I Am A Paleo-Colonialist, Monarchal-Imperialist. - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14935432
starman2003 wrote:Of course. But it's my belief that, in extremis, even a long anti-despotic tradition can be overcome. That of ancient Rome persisted five centuries, prior to Caesarism. Even now, in fact for quite some time, authors have predicted the fall of democracy or at least considered it vulnerable. The Twilight of Democracy (which predicts the end of the system c 2050) is pretty old by now. Albright's Fascism a Warning is recent as is the title by Runciman--How Democracy Ends.


No disagreement here.
#14935908
I have to apologize for the late reply my friend, I've been away on business, but I'm intrigued by your narrative;

The smarter vested land-owners and intentionally seperatist communities will pursue agorist secession within the United States, basically networking in a process of economic independence and apoliticism to create security for themselves; meanwhile, the collapse of the state will proceed along the same lines that thinkers from all across the political spectrum have predicted. The states on the modern west are financially and culturally unsustainable just like Rome was before collapse.


And also I might mention, in the West there is an embedded impetus of a trend towards the privatization of the former functions of the Nation-State in it's classical, post-Westphalian sense, already. I won't exactly say a man like President Trump is an Anarcho-Capitalist, but...

Elsewhere around the world, there is a kind of neo-fuedalism gaining a foothold, with Clans of interdependent and interrelated families and alpha apex persons at the very top, involved in business with feet firmly in both ''private'' and ''government'' spheres at the same time.

We may live to see Washington DC sacked by Islamo-Mexican Horde :lol: , marking the end of an age, meanwhile independent communities and farmers in Montana and Eastern Ohio will go about their business operating a new ancap system based on landedness. America will continue with hundreds of independent little regions that are privately owned by sole proprietorships, little kingdoms (though likely not described in those terms), theocratic no-go zones, and maybe even a few little democracies or dictatorship sprinkled here and there and many of them will trade with each other, while others are at war with each, etc.


Ultimately, this could well be the case, with the Capitalist West only briefly outlasting the Soviet Union, hard to know how long the transition may be.

The mass violence and lotting following the fall of western states will be mostly urban and short-lived, the matter will settle when fatigued masses of urban refugees strike deals with land owners in the countryside (former middle-class farmers) to basically become a modern equivalent to serfs.


With a breakdown of the global transportation grid after the coming sequence of imperialist wars, even a Communist/Socialist society would be forced to encourage the excess surplus population to return to the land to feed themselves, precisely to maintain a industrial base on some level. Not a paradox at all, actually.

So shall the order of things go.


Sadly for many, not so much for others, I agree.

I also foresee a realignment of western Christian back into broad tradition, not unlike the early church or the medieval church right before the reformation. It will be a system that is recalled to help people in their misery, viciously anti-sectarian (post-denominational), and supportive of the new order while stressing historic catholicity and orthodox theology.


Part of what is coming is the return of Papal power in the Latinate West, in my considered opinion. I won't at this time go into why and how just yet, but they've played their cards quite well in the Vatican in recent decades, and the gambit has every chance of succeeding beyond even the initial planners wildest dreams.
#14936686
annatar1914 wrote:Part of what is coming is the return of Papal power in the Latinate West,


I think Christianity is going to reunify in the west, Protestantism will become fulfilled and the church will be one again.

The heresy of Vatican I & II shall be reversed, the bulls against Luther and the Jansenists condemned, and Trent thrown-down and anathematized.

This, with a reversal on their error regarding clerical celibacy and their errors in the investiture controversy may be sufficient to bring me and most reformers back into the fold.

If the papacy returns to its place as the honorable Bishopric of Rome and seat of St. Peter, and that alone. Then I would have no problem with it. When it goes beyond this though, it becomes the seat of Anti-Christ.
#14936808
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I think Christianity is going to reunify in the west, Protestantism will become fulfilled and the church will be one again.
Well, we have much to discuss, perhaps to do this due justice, in another thread. But allow me to make some preliminary comments. You said that;




I see a kind of longer term strategic dialectic at work here though, in which the political preparatory work to harvest the full fruits of Vatican I could not be undertaken until a generation or so after Vatican Council II.




Much of the anathemas had already been done, actually, before the protestant movement even began, by the Councils of Orange and of Carthage, and the Orthodox Synodal work condemning various innovations afterwords. The Confession of Cyril Lucaris is very instructive in this regard, also.

Trent I believe will be doubled down on, as will Vatican Council I. I figure on having confirmation of this within the next 5-10 years.



Rather, that all were in the rational flock of Christ, the Orthodox faith. But indeed, the clear violations of the ancient canons of the Church declaring anathema on bishops who took office with help of the temporal arm, or by force or fraud of the same, is an issue to this day.



Would this were so, I return to what Old Rome once was and no more! Her Glory was then in her faithfulness to Orthodoxy, not her later pretensions to rob Christ of His role as Universal Bishop.
#14936809
Well, we have much to discuss, perhaps to do this due justice, in another thread. But allow me to make some preliminary comments. You said that;


The heresy of Vatican I & II shall be reversed,


I see a kind of longer term strategic dialectic at work here though, in which the political preparatory work to harvest the full fruits of Vatican I could not be undertaken until a generation or so after Vatican Council II.


the bulls against Luther and the Jansenists condemned, and Trent thrown-down and anathematized.


Much of the anathemas had already been done, actually, before the protestant movement even began, by the Councils of Orange and of Carthage, and the Orthodox Synodal work condemning various innovations afterwords. The Confession of Cyril Lucaris is very instructive in this regard, also.

Trent I believe will be doubled down on, as will Vatican Council I. I figure on having confirmation of this within the next 5-10 years.

This, with a reversal on their error regarding clerical celibacy and their errors in the investiture controversy may be sufficient to bring me and most reformers back into the fold.


Rather, that all were in the rational flock of Christ, the Orthodox faith. But indeed, the clear violations of the ancient canons of the Church declaring anathema on bishops who took office with help of the temporal arm, or by force or fraud of the same, is an issue to this day.

If the papacy returns to its place as the honorable Bishopric of Rome and seat of St. Peter, and that alone. Then I would have no problem with it. When it goes beyond this though, it becomes the seat of Anti-Christ.


Would this were so, I return to what Old Rome once was and no more! Her Glory was then in her faithfulness to Orthodoxy, not her later pretensions to rob Christ of His role as Universal Bishop.
#14936820
95% of criticisms of Monarchy are horrible bad takes meant to get a chuckle out of the listener and assumes that no thought will be put into it beyond face value.

That's how it has been for literally decades.

When I started actually thinking about the system more... I was really surprised at both how little I knew and how practical it is.
#14936988
Just as a side-note for a future conversation on the investiture controversy, VS, I wanted to show you this quote;


Every appointment of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon made by (civil) rulers shall remain void in accordance with the Canon which says: “If any bishop comes into possession of a church by employing secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too.”


From the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council. And that is based on in turn upon this;

If any bishop makes use of the rulers of this world, and by their means obtains to be a bishop of a church, let him be deprived and suspended, and all that communicate with him.


Where this is a sword that cuts both ways for the Latins is that the Papacy itself from at least the 10th century was built upon this confusion of spiritual and temporal power.

Therefore, if there is to be any grace, collectively speaking, in the West, it has to come from sources untainted by political power one way or another. This further goes to the sort of society that we can both see coming into being in the not too distant future.
#14937396
annatar1914 wrote:Much of the anathemas had already been done, actually, before the protestant movement even began, by the Councils of Orange and of Carthage, and the Orthodox Synodal work condemning various innovations afterwords.


Well, I don't regard the conservative reformation as innovative at all, so.....

annatar1914 wrote:But indeed, the clear violations of the ancient canons of the Church declaring anathema on bishops who took office with help of the temporal arm, or by force or fraud of the same, is an issue to this day.


annatar1914 wrote:Just as a side-note for a future conversation on the investiture controversy, VS, I wanted to show you this quote;


Every appointment of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon made by (civil) rulers shall remain void in accordance with the Canon which says: “If any bishop comes into possession of a church by employing secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too.”


From the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council. And that is based on in turn upon this;

If any bishop makes use of the rulers of this world, and by their means obtains to be a bishop of a church, let him be deprived and suspended, and all that communicate with him.


Where this is a sword that cuts both ways for the Latins is that the Papacy itself from at least the 10th century was built upon this confusion of spiritual and temporal power.

Therefore, if there is to be any grace, collectively speaking, in the West, it has to come from sources untainted by political power one way or another. This further goes to the sort of society that we can both see coming into being in the not too distant future.


i'm torn on this, but the investiture controversy also opened the door for clerical celibacy in the west and are hard to separate, after all, if the property is owned by the church, and priests are servants of the church, how are they are fulfill their obligations to their sons regarding inheritance?

In the Latin west, the king or Lord often financed the building of churches directly, so that he had authority to appoint its ministers was important. I am not about to retro-actively condemn St. Constantine for his own appointing and dismissing of the bishops, indeed, the cry of the early church apologists to have the state establish Christianity as the state church of Rome is the basis of this thinking. Such curbed the tyranny of the papacy and the Donation of Constantine (a forgery) was used as the basis to claim that the Pope of Rome had temporal authority over churches under the domains of the various magistrates. The Reformation attempted to critique this position on those same grounds.

This all being said, my respect for the seventh Ecumenical council is not without qualification as a Latin Christian, in the same manner that most of the predominantly Greek councils are likewise accepted with qualification, including Nicaea itself.

Furthermore, there seems to be failure to properly distinguish the evils of Simony on the one hand and investiture on the other in the seventh. The earlier councils condemned the former very early on, but not the latter.

annatar1914 wrote:Would this were so, I return to what Old Rome once was and no more! Her Glory was then in her faithfulness to Orthodoxy, not her later pretensions to rob Christ of His role as Universal Bishop.


I obviously agree with this.
#14937419
There was a lot of disturbing deal-making between the Spanish throne and the Pope that was designed solely to further the ambitions of the Pope in Italy while making highly unique and generally problematic concessions to the Spanish, giving their Church a far more "national" feel to it, at leas tmoreso than any other church that was there.

What is also interesting is that this lead to really good reforms within the Spanish church precisely because some decentralization of power that allowed the Spanish King to appoint Bishops actually resulted in better Bishops that were far more Catholic and better clergy in general.

Literally, all of this worked to reinforce my own ideas that the Orthodox church is the best Church because the model is the best model.

Of course, I have zero interest in getting into a verbal knife fight about this with other Christians -- we have far greater fish to fry in this age.
#14937565
VS, you said;

Well, I don't regard the conservative reformation as innovative at all, so.....


We'll get to that issue eventually :D ;)




i'm torn on this, but the investiture controversy also opened the door for clerical celibacy in the west and are hard to separate, after all, if the property is owned by the church, and priests are servants of the church, how are they are fulfill their obligations to their sons regarding inheritance?


Today is a different story anyway, but even now as in the past, Orthodox priests in the East have generally have had to hold down regular or semi-regular jobs, and sons who had an aptitude for the priesthood worked at a trade also, while those who did not had something better suited for them to do.

Involuntary celibacy in an entirely dependent priesthood encourages abnormal persons and psychologically maladjusted types to hide behind a cassock and should never have been a universal discipline in the West.

In the Latin west, the king or Lord often financed the building of churches directly, so that he had authority to appoint its ministers was important. I am not about to retro-actively condemn St. Constantine for his own appointing and dismissing of the bishops, indeed, the cry of the early church apologists to have the state establish Christianity as the state church of Rome is the basis of this thinking.


The Canons of the 7th Ecumenical Council and the earlier Apostolic Constitutions I mentioned that cover this problem are more aimed at national erastianism in which the secular ruler names or dismisses whoever he wishes over an enslaved local church, rather than the harmony that should prevail between Laity and Clergy on this issue.


Such curbed the tyranny of the papacy and the Donation of Constantine (a forgery) was used as the basis to claim that the Pope of Rome had temporal authority over churches under the domains of the various magistrates. The Reformation attempted to critique this position on those same grounds.


Orthodoxy fought this villainy as well, condemning Papism and the it's confusion of the temporal and spiritual swords

This all being said, my respect for the seventh Ecumenical council is not without qualification as a Latin Christian, in the same manner that most of the predominantly Greek councils are likewise accepted with qualification, including Nicaea itself.


And this is why most Latins (Papists being the first Protestants, so both should be combined as one spiritual phenomena) are de facto Arians and Nestorians as well as Pelagians to this day. But we can get to that also :D

Furthermore, there seems to be failure to properly distinguish the evils of Simony on the one hand and investiture on the other in the seventh. The earlier councils condemned the former very early on, but not the latter.


Well, because Western Orthodoxy was dying, and being replaced, the Ecclesiology gradually changed along with everything else. There was no reason for the Pope of Old Rome, Patriarch of the West, to accept the ''Donation of Pepin''. But the true Catholic Faith, she patiently allows time before heretics and schismatics are cast outside the Ark of Salvation, as when the Iconoclast heresy was condemned it took almost 200 years before Iconoclasts were finally cast out. Same as happened with Papism. By then, Investiture was a full on concern of that new church, which had been solved by the old.



I obviously agree with this.


Interesting times, my friend, interesting times. With a lot of work to do on the part of men of good will.

They though he was going to give a great speech th[…]

CFO of Huawei arrested in Canada

My iPad was a gift so my kids and grandkids could […]

If God disrupts a WH press conference, can the eve[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

If Trump actuallly understood Economics, he would […]