"The moment the individual succeeds in living as a hero, even if it is the final moment of his earthly life, weighs infinitely more on the scale of values than a protracted existence spent consuming monotonously among the trivialities of cities." One of my favorite Evola quotes
I showed my friend this book. He said "That's some negative book you're reading Todd." He's a rationalist and a devout follower of Jordan Peterson. Most people would see Evola as "negative" because he critiques the underlying assumptions that most modern people live by. And with the caveat of "Revolt" against not just an idea or a specific part of this society, but all ideas that we live by today is uncomprehensible to normies. They believe certain ideas like equality and individualism as eternally true in their Liberal Bible. Anything that counters that is just weird to them and worthless.
I know that feel as well. Its tough when there are so few people you can talk about this stuff with in real life. Even "right wing" normies don't fully get it. But the white pill is more people are waking up each day, so we have to keep getting the message out there.
@@nogoodusernames100 I always keep a certain Austrian painters words in my mind, that the reason the movement isn't succeeding because of a lack of people supporting it but because of a lack of Will within the movement. This is so fundamental. For nationalists to make progress we have to be higher quality individuals on all levels. As high as possible.
I'm certainly not a libertarian type. However, I've never understood the medieval worship, especially concerning the late medieval period (the Charlemagne phase was of course very important). I've just recently re-aligned myself with our Christian traditions, after a phase of pagan LARPing and atheism, although I'm still not a creationist. I'm from a mixed Catholic and Protestant background and I am leaning towards Catholicism. Still, from my not-so-limited knowledge of history, almost no great works of art or philosophy were born out of the late medieval period before the reformation. Most of it was just slumlands with a crime rate surpassing even that of modern Latin America by orders of magnitude. I know many modern "historians" tend to exaggerate it's shortcomings, however most NRx seem to be blind towards them because they seem so remote, unlike to those of egal. systems which we all know too well. I don't even consider the enlightenment as all negative, although modern liberalism is certainly a delayed part of it's fallout, many thinkers like Kant warned of such developments if their ideas were to be interpreted improperly.
I disagree that Evola has contempt for the masses. He simply recognizes that most people are in the lowest tier of the spiritual hierarchy as an objective fact, irregardless of contempt or respect. He does resent the culture of the masses as such, but not the masses as a concept, insofar as "the masses" are the lowest spiritual class.
He does have contempt for the masses and the masses are casteless not the lowest caste. The average person today has none of the positive qualities of an ancient peasant.
Charlemagne its kind of hard not to have contempt, but yeah I sympathize with the understanding, the average person is just that, the average. They dont usually desire actualization or spiritual excellence. They are simple and a way, and theres nothing wrong with them. Its their function. What is however, an abomination is a person of power and potential, choosing a simpleton life, over what their potential offers them. Like the boomer who did military intelligence but wastes away with his exotic wife, his boomer sports cars and his routine sunday mowing, Instead of embracing his talents and securing his legacies dynastic power in the world. The peasant, has its place, and will never desire anything more than the toil and carnal pleasures life has to offer, which are finite and leave the world, just a little darker. I have far more contempt for boomers, than the wretched peasant masses.
@Jack Blade I would also add on that he seems to actively avoid discussing certain topics. Since as him having an interview with Jared Taylor, shows that he isn't entirely ignorant about race statistics.
The statements like "we are not a body that has a soul, we are a soul that has a body" is form of gnostic heresy. If you consider yourself a Christian, be careful with statements like that.
"And he believed the vast majority of people were basically a heard of sacks of potatoes driven only by selfish materialistic desire that cant be trusted with governing them selves or others..." I somehow feel like I should be outraged by this.. but aaaah.... - _looks around_ hmm...
Wonderful seeing your development as an autodidact. Parsing through material like this takes time and intelligence so keep up the good work. Fast becoming one of the best voices on the dissident right.
This is invaluable work. Within the passage quoted at 11:30 "It was science that snatched away from man the voice of the sea, the earth and the heavens". Here, man is passive, at the mercy of science: science is the material world-conception - the trick that has been played on man - Scientism is subversive, are the words used by Roger Scruton. In these cases, there is an effort to take science at face-value, in its un-corrupted ideal. However. The mastery derived from material knowledge bestows a certain authority upon man, a social force coupling us to science through history, coupling us to "progress". So are we seeing an *inevitable* passage, from the stringing of an ancient bow, to the Faustian transaction that sacrifices everything we are, for material knowledge and gain? Did Evola see science as an un-containable monster, or simply a circumstantial weakness? It is interesting to see the mysticism of the Pythagoreans that is being read now by Kenneth Brown on his channel. It is clear there, that the opposite of scientism is not mysticism. Indeed today, the darkness, awe and horror that now lurk at the fringes of our mind, are within science, they not the immaterial things of the past. Even alt-right motivations are like this: demographics and so on.
Looking in on the UK from the outside, there will be no voting in. Almost certainly what is required is a coup, a popular revolution gaining enough momentum to smash the current order to bits. Problem is, that addressing that in a livestream or discussion is, as best as I understand it, treason.
Evola should be studied. Thanks Morgoth for this reading. Power corrupts and absolute Power corrupts absolutely. Luther was a reaction to the Church's corruption. I would love to hear a serious debate between a Evolean disciple and a Nietzschean one. Both believed in a hierarchy but that it manifested in different ways. In Nietzsche's view a pig farmer could be an ubermensch because he could challenge himself to rise above the spiritual station he was born into. The herd were followers and common but loved by Nietzsche not despised. Nietzsche's criticism was based in the love of mankind and in this world not a world beyond, not a world apart. My own opinion is that Evola was of and saw himself as part of the top of the social order. He lamented the fall of the Church because the Church was the control system for he and his peers. Never the less a lot of what he says is true. Nietzsche and he would agree about women for instance.
Really enjoying this guy’s content this week. So much so I’ve started saying “I’ll see ya later folks” Keep up the great work man, the truth is seeping out.
I'll add this to my reading list.... Currently reading The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed, a fascinating book and man, sold books by the tonne in the 50's....now almost forgotten...for some reason...I wonder why? Next will be Evola then
Reed is FANTASTIC and all but written out of and removed from history. I read Controversy of Zion years ago. Great book. Additionally I read about 5 years back The Prisoner of Ottawa. HIGHLY recommend it.
It was the first of Evola's books I read too, and a real revelatory moment for me. I was mostly interested in his views on the afterlife at the time (and still am). I need to read more of Evola's work to decide whether I agree with the more socio-political application of his worldview, but where I do believe in spiritual hierarchy, it would follow that a material hierarchy exists also. The problem with a re-emergent caste system in the West, is: How would we assign the right position in that hierarchy to the right people, working from the chaos we currently have - with the least noble people often holding the positions of most authority and vice versa? I'm not sure Evola ever addressed that problem - probably because in his time, the hierarchy wasn't so topsy-turvy.
3 years later but here is my attempt at an answer. Evola does not think in term of meritocracy, so he doesn't even come close to proposing the "best men" (whatever that means) become the upper castes of society. Evola is descendant from nobles, and nobles are the upper caste by blood, a.k.a divine right. They are there because they just are. Why does he think like this? Because he is a descedent of the nobility himself, and his entire worldview is a lust for a world in which he would be important, but is always lamenting the fact that said world is gone and he is not important. To simplify, Evola is basically saying that He should be in charge by virtue of having noble blood. There is no fixing the "problem". There is just the diagnostic and then death. If you think i'm wrong please do reply.
@@ArtilleryAffictionado1648Fair analysis. I think having always defended my fellow working class men, but being constantly aware that I’m twice as clever as most of them, and have none of the namby pamby sensibilities of the shitlib middle class, I am ideally positioned to take my place in the new elite. But no, I’m still here stuck with the plebs! Anyway, I’m available.
@LittleDolfie There are 2 paths: The Solar Path and the Chthonic Path. The former is reached through acts of heroism and the strengthening of one's will, and preserves the ego after death. The latter means absorption back into the cosmic soup.
Loved this video M. Will be checking out Evola. It seems that he is formulating the basis for the thinking that is needed so that the authentic right can split completely with the Convergence.
First video I’ve watched of ya, Morgoth. Really enjoyed your narration. I’ve heard of Julius Evola and this book before and now I really want to read it! It seems very eye opening.
No one has exposed the truth of the French Revolution like Nesta Webster. To read her masterpiece on the French Revolution is to be gifted greater knowledge than 90% of people including most scholars. Its no accident the two most misrepresented historical events are the French and Bolshevik Revolutions. More so than even WWII. The lesson of both tragedies is to open fire on the plebs, liquidate the revolutionary mob with extreme prejudice for sentimental placation & pleading will lead to a far greater catastrophe.
Her book has some misinformation in it, misinformation that has no primary source material supporting it, like claiming Johann Adam Weishaupt was Jewish when all church records, family trees and other primary source material, show he was of ethnic southern German, Catholic descent.
Very interesting and thought provoking. I wonder if you and I and most of the people commenting here might be relegated to one of Evola's potatoes. One of the troubles with hierarchies is everyone sees themselves as at the top and no one sees themselves as a potato.
Hello Frank Lloyd. Farmers look pretty high up any hierarchy to me. How long would we last without them? Can I just make a point to you. Our enemies do not really argue for equality. Yes they may use the word but make no mistake they want on-top and nothing else. Please understand I am not arguing against you but trying to make a point. For example can democracy be use to end democracy? Can votes be used to end votes? Similarly it will be a tough sell to get people to accept hierarchy if they think they will be on the bottom. The question might be where do we go from here and how. By the way I am not in the USA so we may be in different situations.
Read alexis de tocqueville's "democracy in america". The chapter "What sort of Despotism Democratic nations have to fear" lays out with absolute prescience the process by which the mass becomes complicit in its own enslavement.
One of the best intros/outros to date! Keep em coming, mate. Also - I don't particularly like Evola THAT much (I do like his originality though. Very refreshing thinker, especially for our times), but his observations are spot on in this regard. 100% agreed with him. This is a very interesting format. If you could provide more book analysis like this one, when you have time for it, of course, well That would be much appreciated. Cheers and God Bless!
I don't believe in God, and I've been trying to figure out if Morgoth is proper religous or just using religion as a kind of foundational thing in which to contrast with the world today (as a way to critique post modernism). I find his videos entertaining (they're quite nice to listen to in the evenings) but I am curious. I kind of agree with all his assessments of the modern world, but it would be interesting if people from religious and non-religeous backgrounds reached common consensus on the state of the world through entirely different lenses. That sort of thing is usually indicating some common truth that transends both perspectives. Anyway, thanks for the videos. Always thoughtful gems providing further food for thought.
Great video Morgoth. Thanks for taking the time to make it. I’m reading Revolt Against the Modern World at the moment but must admit am finding it quite hard going.
An aspect of the current church is that instead of giving weight to higher reference points of religiosity (contemplation and asceticism) the church is in the habit of turning to social and moral concerns.
What’s painful for me about reading Evola is my inability to imagine us stuffing this genie back in the bottle. Once you’ve been educated in science, it’s very difficult to regain an ability to defer your rational faculties in favor of reverence for the divine, even though you may be convinced that doing so is for the best. Likewise now that natural hierarchies have been so thoroughly dismantled, it seems quite difficult both to get plebs to set aside their status as sovereign individuals, and also to get a natural aristocracy to banish the self doubt which says they have no right to impose their will on the inferior. Is it just a matter of “re-education”? Perhaps, but how does it begin? Somebody has to be first, somebody has to start the process in spite of a liberal upbringing, in order that there could be a subsequent generation with the benefit of a traditional enculturation.
Anyone who likes Evola should read more books. If you like the spiritual-political stuff, I recommend Savitri Devi. If you like the traditionalist spiritual, metaphysic/theology stuff, I recommend rene guenon and mircea eliade.
It's good that someone stakes out an extreme position like Evola's, it helps one calibrate one's own position. I guess we on the Dissident Right are in some ways distinguished by _just how far back we want to go._ In contrast to Evola, I realize that I am "conservative" only back to the point of the Reformation/Enlightenment, i.e. still basically a really old-fashioned type of classical liberal democrat, which is Right-wing now only in relation to an ideological "travel" that's moved far too far in the Left direction. On the other hand, someone who hankers for the kind of settled hierarchy championed by Evola, or Carlyle, say, they want to go further back - back to unity of church and state, back to settled hierarchies under a spiritual authority, etc. I think the question of being vs. becoming is very important, but I think that can largely be solved by meditation. That core Protestant thing of one's relationship to God being personal and private is, I think, an absolute, un-get-overable truth. The hierarchies were in fact built on sand, and there's no getting around it. Yes, among the plebs this news has a potential atomizing effect, but it should have been possible to keep that in balance, only the _usual suspects_ queered the pitch for their own purposes. (cf. the soviet defector, Yuri Bezmenov's idea of the Demoralization process being a kind of moral judo - you take little gripes that naturally occur in the development of a culture and amplify them to the point that society becomes an incoherent mass of gripes. But that development isn't an _inevitable_ outcome of reducing society to its ultimate irreducible unit, the individual, for the purposes of social analysis.) Again, there are some core things to always bear in mind: ideas stand or fall on their own merits (the rightness or wrongness of an idea is independent of who speaks it), and with most matters of society and politics one is looking at trade-offs, and looking for the best trade-off (IOW everything has the potential shiny benefit, but it will also have a cost that has to be honestly acknowledged before people can make informed decisions). Because universalism and individualism have been used as demoralization tools by the usual suspects, it's tempting to throw both ideas out altogether, but these ideas had a historical impact for historical reasons. One can easily say "oh, look Clown World now, that's what your marvelous liberal society hath wrought!" - well the same retort can be set against the cozy hierarchical order that came before liberalism. If it turned into liberalism or let liberalism happen, then by the same logic, isn't _it_ to blame?
It would be advisable that we do not attempt to go backwards. We can't re-live the past and shouldn't try, we work with what we have. Yeah that previous system of hierarchies had it's own internal failings and I think was destined to fall when the industrial revolution would kick off.
@@mobstamaniac I think everything is good (and there's actually plenty room for reasoned disagreement) so long as everyone's on the same meta page that the only objective source of the legitimacy of government is as the collective defence of an ethnic group's breeding grounds, and as the collectively organized provision of some public goods and commons for that group's flourishing. These are fairly abstract desiderata, but good enough to form a "loyal opposition" agreement between the more liberty-leaning and the more authority-leaning. Essentially, it's all just a matter of trade-offs once that core principle is agreed - and the arguments are potentially solid arguments, that can ultimately be settled by measurement of results, about what's the best trade-off to attain those ends.
@@gurugeorge Seems your comment cut off there? Yeah I agree, we do all need to be on the same page, basically. Disagreements internally can be fine, but we should lock shields against outside interference.
Viewpoints aside, the catholic church is also corrupt. Not only has it been subverted, but there are many in it's ranks that don't practice what they preach and care immensly for the material side of life, using the spiritual side as a way to gain an upperhand, rather than to bless us (for want of a better term) with the grace of God. How would you argue against that, assuming you believe that the Catholic church must regain it's heirarchy over us?
The RC Church's steep decline seems, to me, to have begun with Vatican II. I used to work with an interesting Filipino-American woman who was a very traditional RC, she called most modern RCs "cafeteria Catholics," which she explained as this: "they take what they like, reject what they don't, yet still think themselves Catholic." I said I observed it as a function of RC churches focusing on process (going through the motions, attending Mass, taking Communion, praying) while failing to nourish the soul and spirit of the parish. I'm sure that a degradation in the quality of homilies plays a role in it as well. I'm not a practicing RC and have only attended maybe 20 Masses in my years, so I can't really say from experience what the specific causes are. I only know that when I attended a Mass in my current town, about a year ago, the Priest's homily was focused on being kind toward immigrants -- it was so political and so leftist, I departed thinking that there is no saving this particular RC church.
I like how he completely glosses over the degeneracy, both economic, sexual, and spiritual, that went on under Rome's rule. Protestantism is not opposed to hierarchy; it's opposed to FALSE hierarchy and insists that those who ascend the hierarchy must be worthy. Furthermore, it's not that "every man gets to decide for himself" what is and is not true. Protestants were actually making a rather subtle point about justification, specifically that it comes immediately by faith and not mediately through the church. This is no way makes the hierarchy of the church irrelevant, as can be seen in the fact that, to this day, church attendance is higher among professing Protestants than professing Catholics.
A bit difficult to believe looking at protestantism today and trad Catholics of Morgoth's circles. Rebuking the given order, with a faith that is akin to a boat without a sail or rudder departing from its flagship. Protestant churches are far more likely to be pozzed from the outside, I see that with my own eyes.
@@herschelgould2126 I think your error is encapsulated in your first sentence. You're making an apples-to-oranges comparison: Protestantism at large to reactionary trad-Caths in specific. If you were to compare, however, Catholicism at large to just reactionary, strictly traditional Protestants, it would look very much the opposite (Catholicism at large is completely degenerate and left-wing controlled, and has failed to build any durable Christian culture in many of the countries in inhabits). If you seriously view the current absolute state of Rome as a "flagship" for Christians, we're just on completely different wavelengths.
I resent this perspective. Agreed, looking a people one doesn't like lets one see a herd of npc's. But if you aspire to be a leader of men, it should be with a loving, caring eye that you take that herd into view. Contempt is a shallow advisor in philosophy, too.
Great introduction, MORGOTH! Hexham Abbey, perhaps? Anyway, wonderful Gothic note! The link between RENAISSANCE (the Arts) and REFORMATION (religion) is interesting here; not least because - in one way - Christianity was re-discovering its roots. To accomplish this it looked to its canonical texts and translated them into the vulgar tongue, in order to reveal what the Primitive Church, and the later Early Church Fathers, had to say about Jesus of Nazareth (the Theological speciality of Christology). This contrasted markedly with what the ROMAN Church had been teaching about Jesus, for some centuries. Focus was returned to Jesus, the man, rather than the stern 'Cosmic High Priest' of the monarchical ROMAN Church. The irony is that, if ISLAM were to perform this same 'reformatory' exercise, then it would get ISIS, because the members of ISIS conform most closely to the behaviour of the most perfect MUSLIM, Mohammed. When Christians do it, the faith becomes less concerned with raw, crude, POWER, and more concerned with the commonwealth of humanity.
Is there anyone on the "left" or even the alt lite even remotely as interesting as our guys? Their discussions have to run around the same old ground. There are ones who want to stay safe in the playpen and those longing to escape into the wider world and explore.
REVENGE OF THE JEWISH RABBIS OF SPAIN In 1492 CE, Chemor, chief Rabbi of Spain, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin, which had its seat in Constantinople, for advice, when a Spanish law threatened expulsion (after the fall of Muslim rule in Spain). This was the reply: ” Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves. The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following: 1. As for what you say that the King of Spain obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise. 2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs. 3. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives. 4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches. [Emphasis mine] 5. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix in affairs of State, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them. 6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power. (Signed) PRINCE OF THE JEWS OF CONSTANTINOPLE.” ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- The reply is found in the sixteenth century Spanish book, La Silva Curiosa, by Julio-Iniguez de Medrano (Paris, Orry, 1608), on pages 156 and 157, with the following explanation: “This letter following was found in the archives of Toledo by the Hermit of Salamanca, (while) searching the ancient records of the kingdoms of Spain; and, as it is expressive and remarkable, I wish to write it here.” ~ vide, photostat facing page 80. ~ The above was quoted from Waters Flowing Eastward by Paquita de Shishmareff, pp. 73-74 ********** “[1] When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you ~ the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you ~ [2] and when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy” (Deut 7:1-2). mothman777.wordpress.com/2018/05/
I always enjoy your reviews and find this one of great interest. There is no adverse comment in this comment simply a pondering of view. this review points out the duality of this world and in some ways the simple fact that in the absolute there is no right or wrong, good or bad. I believe that duality is this world, not this Earth and that if we look at the Cathars of Southern Europe whose belief is that if God resides within each of us, then we can all talk to God and as such there is no need for churches and a hierarchy of religious appointment. If you take this point and then look at the Albigensian Crusades and the total destruction of the Cathars by the Catholic church then you have to question the morality of the Catholic church. By now looking at North American Indian culture you still see within it a morality that transcends what we identify as morality. They will not lie, they will not let anyone starve or thirst they respect the land and recognise the lunacy of ownership of land. Most people believe in good and evil , hence religions, but the spiritual knowledge for which we strive is neither good nor bad it simply is. It is man who decides how that power is used and it can be used either way, good or bad. This may provoke comments but to any who answer please remember that you are living in a duality and that even within you there is duality. Enlightenment however is not scientific achievement but the true recognition of what we are and what we can become in balance with the Earth. I often read of people saying that they have been red pilled and I say well done but remember that the red pill only shows you the opening that is the rabbit hole. The answers lie within the rabbit hole and your answers will depend on how deep you go. Stay safe Stay strong.
Great video! However I think history has shown that hierarchy can still be corrupted and the elite class allowed this to happen by not taking proper care of their subjects with decent leadership. As such the elites of the past DESERVED to fall for their corruption, because they were treacherous. The question is, how could we create an system that is resilient against corruption. Also there is nothing good about resenting the peasant class.
your insight on things is amazing you have opened my eyes to so much ... but its so painful to realise how far we have come .... but things are no better corruption will never be conquered ... the meek will inherit the earth dont think so!!!
There's a popular saying: "Never speak in absolutes". I can see why it's popular, and it's partly true, but it must be known that there are some absolutes. Know that I myself am not entirely sure of them, but I noticed something of Evola from this summary. Keep in Mind: There is evil out there. Sin begets sin. Yet it's no sin to be unaware of sin, that's why animals are exempt from religions, despite all their sin. It's a sin to be of man and choose to be an animal, via the indulgence of sin. Self control is what defines a strong man, so perhaps some animals are in fact of man because they can have self control. Dogs, for example, bred by man, trained by man, capable of self control if taught the difference between right and wrong. Perhaps they don't know why, but they seem much better off for it. Note: Evola seems to have been a proponent for what is (to my knowledge) commonly recognized: Most people are stupid. There's stupid in the physical sense, to be unable to solve math, but then there seems to be a spiritual stupidity that is possible. The masses have no drive to get in touch with the divine. No drive to tell right from wrong. They're spiritually stupid. They are like dogs, capable of training, but perhaps not of true understanding. Therefore he argues that they need to be righteously led, they need to know their place in regards to the powers that be, that they are inadequate for a certain level of being. They need to be trained like the dogs they seem to be, which albeit, sounds pretty cruel. Personal: I've lived thinking, knowing, and understanding that I'm not better than other people. I'm just an average guy. Yet somehow, time and time again, people prove to be seemingly lesser, or I prove to be cut from a different cloth. I still think I'm average, but clearly I am not the same kind of average. I've seriously started considering that there are inferior people, and it's such an alien concept to me. I just don't want to become blinded with some self righteous ideal.
The reformation was the democratization of Christianity. No longer did salvation have to be administered via a priestly caste with a monopoly on erudition and language itself, it was instead, the priesthood of all believers. Thereafter, it became a base affair of the lumpenproletariat. Evola is correct about this.
Protestantism came out of Germany, as the business men off the time were fed up with the Catholic holidays for every Saint under the sun, by Luther forming a new church, with less holy days more productive work and profits were made, the Pope in the end didn't mind as he got his cut out of the taxes collected, of course Luther got his cut. The poor knowing they could make more money, joined the Protestant church.
What should be the aspiration of the proletariat in this world view? Show the cattle concern themselves merely with the supernatural? Is aspiring to class jump in the physical world addressed in these books?
On the basis of this sampling of Evola's ideas I am genuinely struggling to see what actual use they could possibly possess in fighting global Neoliberalism/Identity Politics. In fact, the highly centralised, explicitly hierarchical social order that Evola appears to extol bears a strong resemblance to both the USSR and the EU. If it isn't tolerant of individuals (as autonomous beings viewed outside the hierarchical structure), how tolerant would it be of nation states (as autonomous entities separate from the governance of the Roman Catholic Church)?
How does one reject modern society's clammer for pointless change, a headlong charge into nothingness, when you can't convince yourself that a spiritual world exists either.
Catholic traditionalism seems the new fashion in right wing circles recently. I don’t buy into it at all. We are where we are in history, and the Catholic Church to me has always been vaguely anti British nationalist.
Stockportloyal same here, but they probably don’t like the British because they were the first to break from the ranks. But again these are some valid criticisms of Protestantism, it is kinda dumb to have the ability to twist and believe whatever you pick and choose.
Is it Catholicism or Irish people say having an intense hatred for the English after I don't know banning them from practicing their faith ? Starving them? Genociding them etc
@@contekozlovski You don't have to follow any religion; nobody is making you do so. But if you're a curious sort, with an inquisitive mind, you've got to acknowledge that no matter how far science inquires into reality and learns more details about the natural world, science cannot explain a good many things. Those inexplicable things obviously were not created by humankind, so where does that leave us? What explains the huge natural diversity (biological and plant-oriented; I'm not speaking about politics "diversity") of plants and animals on the planet? What explains the strange variations of human behavior? Why haven't humans learned to adjust to their natural environment in ways the other animals have done for millennia?
I guess Protestantism resulted in every man becoming his own priest. Most of us are not up to it, Nor are we up to Nietzsche's challenge to invent our own morality.
