After viewing your speech I observed that your statement on bestiality, though totally innocuous if one is familiar with your ideology, was prophetic since now in 2023 anything and everything immoral is not only condoned but encouraged through subjective reasoning; the Godless left have imbued its malice on the young through the normalization of birth control, abortion, same sex marriage, genital mutilation, transgenderism, etc. Humans are currently being reduced to a degenerative sub species that engage in ‘lower than animal behavior’ in a way that was never thought possible by the current or past generations. The irony is this: your 2016 statement was prelude to the radical trans human agenda against humanity being promoted by media, education and criminal elites in 2023. Now they can and do condone immorality and explain away any and all forms of subhuman behavior. And yes, even bestiality!
Yet another speech that I think should be uploaded to Odysee... BitChute seems to have a problem where if a video get too old it stops working. Many old millennial woes classics can’t be viewed at this time because of this. I think maybe you should create a millennial woes archive channel, at least for posterity.
>> "Since (as just shown) people can refute any moral arguments they want, the only way to stop them is to have an over-arching transcendent ethical system. This would probably be either a religion or an absolutist political doctrine."
I suspect you don't often engage seriously with atheists, and I can't blame you for that since, from the experiences you have related on your channel, they don't often seriously engage with you. So, since I'm an atheist, and I feel that I arrived at my perspective by thinking, not trying to be edgy for its own sake or whatever (a la The Amazing Atheist), I thought you might appreciate my critiques. I have various thoughts on this.
Firstly, there are a few technical issues which are worth addressing even though they would go over the head of the average person, no doubt. Still, it's important. I basically think all moral propositions are arbitrary, in a sense. Even if you believe in God, I don't think God's commands in themselves "give you a reason" to act in accordance with them unless you just mean the threat of Hell, but that's actually an appeal to your own goals and desires: given that you want to avoid gratuitous suffering, you ought to follow God's commands. However, my understanding is that most religious people would be loath to say the *only* reason to act morally is to avoid God's wrath. Rather, they usually want to say that God's word, in itself, gives you reason to act. But I don't think there's any such thing as non-goal-referencing reasons, and thus I can't make sense of that. If God's commands are contrary to my desires, what gives his commands authority over my desires? A religious person could respond by saying that God is morally perfect, but I think that is a bad explanation because it basically just means "must be obeyed," which is what they're seeking to show.
But, to your broader point: to what extent is religion a good response to the psychological and spiritual problems of modernity? The trouble is: religion isn’t any more successful in this environment than atheism, really. Self-identified Christians in the US have a total fertility rate only slightly higher than that of irreligious people. The only kind of religion that actually IS successful in this environment is fundamentalism. I can well imagine a future wherein the US population is divided into quarters like so: Amish, polygamous Mormons, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and conservative Muslims. I can’t really imagine any of those groups being amenable to my values or interests once they got a taste of power: we all know what happened to Galileo. That may be an extreme case, but the censorious environment that enabled it seems inevitable in a society dominated by religious fundamentalism. Who knows what they would believe about the nature of reality. There’s certainly no guarantee that they would agree with you on racial difference, since many fundamentalists do not believe in evolution and justify racial egalitarianism on Christian grounds: “We are all God’s children,” etc.
I also can’t see them having much truck with “cultural Christianity.” Most Christians are very concerned with the truth of their religion; they don’t believe in it because they think it is good for society, and they are likely, in my experience, to regard you with suspicion (at best) or contempt (at worst) for being a pretender or heretic. People behave differently once they’re in power: it’s a cliché, but obviously true.
And the solutions that traditional religion proposed to social problems are (1) unable to compete with fashions in this environment, and (2) simply no longer (rationally) applicable in this environment. With regard to (1): religion evolved in the pre-modern world, when the primary mechanism of cultural evolution/transmission of values was from parent to child. It cannot compete with TikTok. People become “woke” in their teens or twenties in a more-or-less genetically determined fashion, regardless of whatever their parents told them as children. With regard to (2): as an example of a problem which tradition can no longer solve: how do we give men paternity assurance? So says the traditionalist: Just socially engineer women into giving up contraception. Just bring back the expectation of virginity until marriage. Just expect people to voluntarily renounce modernity and go back to living like medieval subsistence farmers. “Just”? It will never happen, modulo the kind of dangerous genetic replacement by religious fundamentalists I was mentioning earlier. Another example: most religions tell people to go forth and multiply, because that is mostly how religions spread – by the birth canal, not by the sword or personal revelation. In an environment where half the kids die before reaching adulthood, that strategy makes sense. In this one? Not so much. We cannot have a functioning civilisation in the long run with high fertility, because the Earth is finite. Etc. Ultimately, I think our primary collective value (a kind of secular religion, so to speak), should be the maintenance of civilisation and its expansion around the world and (eventually) off-world, though the latter is obviously a very long-term goal. I kind of see the British Empire at its height as having been a nascent/prototype version of that.
I also, frankly, think you have a tendency to ruminate about trivial things: at least, trivial in the big picture. Even if the woke mob's control of society is as absolute as it could be (if it isn't already?), I really can't see masses of people shagging animals or dead bodies on the regular. The overwhelming majority of people have a primal disgust reaction to that sort of thing, and even if some tiny percentage of people don't (less than 1% of the population, surely), why should I care, and why should you? It's obviously a shame if a crazy person debases himself in such an insane way, but it does not seem to me existentially threatening.
Sorry about the wall of text - I didn't mean to be rude, but I've come round to thinking that replies are somehow a better way to articulate my thoughts than writing my own blogposts; I guess I have a reactive disposition rather than a creative one. :)
This is why musings on certain subjects, e.g. sexual "unprincipled exceptions", ought to be reserved for trusted and knowing company. Online discourse, including the dissident subtype, is a morass of bad-faith scoundrels yanking the chains of gullible inattentive zombies.
'It is ironic that someone whose main bugbear is nihilism, especially moral nihilism, should be accused of that very thing."
Thus has been the legacy also of Nietzsche.
After viewing your speech I observed that your statement on bestiality, though totally innocuous if one is familiar with your ideology, was prophetic since now in 2023 anything and everything immoral is not only condoned but encouraged through subjective reasoning; the Godless left have imbued its malice on the young through the normalization of birth control, abortion, same sex marriage, genital mutilation, transgenderism, etc. Humans are currently being reduced to a degenerative sub species that engage in ‘lower than animal behavior’ in a way that was never thought possible by the current or past generations. The irony is this: your 2016 statement was prelude to the radical trans human agenda against humanity being promoted by media, education and criminal elites in 2023. Now they can and do condone immorality and explain away any and all forms of subhuman behavior. And yes, even bestiality!
Beautifully written. The abyss is sucking people in. We must resist!
Yet another speech that I think should be uploaded to Odysee... BitChute seems to have a problem where if a video get too old it stops working. Many old millennial woes classics can’t be viewed at this time because of this. I think maybe you should create a millennial woes archive channel, at least for posterity.
>> "Since (as just shown) people can refute any moral arguments they want, the only way to stop them is to have an over-arching transcendent ethical system. This would probably be either a religion or an absolutist political doctrine."
I suspect you don't often engage seriously with atheists, and I can't blame you for that since, from the experiences you have related on your channel, they don't often seriously engage with you. So, since I'm an atheist, and I feel that I arrived at my perspective by thinking, not trying to be edgy for its own sake or whatever (a la The Amazing Atheist), I thought you might appreciate my critiques. I have various thoughts on this.
Firstly, there are a few technical issues which are worth addressing even though they would go over the head of the average person, no doubt. Still, it's important. I basically think all moral propositions are arbitrary, in a sense. Even if you believe in God, I don't think God's commands in themselves "give you a reason" to act in accordance with them unless you just mean the threat of Hell, but that's actually an appeal to your own goals and desires: given that you want to avoid gratuitous suffering, you ought to follow God's commands. However, my understanding is that most religious people would be loath to say the *only* reason to act morally is to avoid God's wrath. Rather, they usually want to say that God's word, in itself, gives you reason to act. But I don't think there's any such thing as non-goal-referencing reasons, and thus I can't make sense of that. If God's commands are contrary to my desires, what gives his commands authority over my desires? A religious person could respond by saying that God is morally perfect, but I think that is a bad explanation because it basically just means "must be obeyed," which is what they're seeking to show.
But, to your broader point: to what extent is religion a good response to the psychological and spiritual problems of modernity? The trouble is: religion isn’t any more successful in this environment than atheism, really. Self-identified Christians in the US have a total fertility rate only slightly higher than that of irreligious people. The only kind of religion that actually IS successful in this environment is fundamentalism. I can well imagine a future wherein the US population is divided into quarters like so: Amish, polygamous Mormons, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and conservative Muslims. I can’t really imagine any of those groups being amenable to my values or interests once they got a taste of power: we all know what happened to Galileo. That may be an extreme case, but the censorious environment that enabled it seems inevitable in a society dominated by religious fundamentalism. Who knows what they would believe about the nature of reality. There’s certainly no guarantee that they would agree with you on racial difference, since many fundamentalists do not believe in evolution and justify racial egalitarianism on Christian grounds: “We are all God’s children,” etc.
I also can’t see them having much truck with “cultural Christianity.” Most Christians are very concerned with the truth of their religion; they don’t believe in it because they think it is good for society, and they are likely, in my experience, to regard you with suspicion (at best) or contempt (at worst) for being a pretender or heretic. People behave differently once they’re in power: it’s a cliché, but obviously true.
And the solutions that traditional religion proposed to social problems are (1) unable to compete with fashions in this environment, and (2) simply no longer (rationally) applicable in this environment. With regard to (1): religion evolved in the pre-modern world, when the primary mechanism of cultural evolution/transmission of values was from parent to child. It cannot compete with TikTok. People become “woke” in their teens or twenties in a more-or-less genetically determined fashion, regardless of whatever their parents told them as children. With regard to (2): as an example of a problem which tradition can no longer solve: how do we give men paternity assurance? So says the traditionalist: Just socially engineer women into giving up contraception. Just bring back the expectation of virginity until marriage. Just expect people to voluntarily renounce modernity and go back to living like medieval subsistence farmers. “Just”? It will never happen, modulo the kind of dangerous genetic replacement by religious fundamentalists I was mentioning earlier. Another example: most religions tell people to go forth and multiply, because that is mostly how religions spread – by the birth canal, not by the sword or personal revelation. In an environment where half the kids die before reaching adulthood, that strategy makes sense. In this one? Not so much. We cannot have a functioning civilisation in the long run with high fertility, because the Earth is finite. Etc. Ultimately, I think our primary collective value (a kind of secular religion, so to speak), should be the maintenance of civilisation and its expansion around the world and (eventually) off-world, though the latter is obviously a very long-term goal. I kind of see the British Empire at its height as having been a nascent/prototype version of that.
I also, frankly, think you have a tendency to ruminate about trivial things: at least, trivial in the big picture. Even if the woke mob's control of society is as absolute as it could be (if it isn't already?), I really can't see masses of people shagging animals or dead bodies on the regular. The overwhelming majority of people have a primal disgust reaction to that sort of thing, and even if some tiny percentage of people don't (less than 1% of the population, surely), why should I care, and why should you? It's obviously a shame if a crazy person debases himself in such an insane way, but it does not seem to me existentially threatening.
Sorry about the wall of text - I didn't mean to be rude, but I've come round to thinking that replies are somehow a better way to articulate my thoughts than writing my own blogposts; I guess I have a reactive disposition rather than a creative one. :)
This is why musings on certain subjects, e.g. sexual "unprincipled exceptions", ought to be reserved for trusted and knowing company. Online discourse, including the dissident subtype, is a morass of bad-faith scoundrels yanking the chains of gullible inattentive zombies.
I don't know about an 'argument', it's more of a persuasion against zoophilia if you want to hear it?
It's called a firing squad.