Do We Still Want the West?

How did this thread devolve into this? What happened to an argument for or against the higher ideals of mankind? Freedom, Democracy, Justice.
 
Fwiffo said:
How did this thread devolve into this? What happened to an argument for or against the higher ideals of mankind? Freedom, Democracy, Justice.
Click to expand...
we can't even get a simple concept like free speech correct these days. these high minded ideals are a bit beyond our myopic scope as a nation.
 
Rambo said:
we can't even get a simple concept like free speech correct these days. these high minded ideals are a bit beyond our myopic scope as a nation.
Click to expand...

That is depressing given the head of state in your country carries the title of leader of the free world.
 
Any country or civilization that has reached an epoch where they are now producing the living emoji Smugglypuff at the end of four years of university education is in serious trouble. But to be fair to Canada, they do have Jordan Peterson, Fwiffo and a few good Mounties carrying on the good fight!
 
doghouse said:
I'd be in favor of setting up sheep in various town squares and letting the perv's fuck the shit outta them while the trannys watch, just for the simple fact of how pissed off straight society would be.
Click to expand...
You are one
s011.jpg


However, you won't have to worry about the straight people but rather the "animal rights" activists.
Although I would pay money to see them fight the human rights activists and the gender neutrality activists.
Chances are some will have to beat up themselves...
 
Scherensammler said:
To be fair: It's tough to compete with the male (?) feminist that's leading your country.
Click to expand...

Why do people abroad have that notion of him? This is the same line of thinking that led New York Times or some other paper to say he and Angie are the last bastions of the liberal globalized world. We're the smallest of the G8. We can't be saving every other nation when it's hard enough to just keep what we have.

Lord Buckley said:
Any country or civilization that has reached an epoch where they are now producing the living emoji Smugglypuff at the end of four years of university education is in serious trouble. But to be fair to Canada, they do have Jordan Peterson, Fwiffo and a few good Mounties carrying on the good fight!
Click to expand...

I had to look up with whom I was combined with. I actually went to a lecture given by Jordan Peterson last year if you're talking about the one from my uni. I went because he was giving a talk about using psychology to be effective at dealing with different personalities at the workplace. The talk, however, was nothing about that sort. It was more his observation of personality types and the eternal struggle between conservative and liberal parties. At the end I believe he was just talking about whatever the hell came in his mind. Then he directed us to some website where he was shilling some service.

I don't believe I've ever seen a Mountie. I've definitely seen more red coat soldiers with bear hats or armoured helmets on horseback than mounties.
 
Was it the University of Toronto? Unlikely to be him as he was suspended for a large part of last year. His lectures on Youtube are really quite wonderfull and for free.
 
Fwiffo said:
Why do people abroad have that notion of him? This is the same line of thinking that led New York Times or some other paper to say he and Angie are the last bastions of the liberal globalized world.
Click to expand...

That's what the European MSM keep telling us day in, day out.
Justin T's pictures on Instagram showing a younger, shirtless version most likely caused a lot of soiled, oversized lady pants.
 
You know him too? I didn't know I was seeing a minor celebrity.
 
Peterson might have been talking about his Self-Authouring Suite. Fwiffo Fwiffo , I don't believe you need to take part in it, but it is an interesting program.
 
Scherensammler said:
That's what the European MSM keep telling us day in, day out.
Justin T's pictures on Instagram showing a younger, shirtless version most likely caused a lot of soiled, oversized lady pants.
Click to expand...

They love Trudeau, the very embodiment of the new progressive superbeing, once he gets his orchiectomy and changes his pronouns he'll be ripe for the picking. Along with the rest of Canada.

Fwiffo said:
You know him too? I didn't know I was seeing a minor celebrity.
Click to expand...

He's not a celebrity, he's much more important than that. He truly is a renaissance man for our times. God bless him. Here is a man who stood up and drew the line in the sand.
 
Lord Buckley said:
They love Trudeau, the very embodiment of the new progressive superbeing, once he gets his orchiectomy and changes his pronouns he'll be ripe for the picking. Along with the rest of Canada.
Click to expand...

We'll know when Thruth Thruth starts posting pictures of his donkeys wearing tiny hair bows.
Lets hope he and RickyTheBull™ can put up a good fight!
 
Scherensammler said:
We'll know when Thruth Thruth starts posting pictures of his donkeys wearing tiny hair bows.
Lets hope he and RickyTheBull™ can put up a good fight!
Click to expand...

At the very least Canada is getting press because we have a top top liberal ladyboy for our PM

All SJW classes have wet panties over him for a variety of reasons
 
But you have the best counterforce in the West. Sound arguments, cutting against the grain of PC BS and now mobilized and spreading the gospel throughout the English speaking peoples of the free world and beyond.

And I am not just talking about Professor Peterson, others too....

Like Churchill in the 1930's, a number of eminent Canadians have awoke from our slumber years before everyone else....and the message is one of hope.
 
Lord Buckley said:
But you have the best counterforce in the West. Sound arguments, cutting against the grain of PC BS and now mobilized and spreading the gospel throughout the English speaking peoples of the free world and beyond.

And I am not just talking about Professor Peterson, others too....

Like Churchill in the 1930's, a number of eminent Canadians have awoke from our slumber years before everyone else....and the message is one of hope.
Click to expand...

But Professor Peterson and others are not the country's leaders. Sadly, our lady boy PM is PC and his positions run counter to peterson et al.

He has said some of the stupidest things prior to and after becoming leader.

The similarity between him and Trump from the perspective of saying dumbass things is astounding.

The difference is being of a softer, gentler political persuasion and being photogenic.
 
Thruth said:
The difference is being of a softer, gentler political persuasion and being photogenic.
Click to expand...

And that Trudeau loves all things foreign (migrants in particular), and not just hot Eastern European women.
But I doubt Merkel liked him as much as Obama.
That chocolate skin and the prospect of a large pen0r made her blush:
o-OBAMA-facebook.jpg
 
Last edited:
How did this thread turn into bashing Justin Trudeau?
 
doghouse said:
Are you looking for logic in the chambers of a Trumpkins heart? Because I have it on Ulysses McGill's authority only a fool would do that.
Click to expand...

It's your thread and article. Did you envision it would end like this on page 2?
 
How Western Civilisation Could Collapse

Whether we want it or not, it's collapsing by mid 2020s! Why didn't you chaps tell me about this?

The Homer-Dixon theory of migrants swarming the remaining stable nations with Europe being first is Lord Buckley par excellence.

"Democratic, liberal society will fail, while stronger governments like China will be the winners." - I'd rather die in what remains of my western society enclave than be in China.
 
Fwiffo said:
Democracy. Freedom. The highest ideals of government and leadership. Etcetera.

I am reminded of the turbulent times in the Roman Empire when emperors alternated between imposing paganism and Christianity. If it was a Christian emperor, most people would say they were Christian and remarkably under a pagan emperor, most people obeyed pagan customs. No one went through a conversion on every change of ruler. Going with the flow to get a job and escape persecution was much easier.

To use Leitmotif numbers, the top 5 percent of Romans thought this was a big deal; ideology, dogma, civil war, our gods are better than that God.

But the rest of the people? They're happy with food, shelter, working toilets and a chance for advancement.
Click to expand...

I don't quite get this allusion to emperors' alternating between imposing paganism and Christianity. The only instance I know of where a Christian emperor was replaced by a pagan was the short reign of Julian the Apostate, and his effort to revivify paganism was pretty much a flop. To the best of my not-inconsiderable knowledge none of the first Christian emperors made an effort to persecute pagans or "impose" Christianity until the time of Theodosius. However, the Christian emperors did show a lot of favoritism to the Church and Christians of their preferred sect or party. Remember that the Church was very divided over the Arian controversy at this time. Constantius II, who was emperor for much of this period, was quite a partisan of the Arians.

Don't you claim to be a classicist, Fwiffo?
 
Jan Libourel said:
I don't quite get this allusion to emperors' alternating between imposing paganism and Christianity. The only instance I know of where a Christian emperor was replaced by a pagan was the short reign of Julian the Apostate, and his effort to revivify paganism was pretty much a flop. To the best of my not-inconsiderable knowledge none of the first Christian emperors made an effort to persecute pagans or "impose" Christianity until the time of Theodosius. However, the Christian emperors did show a lot of favoritism to the Church and Christians of their preferred sect or party. Remember that the Church was very divided over the Arian controversy at this time. Constantius II, who was emperor for much of this period, was quite a partisan of the Arians.

Don't you claim to be a classicist, Fwiffo?
Click to expand...

You're right. Julian didn't live long enough to have much of an impact on anything much less a wholesale pagan revival. And the official succession of emperors were all nominally Christian.

However, I would point to the continuing practice of paganism by the aristocratic families in the Western empire, the Greek parts of the Eastern empire and their effects. Symmachus comes to mind. This is all from memory since it has been years since I studied, but looking at the archaeological evidence where those families gave funds to restore or refurbish pagan temples and spaces. Which spaces were in decay reflected what the local people and authorities cherished. And of course the official succession line doesn't show everything. This was the tumultuous time of the provincial usurpers with soldiers and senatorial families meddling in kingmaking. Eugenius being pressured by his supporters to shower money on pagan things.

The ideological battle extends to the written texts we have. Pagan versus Christian sources - could interpret the same events in a very different (biased) manners. Zosimus' account of Constantine is one I remember my professor constantly debunking. Ammianus Marcelinus admired Julian. I'm sure there's a Christian historian during this time who called him a quack.

But to the common person living in the Roman empire, did they participate or have any stake in these intellectual debates or political intrigue? My argument is no because people who are outside of the 1% are pragmatic. If the fountain at the Christian church is working and dispensing water, you'd go to the church. You're Christian. If the fountain at the pagan temple is the only one running, you're pagan because you just want running water.

Side note on Arianism: As someone who was raised unattached to any religious denomination, I didn't (and still don't) understand the gravity of the issue with Arianism, and the need for everyone to agree to the concept of homoousios, but I guess it highlights the one positive of Christianity - they were really good at evangelism as even 5th century barbarian kings were roaming around with Arian thinking; echoes of all that early missionary work. I actually thought Arius' interpretation of the trinity made sense.
 
Just watched episode 1 of Kenneth Clark 'Civilisation' rerun on iplayer. It is called by the 'skin of our teeth'. Clark makes the point that civilisations can be lost. Reasons include boredom, invasion by barbarians or religious fanaticism.

Civilisation was kept alive by monks in the far west of Europe, in places like Skellig Michael, away from the warfare and pillage in mainland Europe. They transcribed the old texts. Then Charles Martel came along and fought off the moors and set up a kingdom in formerly barbarian lands.
 
Fwiffo said:
But to the common person living in the Roman empire, did they participate or have any stake in these intellectual debates or political intrigue? My argument is no because people who are outside of the 1% are pragmatic. If the fountain at the Christian church is working and dispensing water, you'd go to the church. You're Christian. If the fountain at the pagan temple is the only one running, you're pagan because you just want running water.
Click to expand...

But I think the view that "people outside of the 1% are pragmatic" is only true among people who don't take religion or theology very seriously. In the Fourth Century many people did. There were savage riots about these matters. I think it was St. Gregory of Nazianzum who wrote that at Constantinople you couldn't go to the barber shop or the market without listening to theological debates. If you want to see how seriously some people take religious differences, you need look no further than the contemporary Middle East.

Side note on Arianism: As someone who was raised unattached to any religious denomination, I didn't (and still don't) understand the gravity of the issue with Arianism, and the need for everyone to agree to the concept of homoousios, but I guess it highlights the one positive of Christianity - they were really good at evangelism as even 5th century barbarian kings were roaming around with Arian thinking; echoes of all that early missionary work. I actually thought Arius' interpretation of the trinity made sense.
Click to expand...

But doesn't Arianism deny the unity of God? Thereby, it diverges from the religion of Israel, upon which Christianity is based, that was devoted entirely to the notion of the existence of a single god. "Shema, Yisrael....
It is also flies in the face of the philosophical monotheism of "natural religion" (whatever that may be exactly). I think it may be cogently argued that the very mystery of the Trinity--that God is Three and yet One--reveals that God is a far more mysterious and complex being than the irascible old Jewish tribal patriarch in the sky that popular piety often envisions.
 
Jan Libourel said:
But I think the view that "people outside of the 1% are pragmatic" is only true among people who don't take religion or theology very seriously.
Click to expand...

That's probably a fault (or benefit) of my approaching this topic because of my completely secular upbringing. I had never been to a church until I was 18 and that was because the polling station was situated there. I studied the Late Roman Empire from Diocletian onwards under a professor who began every lecture with a Catholic prayer. Easter eggs were verboten in his lecture room because they were remnants of pagan tradition. I studied Late Antiquity from the proverbial fall of Rome AD 476 to Justinian under a born Anglican who later became atheist. Very different perspectives were given to me - the former that Rome was on the path to decline & fall, and the latter that antiquity simply morphed into what became medieval culture.

I found that the Catholic professor presented what Christian religion preaches - life is a straight trajectory up or down; heaven or hell, the empire is declining or succeeding. In retrospect after living some life outside of academia, I find myself relating to Boethius more – everything is a circle. Perhaps I’m a crypto pagan a la Neoplatonism.

Jan Libourel said:
In the Fourth Century many people did. There were savage riots about these matters. I think it was St. Gregory of Nazianzum who wrote that at Constantinople you couldn't go to the barber shop or the market without listening to theological debates. If you want to see how seriously some people take religious differences, you need look no further than the contemporary Middle East.
Click to expand...

I’m not discounting people didn’t take religion seriously, but you also cited Constantinople – one of the two and eventually the only remaining capital. It would be like saying there’s a lot of political and intellectual discourse in New York. Of course there are. That’s an urban centre where the upper class congregate. What I was trying to say is that some Joe Roman or Joe Greek on the outer fringes of the empire was, based on archaeological evidence, still using the local altar to pray to the bull-man or sun deity or something. Although Rome and Constantinople were urban, the vast majority of empire was an agrarian society.

Look at present day Iran. How many people from Iran are hardcore Ayatollah followers? A lot of Persian people (before or after the revolution) pay lip service to Shia Islam. Case in point: women who put on hijabs when they return to Iran to escape the religious police but don’t bother outside of the country. Use of alcohol, drugs, smoking, eating bacon – all things haram are prevalent; again not all people, but not the insignificant few. Why do people hide these things then? They just want to get along with the state, go to school, and get a job.

The rest of the people whipped up into a frenzy in the Middle East – how much of that is religion as a vehicle for political or nationalistic ambitions and how much is truly theology and debate on religious dogma? That the conflict in Syria is aligned in Shia and Sunni terms, and the Jewish and Muslims can’t get along the lines of some national border is pretty convenient.

Jan Libourel said:
But doesn't Arianism deny the unity of God? Thereby, it diverges from the religion of Israel, upon which Christianity is based, that was devoted entirely to the notion of the existence of a single god. "Shema, Yisrael....

It is also flies in the face of the philosophical monotheism of "natural religion" (whatever that may be exactly). I think it may be cogently argued that the very mystery of the Trinity--that God is Three and yet One--reveals that God is a far more mysterious and complex being than the irascible old Jewish tribal patriarch in the sky that popular piety often envisions.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does deny the unity of God. The Father and the Holy Spirit are equal and the Son is below that. It sort of makes sense given the Son came to walk on Earth afterwards and actually died. But I can see the point about accepting the mystery of the Holy Trinity. The problem is I have never personally let go, accept, and believe for the sake of believing. I don't let go to focus on breathing and yoga either so perhaps that's something about my personality.
 
Fwiffo said:
A lot of Persian people (before or after the revolution) pay lip service to Shia Islam. Case in point: women who put on hijabs when they return to Iran to escape the religious police but don’t bother outside of the country.
Click to expand...

That is not a choice.
 
Rushmore said:
That is not a choice.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Most ladies wear the veil as a scarf in Tehran and it goes very far back. You can certainly have a good time there and the north of Tehran is a very cosmopolitan place and accessing booze in private is no problem, but it's still an ugly all powerful theocracy. The Iranian diaspora speaks for itself: high IQ, second generation above the norm in terms of academic prowess and make good professionals in their chosen field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom