GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
36 years old, catholic, administrator by profession. I don't think my ideas are the best, they need some work, but I want to undersand and improve what I can. I also need to know wether some things are possible, or what's needed for them to be so.
User ID: 4468
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
I know "gay ideology" is too narrow, but "anti-natalist" isn't complete either. They're just one strain of a broader selfish ideology.
The more you force an ideology, the more you create resistance. And conversion has limits. If it didn't, the ideology would be even more suicidal. If it changed int something else and rename itself, then it failed.
Churches are empty, but people aren't becoming woke either—they're becoming apathetic or hostile. Also, immigrants from traditional cultures often bring more conservative values than the native population. That strategy can backfire.
They are just one of many selfish ideologiesm and the more you force an ideology, the more you create resistance. The conversion strategy also has limits. If it didn't, it would be even more suicidal. Churches are empty but people aren't becoming woke either. They're becoming apathetic or hostile. Also, immigrants from traditional cultures often bring more conservative values than the native population. The "infinite migrants" strategy can backfire.
I meant that if elites have no fixed moral principles, they rule in their own interest, not the public's. That's essentially an oligarchy. LKY and Xiaoping followed utilitarian principles. Mandela used Ubuntu. Seretse Khama was guided by a strict opposition to corruption. You should already know that today's society believes in money and success as goals—while the happiest people in multiple studies are shown to be the ones who have the best relationships.
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
I read both pages.
The first one gives too much credit to gay ideology. It may be destroyed by its own lack of children. Unless people have become more stupid, this can't become a new establishment for long before it gets replaced. That ideology is unsustainable. I do get that this seems to be part of a cycle—countercultural movements take over the state, and elites weaponize new ideologies to control the masses. But the demographic angle is the fatal flaw Alexander ignores.
The second one is quite smart, even if I don't like how religion is portrayed. The author argues that the category of "religion" is a harmful meme that distracts us from real threats. Still, to me it makes more sense to expand the definition of "religion"—recognize that any comprehensive moral order is a religion, whether it has gods or not.
I would support many of Yarvin's ideas, but the problem is that if the elite have no defined morals, they may rule like an oligarchy. We should at least add Porter's Shared Value as a guiding principle—so the state serves society, not just itself.
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
But waiting for an ideology to exhaust itself is passive—and it may costs generations. Maybe we at least need an institution to identify contradictions. I also just noticed that we need more independent media, while "scientists" keep saying that AI will replace media jobs. Not to mention stuff like alternative schools and education.
I don't see a point in this reply unless you're just showing off. Congrats on repeating that I use AI for comments. I'm not too motivated on using wording that can be misundertood and I have had people that felt offended with my straight words, just like I also feel ofended. You spent a lot of words agreeing while pretending to correct me.
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
I agree, I think the First Amendment was made considering the West. Religions outside it (including native ones) wouldn't fit.
The problem is that new ideologies may also not fit, and you would need to limit Freedom of Religion instead, just like the Woke ideology is doing.
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
This is the kind of answer I needed. I don't like how you frame things, but it actually makes me angry that I was never taught this. Even if you call it nonsense, I just didn't know about Post-modernism's implications. I thought it was just an ideology, not that the West followed it blindly. I didn't know modern liberalism treats the State as a substitute for religion, or that politics determines what's good and evil.
So if the State has become the only church we have left, does that mean we've just gone back to the pre-Christian pagan model—where the State was the Church and there was no separation? I don't really see "progress" in that.
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
There are so many "AI experts" here, but none seem capable of asking me directly, when I'm the one who made the post. So what, is even this answer AI generated?
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
I have always had problems ordering my thoughts. But that's not ChatGPT, it's Deepseek. I don't want to waste people's time on something AI can answer, so I actually talk a lot with Deepseek first and it helps me order the comment I'll write. The whole point of the post was to ask people on things I was missing, that I didn't think about. What's the point on me writting stuff to waste people's time? I would waste my time too then. That is pointless.
AI is quite good at saying what you're right at (even when it lies). I want to know what I'm missing.
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
English is not my main language. Even if I undersand it well, I can't guarantee that I'll write something and people will understand is completely. I use AI to change the wording mostly, not the ideas. If you want to throw away any post from people who have problems writting, just do it. But I don't see a point in someone asking stuff to understand it better making a comment with AI only to waste people's time. But that seems logical to you. You don't have to answer me if you don't want to. I read all answers.
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
Thanks, I hadn't seen the mechanics clearly. I think I understand from what you are saying that the State doesn't need to claim moral authority directly. It just attaches moral conditions to money. That's how the State enforces its orthodoxy without ever saying "this is a religion." The anti-discrimination framework is a legal chassis that the ideology rides on.
The Romeike family example may show that Obama's civic religion could not tolerate validating someone who rejected the German civic religion—it would set a precedent that civic religions are optional. This looks more like a totalitarian impulse hiding inside "neutral" secularism.
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
Thanks, this was helpful for me to understand the problem better.
It seems that I didn't approach the subject in the right way. I should reformulate it after reading you.
-
We have religions and ideologies (like Wokeness) that are rival worldviews/moral orders.
-
Since the Church and State are separate, ideologies can use the state to enforce their worldview but religions cannot. Religions are disarmed by the law but ideologies are not because they can successfully rebrand moral demands as "anti-discrimination" and "public health."
-
Most people don't understand that these ideologies have morals and even metaphysics, and actually work like a religion, except that they use taboos and loyalty tests. But taboos enforced by the State work differently than theology, because theology can be debated; a State taboo just gets you fired.
-
So the Separation of Church and State is a lie, it doesn't separate worldviews from the State. It only separates supernatural religion from the State. Ideologies can take over the State and force morals from childhood (schools). It seems new worldviews have an advantage, since they haven't been framed as religion yet.
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
Thanks for your answer—it made me realize something scary, though. You see the State as a neutral floor that permits religion to exist above it. But I actually see it as a moving ceiling. Because the State doesn't just stay at 'don't murder or steal'—it actively redefines what counts as acceptable public morality.
Today it says 'teach our civic values in your schools.' Tomorrow it says 'stop hiring based on your doctrines.' The day after, it says 'publicly stating your doctrine is hate speech.' Over time, that moving ceiling pushes religion out of the public square entirely, without passing an outright ban yet. Doesn't that become a slow jurisdictional takeover? Someday religion may be banned for limiting the State.
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
Thanks for the historical context—that actually helps frame how we got here. But I think you answered 'how did the State become supreme?' whereas I was asking 'now that it is supreme, doesn't it functionally act like an established church over moral conduct? How far will it actually end up replacing parts of faith like moral understanding?
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
I think it's more of a geographical/cultural category in this case. It's easy to integrate a culture when sharing a lot (language, proximity, migration). There are other elements that separate people like ideology, class and worldview, that frequently override ethnicity, but most scientists and research institutions count them as variables, and is harder to measure them. For color identification, you already have Trump's people accepting assylum requests by how you look. Maybe if hispanics change their skin color with some gene therapy, Trump will be happy to accept them.
GSH
"The real great man is the man who makes every man feel great"
1mo ago
Is the State a "Civic Church" in terms of jurisdictional power, or am I overreading this?
Guys, I'm new here, so I'm not sure if this fits, but I've been wrestling with the relationship between the State and religion, and I want to run a thought by you.
We all know this Western ideal: separation of church and state. But after years of living it, watching the news and trying to understand the friction, it seems to me that you don’t get constant, systemic conflict unless two powers are fighting over the exact same piece of "real estate." And that "real estate" is moral authority.
Here is the nuance I want to add, because I know the counter-argument: "The State doesn't care what you believe in your heart; it only cares about public compliance." I grant that completely.
But here is where the jurisdictional land-grab happens: The State doesn't just say, "We have a separate rule for public conduct." It says, "Your religious rule is invalid inside your own institutions, and you must comply with our civic moral code—even when operating your own schools, charities, and hospitals." That isn't two sovereigns coexisting; that is the State asserting ultimate supremacy over religious bodies.
Now, I agree that politicians and judges likely aren't malicious. They genuinely believe they are defending "progress," "equality," or "women's rights." They see themselves as liberators from "archaic dogma."
But functionally, aren't they establishing a new civic orthodoxy? The medieval Church defined orthodoxy and punished heterodoxy. The modern State does the same—except the "sin" isn't heresy; it's "discrimination," and the "punishment" is fines, loss of tax-exempt status, or closure.
Let me give a concrete example, carefully: In Europe, it is generally legal to teach your child at home, in private, that homosexuality is a sin according to your faith. However, if you run a state-funded religious school, the State will intervene to compel the curriculum to reflect civic values over religious ones. The State is not policing belief, but it is policing the public expression and institutional enforcement of that belief.
To me, that sounds less like "neutral arbitration" and more like a rival institutional power asserting its dominance over the moral code. I've read that conflict over legal jurisdiction is the academic gold standard for proving institutional rivalry.
So my ultimate question isn't "Is the State a religion?"—because clearly, it lacks the supernatural elements. Rather, my questions are:
"If the State claims ultimate jurisdiction over moral conduct even within religious institutions, does that make it functionally equivalent to an established 'civic church' in terms of political sovereignty? If so, how can religious groups negotiate this without capitulating entirely?
And isn't the State constantly changing its beliefs? By doing so, isn't it effectively admitting that it was wrong before—and that it will likely be wrong again? That makes me doubt whether it even cares about being objectively right at all, or whether it is just running social experiments on us. And if it is just experimenting, then isn't it essentially messing with society however it wants, without caring enough about the long-term consequences—even if its leaders have 'good intentions'? I mean, the society is pretty polrized in many things.
Ok, sure, I didn't know some weird people had already claimed the names, but it's not like they are the only ideologies or religions that think similarly. And any society should be in favor or babies or they would go extinct.
More options
Context Copy link