Real talk though, it's an excellent point that should be brought up more often that a major reason why discourse is so difficult to have these days is because every single thing is interpreted as a value judgement. Some part of the character of liberalism is afraid to even acknowledge the existence of things it deems heretical, I think that's because these things have the potential to show the weaknesses of and therefore undermine the system.
Well say that individual rulers do not usually transfer over into long term systems of change. North Korea is idolized but a horrible way to live and it will not last another few hundred years. It’s only possible in a microcosm. Short term power and long term power are very different. Though an actual loving king (more like Putin than many of those named in this article) could set up a system in which rulership is spread out among a Heirarchy of men and enable systems where people are reliant on and accountable to each other.
Stalin was powerful and not a liberal, but he did not create an adaptable system even if a more industrialized one. Gaddafi was only possible within the context of a trading world in oil, then tried to oppose the financial control of such trade. He did not create a system outside of it. Russia on the other hand is increasing its self reliance and its transition between the collapse of the Soviet Union and now is much more of a study I would make than the other examples.
People talk of collapses and something rising out of it but we have a living example of this right now. That’s an impressive feat and I would like to see how he structures society for one day when he passes on power. Going from a collapse to a world power in a matter of decades that’s fairly self reliant for energy and food is not common. It’s not perfect, but nothing is perfect.
Il liberalismo ha portato il regno della quantità. La qualità è stata messa in soffitta, chi la cerca viene boicottato, censurato, allontanato, al contrario chi cerca la quantità viene osannato, esaltato, portato su un palmo di mano. Tutto ciò è il segno dei tempi.
Even if the founding documents were divinely inspired, it is revelation subject to that timeframe. Taken out of context of that time it folds on itself into harm. I see it as an overcorrection for other imbalances, no written document is an end in itself. Legacy is something that has to be continually recreated anew but in a living chain of context or connection.
Rome only survived because it changed forms. It was a monarchy, a republic, and then an empire. This ability to adapt is part of living systems that serve living people in a living reality. It is if anything a service to the founding document to change it because anything in a stasis too long mummifies and becomes a relic.
There was a radio talk show host back in the 90's that called "Liberalism" a mental disorder.
I tend to be more moderate in my thinking. If you can prove to me that something works, I'll accept it. Some things, like Abortion and "Three strikes" don't work. Or they work the wrong way. Abortion is entirely self serving, and Going to prison over drug and alcohol addiction doesn't work.
The woman getting the abortion yearly should have her tubes tied so she can't kill another life, and the addict should get help.
Transgender ideology isn't helping, it's just confusing children. Get the people the mental health help they need, and stop accepting the assertion that nature made a mistake.
Big pharma needs legislative control, and should be closely monitored, but not by the corrupt FDA, which is bought by Big Pharma.
Government isn't there to take care of us, it's there to let us thrive.
It's supposed to protect the borders and provide little corrections, while getting out of the way and letting me live.
Sarumaaaaaan.
Real talk though, it's an excellent point that should be brought up more often that a major reason why discourse is so difficult to have these days is because every single thing is interpreted as a value judgement. Some part of the character of liberalism is afraid to even acknowledge the existence of things it deems heretical, I think that's because these things have the potential to show the weaknesses of and therefore undermine the system.
Well say that individual rulers do not usually transfer over into long term systems of change. North Korea is idolized but a horrible way to live and it will not last another few hundred years. It’s only possible in a microcosm. Short term power and long term power are very different. Though an actual loving king (more like Putin than many of those named in this article) could set up a system in which rulership is spread out among a Heirarchy of men and enable systems where people are reliant on and accountable to each other.
Stalin was powerful and not a liberal, but he did not create an adaptable system even if a more industrialized one. Gaddafi was only possible within the context of a trading world in oil, then tried to oppose the financial control of such trade. He did not create a system outside of it. Russia on the other hand is increasing its self reliance and its transition between the collapse of the Soviet Union and now is much more of a study I would make than the other examples.
People talk of collapses and something rising out of it but we have a living example of this right now. That’s an impressive feat and I would like to see how he structures society for one day when he passes on power. Going from a collapse to a world power in a matter of decades that’s fairly self reliant for energy and food is not common. It’s not perfect, but nothing is perfect.
Il liberalismo ha portato il regno della quantità. La qualità è stata messa in soffitta, chi la cerca viene boicottato, censurato, allontanato, al contrario chi cerca la quantità viene osannato, esaltato, portato su un palmo di mano. Tutto ciò è il segno dei tempi.
Even if the founding documents were divinely inspired, it is revelation subject to that timeframe. Taken out of context of that time it folds on itself into harm. I see it as an overcorrection for other imbalances, no written document is an end in itself. Legacy is something that has to be continually recreated anew but in a living chain of context or connection.
Rome only survived because it changed forms. It was a monarchy, a republic, and then an empire. This ability to adapt is part of living systems that serve living people in a living reality. It is if anything a service to the founding document to change it because anything in a stasis too long mummifies and becomes a relic.
There was a radio talk show host back in the 90's that called "Liberalism" a mental disorder.
I tend to be more moderate in my thinking. If you can prove to me that something works, I'll accept it. Some things, like Abortion and "Three strikes" don't work. Or they work the wrong way. Abortion is entirely self serving, and Going to prison over drug and alcohol addiction doesn't work.
The woman getting the abortion yearly should have her tubes tied so she can't kill another life, and the addict should get help.
Transgender ideology isn't helping, it's just confusing children. Get the people the mental health help they need, and stop accepting the assertion that nature made a mistake.
Big pharma needs legislative control, and should be closely monitored, but not by the corrupt FDA, which is bought by Big Pharma.
Government isn't there to take care of us, it's there to let us thrive.
It's supposed to protect the borders and provide little corrections, while getting out of the way and letting me live.
Samuel Francis was correct pretty much on all points, including the religion: https://firstthings.com/the-outsider/