I see your point, but I'm going to play devil's advocate.

The Fellowship used Gollum in the most effective way - Gollum did the job and then conveniently dropped himself and the ring in lava. They didn't even pay Gollum for his work as a scout - it was his desire for the corrupting thing that enslaved him, both to the lower evil and to the higher good. Is there a way we can similarly use the corrupted things parasitizing the west? Idk, maybe, may be worth looking into.

Mercy and parasitism can also be seen as a blessing. One of my mottos is, "all true blessings appear as curses." If we can withstand the hardship, then we can be stronger because of the effort.

Marxism took the world by storm back when the world had no defenses against it. Defenses are strong arguments and people organized and ready to respond when it appears in the real world.

Most policies shouldn't exist, but the good thing is, they force us to become more efficient by imposing inefficiencies on us. Compliance with policy raises costs and funds terrorism - businesses must compensate by becoming more efficient, serving more people, and improving their security and communications for when the terrorists come knocking.

Would we actually be better off without the parasites? For a moment, probably, and we'd probably have a momentary golden age. But we'd stop evolving... Our enemies make us strong. Love your enemy.

Just playing devil's advocate. I also was/am quite persuaded by Nietzsche's critique of Christianity.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

We are probably in large agreement, since you are playing devils advocate here. But I totally disagree that there weren’t defenses against Marxism when it was invented. From its view on human nature to the Hegelian dialectic roots that underpin its vision of history, there were numerous counter examples to the logical arguments made by Marxism. The failure, as ayn rand illuminated, was a lack of MORAL arguments for capitalism and individualism. Marxism won out by becoming an organizing principle for naked human envy, NOT by convincing anyone of anything save that they could use Marxism as a moral cudgel to guilt people out of their rightly earned property.

That's probably right. Well, the defenses were inadequate and things had to change to deal with the threat. Maybe it would've been more right to say that the French Revolution was the storm that Europe had little/no defense for, and I'd argue that was the first version of the communist ideal.

🤔 That lack of moral arguments, as Ayn Rand said, is important. To loop back to the original critique of Christianity, and to continue playing devil's advocate : Christianity has had several versions that were responses to a particular era. I think the focus on mercy and compassion was a response to the brutality of the medieval era. Just the other day, I was reading about "oubliettes" - basically mini dungeons in castles and palaces designed to kill people in the most cruel way possible, often located under dining rooms so that the lord and his guests can hear their screams while dining. They were common in Europe, and its hard to imagine a less "Christian" thing... This horror at the heart of the power structure in Christendom.

Both the modern form of Christianity and Communism were responses to the environment they grew out of. Communism's only appeal now is envy and it only attracts the worst people, but the environment it was a response to was stuff like factories that locked workers in and hired thugs to beat up employees and people in general just having far less legal protection or recognition of rights. I'm not saying communism gives rights - to the contrary! - but the circumstances that gave it its appeal were different.

Still just playing devil's advocate. I fucking hate communism.

Christianity, IMO, has lost its connection to its roots, and to Christ, and what Christ means. That, I think, is the reason Christianity fails. Its a pervasive loss. Various points in history show a clear break from Christ - Nicea in 325, the Pope's hissy fit in 1054, the failure of the Roman church to reform when Pico Della Mirandola (spelling probably wrong) tried to reform it, the Council of Trent and the bloody reformation, Calvinism and reintroducing usury and how that enabled the first central bank, and now the denominations having no memory of their own beginnings, like a Baptist having never heard of the Waldensians. And more, way more. How do you fix 2000 years of Wrong? Idk. Start a new denomination. Its the best answer I can think of. But I know one thing beyond any doubt : Christianity has failed, and the only way for it to succeed for any individual is by direct divine intervention, because the people ascribing to "team Christian" are not the right people for the job. That one thing became three things 😂.

Okay... gotta stop this rant.

Hey, I like it. In fact, here’s a zap for the effort and honesty.

But I think, like the pagan believes that came before it, that Christianity is a lost cause. It will need to be entirely replaced by a new belief structure that fixes its flaws the way Christianity fixed the disunification and tribal infighting of late Rome.

We need a universal epistemology that can understand moral context… a morality that understands that, because of the same universal and immutable reality that exists and we all live in, that X is the morally best thing for person 1 but Y the morally best thing for person 2.

might find something of interest here (not an endorsement) :

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JPaNptTz5Fw