"The fact that the classical world eventually was replaced by modern nonsense should not be held against it."
How about instead extremely the opposite of that?
You may have noticed I'm none too fond of Christianity, but I would forgive all its sins were it effective at suppressing the modern heresies. You had literal anti-blasphemy laws and you still couldn't do it! Pathetic. If instead it had worked, I would be over here scratching my head saying, "Well, I don't get it, but they obviously know something I don't."
The fact it was replaced by modern nonsense is exactly the classics' highest crime.
Though more accurately, modernity isn't modern, relative to the classical world. We are Fascist, they were Fascist. They were less Fascist due to having a proper lord ratio, but the latter wasn't good enough to paper over the former.
But basically, they killed Socrates. They couldn't even tolerate being near the truth. They had to symbolically eradicate it. Their core value was raw hatred for Reality.
If there were some sudden disaster modernity could be traced to, such as compulsory education or the black death, then the classics could perhaps be excused. Even the most anti-fragile system dies if you hit it hard enough. Instead it's been a long, slow, and constant 900 year decline. All failure, no victory. Not anti-fragile, just fragile.
Christianity didn't declare war on these heresies, it adopted them. It adopted them because Christianity was too weak to notice Sophism intentionally hacking its adoption reflexes. Imagine the Soviet Union appeared and the Christian races were like, "Yeah, no," and shut that shit down. Instead feminism is actually 1100-vintage courtly love, slightly intensified and stripped of any decoration.
It is likely that Christianity was always heresy. That Christianity was itself designed through Sophistry to hack Roman social vulnerabilities. Constantine attempting to adopt it should have triggered an existential war, because you don't follow suicidal rulers. Not that I terribly disapprove of Rome killing itself. They earned it.
I've always felt a certain sympathy for the last Roman pagans, what it must have been like to see the last embers of the old religion go out. The real issue though is what will replace Christianity? Wokism is a death cult and can't last, but secular people will be consumed long before wokism dies. Most of the eastern religions are as bad as Christianity in being easy to subvert. Some new prophet, in the age of mass media, seems unlikely. The "prophet" would probably speak heresy anyways, since that's what's popular, and what's popular is where the suckers are.
Islam? Perhaps. I'm not fond of Islam because it's less believable and more contradictory then most religions, not to mention it's record of running civilizations is mixed at best. But Muslims do have a fire and devotion in their creed that's stronger then any other modern religion. The real test might be if Islam can make any inroads with the white/latino/asian communities in America. Thus far, the religion has been too ethnocentric and too isolated to gain many new adherents in the West, but that might change once the American economic collapse starts to really get underway. There's also attempts by Christians to reform Christianity, but the issue they have is they're scattered between too many denominations, literally all of which are subverted. They'd need to form a new church of the non-woke, which would immediately become a target and be shut down.
If you think Christianity didn't trigger a Roman Civil war, then you haven't read enough Galkovsky.
Pretty strange that the moment that classical christian iconography as we understand it begins to pop up, we get the Crisis of the Third Century and Rome gets excluded from being even a minor imperial capital forever.
Post a Comment