Let's be real, if this was AOC or some other lefty we all hate then we'd probably all be condemning political violence with one side of our mouth and shitting on them with the other.
I wouldn’t. I’d be openly jubilating.
I don’t go in for this both-sides-ism. There is an ideology in this country that is warped, evil, responsible for most of the damage to this country, has a stack of bodies (mostly from wars it picked) under it, and seeks the destruction of anybody outside of it. It directly caused the death of Kirk and nearly killed Trump.
This here is the proof (not like we don’t have a mountain of evidence already) that the niceties about political violence are wrong. The state is violence. Democracy is a way to try to make political life a little more orderly and bearable. A gentleman’s agreement. So when one side tries to run roughshod over that - break the rules, cheat, redefine things at will - then you can try to restore the agreement, but you are no longer bound to it either. They are fair game. As far as I’m cared, they have been for at least five years.
Based
Hangings should be big affairs that people wear suits to and eat popcorn at.
Even if you are not religious living in a Christian nation is better than one run by retarded dysgenic commies and trannies. I just wanna grill.
One of the worst lies perpetrated by the modern day is the idea you have to buy into an organized religion to buy into religion at all, or buy into an organized religion to buy into the religion as cultural practice.
This is not how anyone thought until two-ish centuries again (three in France) and I’d argue that it’s not a sign of progress at all but, on a timescale this short, just an insanity in the public. Countless generations of scientists and philosophers and almost all of them kept coming back to the conclusion that there is a God, there is an afterlife, there is an objective right and wrong. But modern man doesn’t know how to process that - Bible-thumper and Fucking Love Science geek alike instinctively fear it - so they strip history of its moral force. Assume that the religious worldview of these scientists was insincere (forced by the broader culture on them) or incongruent (Newton would be an atheist if he lived today), as if there is any new bit of information relevant to the question of where the world came from.
I think atheism is pure poison to a civilization and likely unsustainable. Note that the Founding Fathers - as part of broader Enlightenment culture, Christians and Deists - spoke frequently of a Creator, virtue (more religiously framed than our transactional “ethics” today), Divine Providence (the unfolding plan of God). They lived close enough to the Thirty Years War and English Revolution (about as close as us to the War between the States) to know the effects of state religion and the price of religious pluralism, and that’s something I fear a lot of modern Christians have totally missed. But their culture was one that insisted on commitment to the basic Christian idea that there is a purposeful cosmic order and that life is a battlegrounds for ourselves, with ourselves, to become excellent.
The founding liberal ideology of our country only really makes sense - only has its full force - when you understand that it was, really, a religion. At least as much a religion as Confucianism was a philosophical religion, and compatible with (derived from but not dependent on) Christianity as a revealed religion, like how Confucianism easily complemented Buddhism.
At some point this country’s schools stopped teaching these things, in these terms.
