The Devouring Usurper

"Recognizing that God upholds the freedom of men and women in the unfolding of history, the Second Vatican Council affirmed the distinction between the ecclesial community and the political community, emphasizing that each must operate with full autonomy. The Church’s presence in the world is also expressed through her relationship with civil society and public institutions. By engaging with these entities, the Church acknowledges the value of social and political realities and honors their specific responsibilities, supporting everything that fosters the wellbeing of individuals and strengthens the fabric of society. The Church does not claim to assume the functions belonging to the State. On the contrary, she esteems those who serve the common good, and she firmly acknowledges the responsibility that civil institutions hold within society. At the same time, the mission entrusted to the Church prompts her to address the real suffering of the men and women of our time. This closeness does not stem from an intent to supplant civil institutions, much less from an implicit criticism of their work. Rather, it stems from evangelical charity, which impels the Church to draw near to the wounds of humanity whenever they surface with greater severity. When the Church intervenes, she does so following the example of the Good Samaritan, with discretion and closeness, aware that what arises from urgent necessity cannot become the norm, nor replace the institutional responsibilities proper to the civil community." (Magnifica Humanitas, Ch. 1, n. 21)

Although I have a great deal of sympathy for Paganism myself, the notion of a Pagan revival, one where it sweeps across the West and reestablishes itself as the dominant religious faith, is pure fantasy. It simply cannot happen. If the West is going to drift away from the Abrahamic religions, the most likely candidate to fill that vacuum, at least within the right-wing sphere, is racialist secular nationalism. A Pagan revival, realistically, could only emerge as an outgrowth of that movement, supplying it with a metaphysical and spiritual dimension. Paganism standing on its own two feet as an independent faith, attracting converts on the strength of its own theology, is not something I can imagine taking hold at scale. This became clear to me while I was lurking in Pagan circles on Xitter. There's a telling reason why one of their central objections to Christianity, and to the Abrahamic religions generally, is that these faiths are universalist, that they place God above all else, and above race in particular. The appeal of modern Paganism in these spaces is bound up with identity and blood far more than with the gods themselves, which is exactly why it functions better as the spiritual wing of a nationalist project than as a religion people would embrace for its own sake. So at the very best, a Pagan revival might find a foothold among an elite class of believers, the kind drawn to esoteric and aristocratic ideas. Among the masses, though, it has no real future.

So many people are involved in our sphere only because they didn’t get access to the yeast life of the end of history in the ~90s or so. Give 90% of these guys a 5/10 wifejak, a car, and cheap McBurgerking and they’d abandon radical politics immediately.

What historical fact sounds fake but is true?

Turns out most whites DONT want to get their cities bombed, get massacred and prefer comfy life drinking starbucks frappé doing podcasts abt rome, posting slurs online and debating r1b Steppe genetics is more attractiv than actually becoming War orphans for "Glory"

Groups of humans can totally change their behavior via genetic selection and/or cultural change without any break in genetic continuity. For instance, Sicilians used to murder a great deal, now they simply do not. Same genetic stock.

I used to be a hard salazarist fascist theocratic nazi who wanted a Jose Antonio reincarnated in an Orban style monarchy to rule the world But when I look at my beautiful country it’s stable, harmonious, boring politics, no violence, extremely high quality of life, families everywhere, a high trust society, boring, low fear, everyone has a thick skin, we call each other out. Checks and balances everywhere (everyday life AND in politics). It’s predictable and peaceful. Why would I want a fascist dictator? It doesn’t make sense, I like how politics doesn’t affect everyday life here. I honestly respect the idea of a constitutional monarchy with a parliament and liberal tendencies with all the coalitions and strong bureaucracy, basically the ‘nothing ever happens’ philosophy This does not mean that this is also the best for YOUR country. My country: is 50% Christian, has white aryan people, low crime rates, is one of the richest countries on earth, and is above all: BORING! I’m not in love with it. I still want to crank up the Catholic numbers and roll back woke stances on LGBTQ, abortion etc. I’ve been thinking about it and power in politics is literally just people controlling the military, economy, laws, and what others can and cannot do. Why would I want to hand all that to one guy when every human can be corrupted? Even the best mess up eventually because succession and personal judgement always fail at some point. Franco messed up with Juan Carlos and he destroyed most of what Franco built, and Juan Carlos didn’t even have total power. Imagine if he was evil! In a democracy that power gets sliced up between parliament, courts, bureaucracy, coalitions, ministries, local governments etc. Not equally obv but enough that nobody can just do whatever they want. It makes everything slower and more annoying, but also way safer and more stable. Also I like how democracy is the most stable, safest, and most boring system engineered by men who don’t want a single guy to have immense power because we’ve had that before, and there are plenty of reasons it can go wrong. I guess I’m not that authoritarian anymore… guess I’m kind of in the middle now Thank you