except for jews

but it must not be threatening to national security

No it's not essential it's a nicety we need to have our territory defined spiritually otherwise prepared to be conquered

I'm saying that it is impractical to keep holding onto something that may have run its course

Multi religious empires have thrived

and fallen

what is your point?

so has everything

Know what you're saying is is to allow foreign spiritualities to take over I don't think you're being practical in any way whatsoever

You are merely setting up the ability for Christianity to be subverted

Christianity was once a foreign religion from the Jewish people lmao

But was eventually adapted to suit the Romans

`foreign spiritualities`

for a guy using a popes name you don’t seem too faithful

Do you think you live in a vacuum where there is Christianity or Nothing at All.... I think you should look at the globe and see what's happening my friend

I am a protestant

Good

ahahahaha

It's time to stop being stupid

I see you haven't joined the Catholic cult

I use this pfp to make fun of sede's

I was a catholic

and pretending to be naive about these thought experiments were Christianity just goes away on its own and become something else in a vacuum without influence from foreign influence

This idiocy has led us to where we are now

John Locke was a fool

Imagine a world without Christianity

no he wasn't

@Deleted User

I dont think you're understanding. I'm not even implying it is either Christianity or nothing. I'm saying that as traditionalists we should know that traditionalism doesnt advocate for the holding onto of dead or dying values. Traditionalism does very much allow us to go forward and leave the past behind but in ways that are socially necessary and organic

He founded the fucking country your in RN

no he didn’t

Locke led to the USA

his theories are almost perfectly implemented in 1789

Try reading John Locke he's a Pie in the Sky Fantasy having philosopher totally untethered to reality totally ungrounded to the defensive nature that Western Civilization needed to have completely divorced from geopolitics and reality

with the writing of the consitutions

that’s like saying marx founded the ussr

You know what he meant

His pretty little rationalizations... Have shown themselves to be nonsensical in the modern world

And only barely made sense in the homogeneous states that he lived in in his time

yeah i knew what he meant and i said it’s wrong

Lmao

I can grant that he could not have foreseen multiculturalism but now we have seen it so we can't be so stupid

The problem with Lockeanism is that its state of nature never existed nor could ever exist

Social contract theory is big gay

why

Right

Social Contract is necessary

you need some order

Because people dont consciously come together to set up a society. Lockeanism assumes that the state of nature is actually kind of peaceful but it isnt. Civilization exists because violence is the fundamental problem plaguing humanity. People dont "come together" and agree on things in the sense of consciously willing this. They are pretty much forced

You have to understand it's limitations

As if the Constitution is a social contract

Imagine not living in America and not having basic rights

If we assume social contract theory then yeah the Constitution would be a social contract of some sort. There's nothing to suppose that the initial contract can't temporally spread out to be valid across generations

👌 😂 👌

Who voted for it..it was brought by violence

Our current state was brought by violence

Locke was just wrong

Dont go to Unite the Right 2

btw

Hobbes was right

please

dont go

LOLOL

don’t tell me what to do

I can't anyway

Have a vacation planned for then

You are making right wing look like retards

if you go

@Deleted User where

if i want to get in to street brawls well then ill get in to street brawls

Idiot

You will make everyone in your movement look bad

that’s why ill wear civnat and ancap stuff 👌 😂 👌

Well that's kinda the point. It's pretty unfeasible to get each new generation to verbally or consciously reaffirm the contract. People reaffirm it by inheriting, accepting, and living out its precepts. The whole point is that some violence must be done to ensure a functional society, if by violence you simply mean against one's will. But i dont accept that definition. Violence to me is conflict with ambiguity and there really is no ambiguity nor conflict when people implicitly accept the contract.

there is unironically nothing wrong with street brawls as long as you don’t instigate it

marching through streets is an essential part of all respectable movements

Brawlers will be flogged. Change my mind

Wyoming

Western vacation....like Westworld!

😁

You're so jealous

Not only is it unfeasible...it never happened initially!!!!!!!

It's a myth

Like I said it was created by raw power

Not lockean contractual permission

That never ever happened

youll never get to a point where you can flog anyone without a few brawls

So we have a foundational myth of social contract

Locke is almost used as a cover up

For reality

A facade

Weekly (I think) reminder that socialism is the best system to achieve fair pay for all, and stop the media-slave state.

but not everyone deserves fair pay, friend

I know. I said fair pay for all

How much do you know about socialism? I'll be more specific, democratic socialism. @Deleted User

LOLOL

OI

M8

I saw that

Egalitarianism will never be realized