs subjective morality / morality without god. It was a rhetorical question posed to an absent opponent, but it went something like "let's say someone demands your wallet- without an objective morality / God, how can you say this is wrong for him to do and it is right for you to keep your wallet? You prefer to keep your wallet, but he says he prefers to take it, and why should your preference come before his?"

But objective morality gets you nothing in this scenario either, unless you think telling the mugger that what he is doing is wrong is going to dissuade him. It's the same with your question, here. Actually, I'm curious how you would respond to the same question you asked. Let's say you're talking with someone, explaining your own stances on the issues, and they say they have the complete opposite stances, that they see everything you see as bad as good. How would you explain to them it's all actually bad? They say that they don't care about what God has commanded, or that they think they have a moral obligation to do the opposite. How do you respond?

My answer to the mugger version of your question would be that I wouldn't try to say it's wrong, or give explanation as to why I should keep it. If I had the opportunity, I would shoot the mugger. If I didn't, I would comply while looking for a counter-ambush. My answer to your question here would be roughly analogous. How would I explain that's all actually bad? I wouldn't. I'd say "Right, then. Cheers." and leave. And then seek out and network with likeminded people, and organize for power.

There is room for reasonable disagreement, obviously, and if we agree on most things I'll try to talk someone around. I'm not saying I think everyone who disagrees with me on something should be put against the wall. But if someone's at "so what if America ceases to be America?" or can see stuff like the desmond naples shit or this freak, and go 'actually I think that's good' then there's no merit in good faith dialogue.

If someone was to say that they don't care what God has commanded, I would respond that they are going to care, sooner or later. That God is going to judge the living and the dead, and has clearly set forth the standards for his judgement in the Bible. If they still just don't care about the prospect of being judged by a holy God, that's sort of the end of the conversation. It's the ultimate authority that I can appeal to.

I think you're mixing categories of discussion here a bit. FriedC isn't holding me at gunpoint demanding my wallet. If he was, I wouldn't be very interested in figuring out his morality and how he justifies doing it. I wouldn't try to convince him not to take my wallet, because I doubt a person stealing my wallet really cares about the morality of the act. I would just act in self defense.

FriedC is arguing for a political position, a set of policies he advocates, and his reason for why he supports them seems to boil down to "because it's good". That's not an answer. It just begs the question of what is "good" in the first place. I think I could have a good faith dialogue with someone who thinks it would be good if America ceases to be America, because I can challenge them on their standard of "good" in the first place. I don't think FriedC has shown the foundation to be able to do that himself.

In fact, I'll put this out there -- "America ceasing to be America" is a morally neutral event. I believe there are good things about America, but there are also bad things. It's possible for a society to exist that is better than America. It's also certainly possible for a society to exist that is worse than America. So "America ceasing to be America" just begs the question of if it's being replaced by something better or worse -- which requires a standard of good and bad to measure it on. But it's not like there's some moral obligation to preserve America simply because it's America.

 

[FriedCFour]

FriedC is arguing for a political position, a set of policies he advocates, and his reason for why he supports them seems to boil down to "because it's good".

It mean it doesn’t. It’s that “all these other people had X, we removed X, after removing X we have Y problems occur, therefore if X can be brought back, Y would be solved.”

 

[Stargazer]

It mean it doesn’t. It’s that “all these other people had X, we removed X, after removing X we have Y problems occur, therefore if X can be brought back, Y would be solved.”

That's just a straight up correlation =/= causation fallacy.

 

[FriedCFour]

That's just a straight up correlation =/= causation fallacy.

except that it’s happening across the west in places that did it, and it’s not happening so much in places that didn’t. At some point you can see how both are clearly related. Like, correlation equals causation doesn’t mean that if it correlates it automatically doesn’t mean it’s a cause. It’s clear evidence, that you need to show that it doesn’t cause it.

 

[Stargazer]

except that it’s happening across the west in places that did it, and it’s not happening so much in places that didn’t. At some point you can see how both are clearly related. Like, correlation equals causation doesn’t mean that if it correlates it automatically doesn’t mean it’s a cause. It’s clear evidence, that you need to show that it doesn’t cause it.

Ok, can you give a specific example of something occurring like this that you have in mind? Certain countries removing X and then having Y problem, while other countries didn't remove X and didn't have Y problem.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Ah, I was rather given to understand that the majority of the cross border flow was CA Indio rather than Norteno Castillo. That sort of Castillo Futurism I can certainly make my peace with, even if my snobbish aesthetics frown at evangelicalism. Low churches why, just... why? (Yes, I am aware of the twin guttings of the Mexican Church between the Christero war and the wreckivation of Vatican II)

TBH even Mestizos will surprise you. For every ten thousand communists you get the Mayan descended Thoma Sowell. Libertarianism (Not Lolbertarianism) was introduced into Peru and Chile by of all people a mapuche descended economist who studied under Friedman.

Like I said, for decades the Democratic party has imported one particular type of Latino..while doing everything in its power to disenfranchise and target Cuban exiles and the rest of us who don't want to vote for Chinese domination. But that particular block is running low and they've become to import everyone with a passing command of Spanish...Ignorant to the cultural variations.

TLDr they assumed we were all good little obedient brown people...when even 30% our brown brothers and sisters tend to have a deep abiding hatred for collectivist thinking.

Lamentably snipped.

I should have said "overculture" not culture, the US is culturally diverse as South America is despite being only one country. But there is a unifying thread between them all...