Transforming civilization is an institutional process

Many Sup Forumsack seem to believe in the myth of a savior (Trump) or the myth of a happening. The idea being that a singular event is somehow gonna change the profound trends (mostly demographic) currently affecting the entire western world.

But time and again this supposition has been demonstrated to be false. In fact, each time there is any sort of "happening", our organs of cultural expression and cultural consciousness are put into motion to deny the idea that there may be any conflict between "us" and "them". "Happening" are interpreted in such a manner that it protects the objective of maintaining mass immigration and making the prole believe that mutliculturalism is the greatest social innovation ever discovered. Mind you, you do not have to be convinced of this in order to toe the line of the diversitopist. You only have to be aware that you will be severely socially punished for any attempt to contest the multikulti myth.

The same machine that moves against a proper interpretation of various forms of happening is also at work against the likes of Trump, Farage, Le Pen and Wilders.

But what is this machine? It is a set of elements which, taken together, are the true causative factor in the trends we see today. They are the institutions, chief among them our educational apparatus.

I believe a careful analysis of our education system would demonstrate that it was build in reaction to three traumatic events that have defined the contemporary western perspective. (1) Colonialism, (2) Slavery and (3) WWII / the Holocaust.

As a result of these trauma, western institutions, the influence of which is far greater and more pervasive than that of any one happening or single leader, have emphasized things like "openness", "tolerance", "sharing", "conflict avoidance" and so on.

In order to create new trends in society, we would have to both attack these institutions and create new ones, whose actions and effects would be similar.

Other urls found in this thread:

stream.org/scientists-claim-zapping-brains-with-magnets-can-treat-belief-in-god/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

An instances of idea whose genesis is to be found in the trauma mentioned above.

(1) The abolition of any possibility of "us" vs "them" language

The abolition of the language of "us" vs "them" is usually contradictory in the way in which it is applied. The point is never really to abolish the "them" part of the equation, but rather the "us" one. An example of this attitude was on display when Ingrid Lomfors claimed that "there was no native Swedish culture" to Swedish government members in a 2015 presentation.

The particular content of that thesis is of little relevance here. What matter is rather (1) its utilitarian value, which is the creation of an attitude of passive acceptance on the part of Swedes and (2) the institutional context in which these remarks were made. Ms. Lomfors made her presentation as the head of the "Forum for living history", which is to say as a professional member of an institution dedicated to spread its worldview on a permanent and professional basis. The character of institutions, the reason they can shape society better than any "happening" can, is that they employ people whose goal is to professionally spread the idea and attitudes the institution embodies.

In other words, even before any event or happening has taken place, a person like Ms.Lomfors has already conditioned the perspective of the people she's talking to in such a way that they will then interpret the events around them through the lens which was given to them by an organization such as the "Forum for living history".

This is the soil from which "anti-populist" sentiments among the elite spring. That the right has been unable to perceive the role of institutions in the shaping of public policy and public perspective is in large part responsible for their failure to secure any kind of victory over the last couple of decades.

Civilizations, as hypercomplex adaptive systems, are influnced by, but not controlled by their constituent subsystems. They increase their complexity in order to increase the energy exploited, until they reach their local technological maximum, after they promptly collapse - all their behaviour strictly guided by the prime phenomena of existence - entropy.
All institutions behaviour changes slowly overtime in order to ensure it's own survival, rather than the task it was formed in the first place.

The question before us would therefore be the following: how can the right (be it alt-right or other kinds) do in order to foster the creation of institutions whose goal it would be to ideologically subvert influential element of society so that they may finally give us what we want?

>All institutions behaviour changes slowly overtime in order to ensure it's own survival

This is true yet it is not their only effect. The point still stand that, in order to transform society, you have to have institutions. These can operate at various scale and take different forms. The point being that their role is to transmit and embodies a certain set of ideal and incarnate them through a degree of permanence that transcend the transience of its individual members.

Viewed this way, we can see that Government, Corporations, Schools, University, Church, Mosques, Advocacy Groups, etc. all are institutions whose goal it is to shape society in such a way that they get what they want out of it.

As it stands, the nationalists are probably the least institutionally furbished group around, which is why it loses all the time.

>in order to transform society, you have to have institutions
But if a self-perpetuating institution's interest to keep the society same (status quo), then they will work against transformation
>goal it is to shape society in such a way that they get what they want out of it.
And that is exactly why they try to maximie their own powers against each other - resources are finite, entropy is a bitch
"institutions are inherently demonic" (Paul Tillich)

Trump is a catalyst, not a single event. If a butterfly can cause a storm, think of what the Don's 9 inch cock can do for society.

I don't see any incompatibilities between what you're saying and what I'm saying. You're talking about institutions in general irrespective of what their goal is.

I'm talking about institutions whose goal would be in line with our own. I'm one level down in term of generality.

Sup Forums is an institution of sort. The constellation of right leaning blog is another kind, but that doesn't seem nearly enough.

He certainly channel a lot of frustration that cannot be articulated because it is mostly felt by a class of people that are considered untouchable by the elite, but it doesn't really fuck with said elite on any permanent basis. It doesn't necessarily destroy them, demoralize them or convert them. It only radicalizes them. It leads them to say "omg how will we prevent Trump voters from existing in the future"?

They're horrified by this heresy against the modern dogmas of universalism, conflict avoidance, and diversitopist ideals.

No one is interested in creating a pol ideological critic group?

The incompability lies with the fact that institutions (as all complex adaptive systems) rearrange (transform or destroy / include new element into) their subsystems to perpetuate themselves (migrants, anyone?) With an analogy: You continually shed dead cells and even kill no longer systematically functional ones (apoptosis) and create new ones. Same happens in higher levels as well - the more complex is a system the more this emergent behaviour is realized, as the complexity trophic chain gets longer. There will be always a level of incompatibilty between interest of individual and all the higher systems it is part of.

The only thing I'm getting from this is a "nothing can be done since things aren't perfect". It's the vibe of the demoralized.

Yet it is undeniable that a certain state of the world will prevail, that those that are more determined to make their own version of it are more likely to win, that steps must be taken in order to insure that it happens, etc.

(((mostly demographic)))

(((They))) push for it but I don't know why. I don't really blame them nor hate them. I just see that they have institutions and work toward that goal, which is why they're effective.

Soros bankroll a bunch of institutions designed to fuck the west over. Good for him. He's not in our control.

institutions are great

the only institution that we should strive toward creating is a new religious institution

literally all other institutions which we favor can stem from a core ideology that is channeled along religious and spiritual grounds.

More like: anything done will lead to exactly the same. If i'm demoralized, it's in a sense that I think that 'free will' is either non-existant or so weak that is irrelevant in the scheme of things. Individual agency diminshes exponentially in the social dimension. People, who seem to be of great effect merely figureheaded powerful sociocultural phenomena, rather than steered them.

stop shitposting and name the enemy

>implying that is not tacitly implied

if free will was irrelevant to the scheme of things, then you would be able to accept that an institution is necessary to the molding of a people.

Again, just look at how the institutions of the past (the church) led to at least a semi-virtuous morality.

You have to admit, despite the cucked nature of the morals themselves, the morals brought upon the common pleb at least had a higher virtual ideal to them. Morals now are completely base, because there is no philosophy of a higher ideal, there is no utopia to strive for other than the racial egalitarian one.

Too be honest senpai it comes down to this:

>if you don't indoctrinate your people's, you leave them open to be indoctrinated by your enemy.

I would love to have a professional group that can name the Jew, push against academic leftism, work for nativist/nationalist interests. I'm just wondering how we would begin such a thing

Religions are one of the most fundamental institution around since its focus is usually the individual, more so than in other institutions. There are too many advantages to religious organization to count here.

At the same time, whatever religion should emerge in order to give strength to a despondent west would have to be such that it doesn't destroy what's good about the west. Namely, there would be a strong temptation to copy Islam in everything it does. Yet Islam is only good at a couple of thing: expansion, asphyxiation (of other cultures) and (pseudo) stability.

But I wouldn't know how to design a religion from the ground up.

I think this is the real reason leftists are so terrified of charter schools, private schools, or basically anything that is not their centrally controlled state indoctrination camps

the good news is that our communist school system is objectively terrible to students and incredibly wasteful

the emotional need to give your kids the best chance is extremely powerful and we should be able to use it to destroy the government school monopoly

>that can name the Jew

It's so useless to concentrate on this. There is no "jewish nature" that is worthy of being named. Even as a recognize the possibility and the probably reality that jews are over represented in their push toward multiculturalism and diversity, I also know that this most probably come from their particular history and not from some kind of essence that compels them to complete malevolence.

They're people. They have ideas. They can lose the battle of idea. It doesn't matter that they're jewish.

>if you don't indoctrinate your people's, you leave them open to be indoctrinated by your enemy.

Ja. I think intellectuals have a tendency to downplay the role of imitation in the spread of culture, because they themselves still hold naive enlightenment ideals which precludes them from realizing the degree to which culture is a process of automatic, non rational, transmission of attitude and beliefs.

This means that culture is largely indoctrination, but in a non pejorative sense of the word. It shapes the society in which you live without you realizing it.

I wouldn't, Christianity is honestly fine. In much of the west its been so subverted by leftists that many even on the right are still convinced its inherently so. But its not, and there is beginning to be a push back against the non-christian progressive elements that have seeped into many churhes over the last few decades. Good readings about it are on the site: Faith and Heiritage.

i feel absolutely no temptation to copy islam at all

my girlfriend and I watched a (fucking disgusting marxist) documentary about how "men are being indoctrinated with a toxic form of masculinity" last night. And you know? I had to agree with them, but for the wrong reasons. They interpret the masculine virtues of the past through a modernist lens, and for that reason they think that masculinity was always what it is now (fuck bitches, get money) when in reality sure, bedding a woman and being powerful may have been part of a masculine ideal, but it was a VIRTUE. It was something to strive for that had rules and regulations. It was essentially, a principle. And now has become, a base expression of hormonal differences.

I am currently designing a religion with some other members of Sup Forums, I haven't been involved in the chatroom in a long time though. I can send you essentially my outline of the chapters over my email

TheDataPagan @ gmail dot com

Religion starts with one basic concept. The Noble Lie. Not a lie per se, but a means and justification for allowing faith within a person.

I can justify it from completely secular scientific terminology, but this, in my opinion, leeches the magic from the concept itself. For example, mereley explaining the power of the placebo effect to someone causes them to be cynical and doubtful of the effect itself, and as a result, render it useless.

But yea email me ill send small outline of the chapters which will be the most beneficial

my goals are to instill a racial aspect, but couched in religious language, to circumvent any secular critiques of white racialism, To provide the groundwork for a Nietzschien-style ideal of striving to overcome oneself (I believe that this ideal was literally normative, implicit, before recent times), to create frameworks for society building amongst our people, as well as incentivize eugenics marriages that will result in the emergence of a constantly self improved ethnicity

wow a jidf thread
amazing

I'm all for Christians cleaning their own house. It's fairly clear that the vatican has been completely subverted, for instance, and are completely beholden to the ideals of diversity. As far as I'm concerned, this makes them traitors and they should be punished rather severely.

But I'm not Christians. I'm an atheist / agnostic and we have a whole lot of work to do on our side of the issue as well. There is no direction from which diversity should not be attacked, no direction from which Islam cannot be attacked likewise. These two things overlap in any case, since the left has decided to extend to Islam the protection it extended to other minority group. Today, we must accept Islam, the same way we MUST -- the language is always that of an imperative -- accept and embrace other minorities, in the name of diversity.

That's a fairly grave mistake to make, as it now ties the ideal of diversity to the fate of Islam in the west. It furthermore conflates ideology and race, another extremely dangerous mix. But the left's strategic blunders is not really our problem.

>if I scream JEW loud enough this will "magically" give me what I want

I don't understand you people. I don't even care that you put (((___))) around people's name but God damn are you impotent.

what you call virtue, I call feedback mechanism - higher level systems control their constituent subsystems in order to continue functioning.
The church founded monasteries, hospitals, temples and templar orders, laws, costums and rituals - as well as wars, religious and intellectual persecutions, power struggles and slavery. All this in the name of Christ, but in truth, for it's own existance and power - at the cost of innumarable death and unquantifible amount of suffering.
Institutions always transforms from the status of tools to the status of masters. And by then, tools became replaceable.

if i defend jews god will magically give my jew ass heaven
back to school

Are you fucking kidding me? The jewish nature of the left, and pretty much every subversive group of influence is one the biggest elephant in the room. You're going to say we need to organize to fight for nationalist interests and against multiculturalism, but want us to pretend like the biggest common enemy to that is "just people like you and me".

leafs always trying to act like they arent just a bunch of lumberjacks butt fucking elk...

each time a muslim blows shit up or guns people down it has more of a affect on normies who have a heightened knee jerk reaction and are more prone to long term adjustments in world view

national front is the most popular political faction in france for instance going buy how much of the seats they got vs every one else and they are set to pick more up

not the only example but if what the leaf says is true it shouldnt happen

>culture is largely indoctrination

exactly. Our intelligensia has hence forth refused to accept this and instead adopt the concept of tabula rasa, and complete 'freedom' and the disbelief in any hierarchy, which effectively renders one to the bottom of this hierarchy, for others within the hierarchy to subjugate.

getting back to the religion:

An ideal that may be unobtainable, but is still yet believed to be possible, and as a result is strived toward, a constant engine of self overbecoming.

also just form a doctrinal standpoint, I will create a concrete text that must not be changed. Very short and concise hopefully, but the structural and ideological framework of a living religion. In essence in order to form a lasting religion that is a constant companion of our people, we must have both a solid unshakeable unchangable keystone, as well as aspects of the religion that are living aspects, ever to be interpreted

a good example would be the complete praising of virtues in the solid text written in stone, but interpretation of what those virtues mean and how to best live them out constantly being re-interpreted through whatever current cultural lens our people find themselves within. This is the 'living' part of any religion, and once the constant re-interpretation is lost, the religion dies.

I believe that there is a framework through which freedom of ideas is still achievable, yet absolute moral certainty (for the day and age) is also obtainable.

There are virtues which everyone can agree are good, but disagreements arise in what best way these virtues can be expressed

For example, striving for wisdom. In this day and age, there may be more of an emphasis on knowledge, in the past there may have been more of an emphasis on experience (just a small and rather base example) Self -preservation must be maintained.

it's attainable. I don't need to know the odds. As long as the spark of creation is in the white man, there is still yet hope

1:Set up a website.
2:Release credited cases and arguments for our own ideals, and challange the leftist Jews to answer us.

The most important factor is that they know who you are.
If you for example put foward an argument for National Socialism, and all they can credit that too is "Anonymous" then that argument will mean as much as any other "Anonymous" jackass ctr shill, thus delegitimizing our entire standpoint.

The reason why Sup Forums cannot directly influence something, but rather waits for bigger institutions to pick upp onto our memes, is because we are non definable.

All you really need is an identity and consistency, the latter being what Sup Forums misses.
So setting up a seperatte website/forum with no anonymity and focusing all efforts toward making an objective, consistent and logically proof case for National Socialism. While making sure that we get all the credit for our arguments, and controlling the enviroment in which we are using for spreading propaganda.

Idk if I sound retarded, I'm sick and tired, so basically:
Create a group with an identity. Make sure the people who opperate that group are well known. Create propaganda, and articles then advertise them across the internet while griving full credit towards the group and/or individual who wrote said article or oppinion piece. This will in time build up our credibility and making sure we are rememberable.

Sounds interesting. We have a similar outlook about certain things, though not the same objective in regard to the design of the religion. I have no particular racialist leaning, certainly not in the sense that Sup Forums has them. I furthermore believe that if there is such a thing as a racial aspect to something, then it shouldn't be hidden, as I believing hiding thing indicate either that the position being defended is weak or that the person defending it does not know why he does it. Either way, the position ought to be abandoned until such time as it can be openly defended.

In order words, hiding something is symptomatic of weakness, and weakness should not be included in any system.

I personally don't feel confident enough to design anything.

Aren't they? Aren't they just people with shitty opinions and beliefs? I understand that a lot of them are jew and I even understand why a lot of them are jews. Jews have a specific history and their action and behaviors is informed by it and by the institutions that developed in reaction to it. But even still, I never understood this notion of "naming the jew" as if it was some sort of incantation that could "break the spell".

There's no mystical force here. It's all material, all history.

You're not wrong but those parties are all in the minority and the nationalist reaction does not have an intellectual basis at all. It has no ability to sustain itself save for acts of terrorism and bad press concerning crime and rape.

That's not solid and it makes it difficult for such a movement to perpetuate itself, to be a vital force of its own. Furthermore, the rhetoric of the nationalist backlash is usually rather poor I must say. It's indicative of a lack of a theoretical framework.

you fail to understand.

Your explanation of 'what virtue IS' is not what virtue is, your explanation is how it works mechanically.

This in no way takes away from the spiritual gravity of virtue.

It is the great mistake of our day to confuse science with spirituality. They both can coexist. Science has been confused with a 'why' when it is really the 'how'. This is why the west is so empty. We think that science can be our religion. Religion does not care how something happens. They care why.

This is why philosophy is spirituality without faith. Regardless of whether you have faith or not, I want you to look at faith from a scientific perspective. Faith is belief. Faith is the palcebo effect, superimposed on your entire being. Is it not?

there is no right side of history

There's no spell to break, its just an acknowledgement of a basic truth that has been delibrately ignored and distorted. Its basic stuff, they're an ethnic group who's goals oppose the interests of others. They make up most of the enemy who push for suicidal leftist and progressive idealology. You can't fight something if you refuse to actually acknowledge who they are.

The right has become decadent and complacent. They are really only concerned with maintaining the status quo of the economic right. By giving regular concession to the social left they have managed to preserve the economic right in the face of a global communist/socialist movement.

The elite right wing isn't that concerned about left wing infiltration on social issues in the end because:
a) they won't be affected because they send their kids to private schools, live in cloistered communities, and as long as the right wing economic order is up and running they have the means to avoid any fallout from social disorder

b) as long as the economic right is in power, the social issues among the lower classes will resolve themselves over time. It's really not much concern what the serf class is distracted over as long as they stay distracted.

Why do you think so many establishment Republicans are coming out in favor of Hillary? Because she is Jeb in a pantsuit. She is willing to work within the current neocon globalist economic framework, and by conceding on some meaningless social issues(muh tranny bathrooms) she will make sure that the economic right doesn't draw the ire of the serfs.

I think what a lot of the economic right doesn't realize though is how far the social left has gotten and where they will turn as soon as they've completely taken over the social order.

Maybe the right wing elite can keep the social left distracted just a little while longer by making up more and more problems(pedo rights, poly amourous relationships, attacking asian privilege, gay male privilege) but they're actually running out of shit to bitch about.

Those revolutionaries that supported Bernie were pathetic cucks, but the generation after them might actually be willing to get violent... If these right wing elites are smart(and they are) we should see the social right start gaining some ground so they can keep the social left occupied longer.

it is actually arguable that once a religion loses it's ethnic component in the minds of people, it ceases to be a religion.

stream.org/scientists-claim-zapping-brains-with-magnets-can-treat-belief-in-god/

check it.

>the same part of the brain responsible for spiritual feelings is responsible for racism
>you can shut off a part of the brain and you no longer believe in god, nor have racial in group preferences

religion is the same part of the brain as in-group preferences. I have my theories that this is a large part why christianity withered away, yet there still remains the archetypal 'racist christian backwoods southerner'

in my opinion they both go together, but also being white is the most beneficial race to be for this religion. I seek to manifest a new ethnicity, like every religion does.

Example:
Your religion's God has large feet. Large feet is close to godliness for you. Thus your people marry people with big feet outside the religion

eventually only those within the religion have large enough feet

you have manifested a new ethnicity

the ethnic component I see of the overman is best created from a base of white people right now.

it's an ideal to strive for.

Can't we just define them ideologically instead of ethnically?

There's a reason why this argument is applicable to Islam and Muslim and not to Jews. It's because Islam is a theocratic system and if you refuse to acknowledge that you are fighting revolutionary theocrats, you'll not be cognizant of the fact that they have means to wage that war that are non violent. In Islam, conversion is just as much an act of war as a terrorist attack is.

But the Jews? The Zionists aren't the same as the multicultural idiots, and there are many Jews who are anti-Islam and pretty much non multicultural. They are rare, but they exists.

Define the enemy doctrinally, not ethnically. (Of course, there's a reason many jews align with certain doctrine and not others, but that's a secondary concern.)

>but the generation after them might actually be willing to get violent.

Of course they fucking will. The next generation isn't white.

(I'm not saying whites aren't violent. I'm saying they're violent in different ways, a difference not necessarily to be explained because of differences of race, but by history more broadly.)

Islam is universalist as shit.

They don't have racial preferences but they do have a very strong muslim preference. This may be laden with racial preferences too, of course.

But even the left as in-group out-group preferences, and pretty strong ones at that. They SEVERELY punish people that do not toe the line of Diversitopia. Loss of social status, jobs and possibly even criminal sanctions. These are the hallmark of punishments enacted against those that leave the Church. It's the modern form of excommunication.

Then we reached an impasse.
How else would we gain understanding of virtue if not by how it interacts with reality?
My explanation of what 'virtue is' is exactly the answer of the question 'why'.
The great mistake of our day is to think that 'science' and 'spirituality' are some kind of exact platonic ideas, rather than symbols with a myriad different content in each individual mind at any given moment. Religion is the idea that 'why'-s can be answered by the outer soource of revelation. Science is the idea that why-s can answered by controlled interaction of reality.
From a scientific perspective, faith is a behavioural phenomena, most likely evolved from early child learning tendency (evolutionary favourable unquestioning obediance and mimicry of adults) and self-reinforcing social norms (status quo).
>"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

>Academician Prokhor Zakharov
>"For I Have Tasted The Fruit

religious structure is nice because it allows for a sort of mobile nation, it's much easier for a group to transport religious beliefs with them than their home nation's laws and systems

the kind of institutional spread of information you hope for (while a nice idea) is most likely impossible at this point in history, there's too many external forces at play

sudden, violent revolution in several countries is probably the only thing that would ever work

>sudden, violent revolution in several countries is probably the only thing that would ever work

This is such a dumb thing to say.

How would you create the support for such a thing? Institutions.

God damn. And institutions can be nothing more than a think thank, a journal, a magazine. It's trivially easy to create in principle. What's difficult is finding quality people and providing them with material support.

>implying the creation of a militia organized enough to overthrow the government is somehow easier than creating a blog

>How would you create the support for such a thing? Institutions.
the sense i was getting of what you mean by 'institution' is something much larger and more widespread than what i imagine would be necessary for a revolution, but i could just be misinterpreting

you're too stuck in the mindset of playing by their rules, there is no such thing as 'non-violent opposition'

People like you start by thinking big instead of looking for the small things that ought to be done before big things can be achieved, and they end up doing nothing.

So you think about our current problems and you think "oh, we need a revolution, but a blog won't do that". And then you think "we're screwed".

Good.

you're up against technology-induced passivity, the vast majority of people being indoctrinated through public schools and chained to debt in 'higher learning institutions', corrupt mainstream media system and widespread economic and migrant globalism

a blog would take decades to spread to any useful degree, as opposed to something like the Arab spring which depending on the country took weeks-years

Yup, true. The key point in making right wing thoughts a sustainable ideology is taking back the academia

Well, I'm not sure that's possible at the moment. Alternative academia might be for the moment.

I'm thinking less stringent but more rhetorically effective. Basically we don't need all of academia -- although biology tends to be on our side -- but only a counter to the humanities departments, which are the real culprits here.

I like the people in Europe that talked about Metapolitic but since they seem to be outright NatSoc I'm kind of disappointed.

I have a couple things to say to you. In general you sort of lost me once you said you were going to create your own religion, and a pagan one at that. Call it what it is: you're making a cult.

You seem to be under the misconception that Christianity is a bunch of people following a strict set of rules all the time and hoping to be rewarded for their good behavior. That's not entirely true. God does not want a bunch of people following a bunch of rules, but rather a specific type of person. If you had given your whole self to him you will follow these rules naturally, they will be your natural self. Lose yourself to him, and you'll find the real you. Look for your happiness in Him and you'll get Earth thrown in, look for you happiness on Earth and you will get neither. Yes their are codes and creeds to Christianity but you will notice most of these are centered around how you interact with others. Life is really easy once you learn who to ignore and what to focus on.

Essentially since the beggining of time man had trusted his own reason and through it saw all other things. With "subjectivism" and "liberalism" you have people, and scariest of all, important leaders, making thoughts and feelings the center of their time and attention. It's as though they are trying to take their eyes out of their head to look at them. It's a huge problem because there is an objective right and wrong in the universe and what we have going on right now are people praising and celebrating those who are degenerates. It's quite terrifying. But a wise man once said "the path to Hell is the slow one, with no sudden turns, no sign marking, with a soft underfoot"

I can't blame you in some ways because Christianity has been so ducked lately. Read CS Lewis, Peacocke, George Macdonald, Seneca, "on the Heavens" by aristotle. All the answers you seek is already present in Christianity. If you want the thrill of power by running a cult go ahead, but what you're doing is very wrong.

The idea of religion is a spirit beyond anything science can comprehend. What he was saying is that science can not tell you why something exists but it can tell you how what exists works.

There are people who don't believe in Christianity and don't consider it to be a well designed cult.

That it has cognitive elements (the story and the attitude) that goes beyond the rituals does not negate that.

We'll never take traditional academia but we can take the internet which provides a balance.

We have already proven we can defeat the media. Young people now know they can use the internet to find their own truth. The opinion driven news is recognized for the sham it is.

All that is remaining is freeing the academic journals and popularizing them (librarians could help with this, someone needs to spread the word as libraries are the "middleground" between home and school) and then bringing in unfiltered data, that will defeat the liberal scourge with truth.

No I think we might take traditional academia but only if a new theory of culture could be developed. I personally think there might be a way to bring culture into the context of evolution.

>hurr i'm a christian so I'm going to use my christianized language to criticize your religion

nice man. Using your christian lexicon has worked so much in the past hasn't it?

what separates a religion and a cult?

what the media?

the popular opinion?

what christians think?

Christians have literally no room to talk. They have failed. Niether I nor most white men consider christianity to be their ally. You have failed. Don't insult yourself by thinking you still retain the moral highground. You have failed, even morally, through supporting other's power, giving our power away.

If the definition of a cult is that you give up your own personal interest in the process, christianity has become a cult. They continue to undermine our race.

OP I think if you look at other anti-ruling class movements in history it shows you don't need to name the Jews what you do is, you get people to hate their fruits.

Show that pornography was made free to addict young boys and make them weak and more barbaric. Show that the media lies non stop and tries to poison our souls with Kardashians. Then you connect all the Jews to these acts. Then people will gladly agree you need to act.

You don't go directly after your target, like Chairman Mao or Pol Pot, there is always an ideology around it.