sparrow

Ted sounds ignorant on these issues but it's interesting to read
  
ecofash is a specific thing but I think authoritarian primitivism seems coherent and stands in contrast to the anarchist primitivism which is often attempted to be inseparably linked; what I would argue is I mean I think authoritarian primitivism is an alternative he is not understanding as a possibility or is purposely deflecting from this fact (of which ecofash is a subset)
  
I think some of them are against tech entirely so #1 would be wrong
  
also with #2 in his explanation, it would just suggest that an authoritarian primitivist view is globalist in orientation, or would have to forcibly prevent the development of tech in some other society or societies
  
anprim kind of has the same globalist problem or orientation that unless everyone is anprim, someone might start developing or overdeveloping tech
  
idk what a Christian view of tech should be, maybe tech in moderation? too much tech is leading to an anti-Christian materialism. but too little tech might not help us as much as we are able. I think Christians might have a lower time preference in contrast to atheists who believe this is the only life so they want maximum tech now, some of them, where Christians might be take it or leave it in their attitudes.

> it goes back to 1666
 
Hmm, what do you have in mind going back this far? I've thought jansenism might have been set up as a heresy to then push the opposite heretical reaction, of strict going to loosening the rules. Also there were relaxations of opposition to interest on loans. There seemed to be a weakening over time but no overt embrace of heresy that I could find. But Vatican 2 didn't happen overnight.
 
I take the sedevacantist view and reject the SSPX / sedeplenist viewpoint, although certainly they're in agreement on many other issues.
 
And yes the (latin) mass was also suppressed. I have just been posting continually on all the things that were changed to try to get people to question it. To me getting rid of Prime seems in some ways like a pretty big deal like the suppression of mass. It's basically getting rid of the discipline of prayer of the clergy, which would seem to open the Church up to spiritual "attack". To anyone watching it just should look like a giant red flag. All these changes don't look like "genuine" developments but red flags with no real purpose but destruction, or at best being random changes.

ahh, well, that gives some rationale to it

the destruction of the nude statues is not surprising, as they are considered indecent by the Christian West and were made in presumably pagan Rome / Greece
 
and also because yes you would want your enemy to have a culture of physical weakness so you'd destroy statues that seem to show strength
 
also I think farming might require some strength so idk if that's going to make people weak necessarily

grilling is a centrist meme tho i thought
 
deradicalized, they just want to grill
 
some days with meat, some vegetarian

\> whiteopia

this disconnect is very real, I don't think these people seriously would believe that when asked this, but in the moment in day to day lots of people get caught up in thinking it's fine to do this or that thing

so if "uncle tom" means black race traitor
 
this site is like: "we don't need white uncle toms"
 
the concept of a white race traitor hardly seems to exist in popular culture

well, I think you understand the dilemma
 
"Unfiltered" free speech may drive away users and create an echo chamber. "Censored" but mostly open speech site may allow users to come who might agree with more filtered views, and then start to believe in unfiltered views.
 
there may be a place for either or both approaches. like arete doing whatever while scored allows less of whatever. or a site that filters commie or pro abortion posts as another alternative.
 
for example the "free speech" discussions site had a problem with people posting fecal pornography. I imagine that would drive away tons of regular people if it was "uncensored" posted everywhere on a site that was trying to cater to normies.
 
u/josephgoebbels

I'd like to see a modernized fork made of templeos, is anyone else interested? Any progress been made?
 
It's a public domain operating system. a lot of the other software licenses are leftwing (copyleft, like linux or bsd), or corporate (copyright, like windows or mac). kind of in a category of its own (more like copyfree)

they're just going the pragmatic route
 
it's not necessarily a bad strategy but is risky, they could start to get more traffic and then be tempted to push out freer spech to maintain popularity
 
or they could be trying to softly discourage it initially in order to grow and then there would be padding to absorb allowing it more
 
basically it's questions about normie management

without having read it the impression I get is whatever government that exists, it should be based on Catholic principles. but i do't recall this implying the necessity of monarchy to the exclusion of other systems. unless you want to consider republicanism and othe systems as a kind of monarchy as there's frequently a single leader, like there being a president in the U.S. or even in anarchy there are private organizations frequently with one leader like a CEO

Aquinas on usury: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm
 
> On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:25): "If thou lend money to any of thy people that is poor, that dwelleth with thee, thou shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner, nor oppress them with usuries."
 
> I answer that, To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. In order to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain things the use of which consists in their consumption: thus we consume wine when we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kin is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. On like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury.
 
Since it is "selling what does not exist", this forces the production of new items to fill this need. It's basically the "creation" of debt. If a person is loaned a car, they can give the tangible car back, it is an actual thing. If a person is loaned a car with interest, the interest does not actually exist, it is a fiction (until someone uses labor to creat something to then make the thing a reality). Likewise, "interest" on investments is different, because it is an actual thing. Like if you plant a fruit tree, kind of like owning a "natural stock", and it produces a "dividend" of fruit the next year, those are actual tangible goods / profits. Unlike, say, loaning a tree and then charging a certain percent of interest on the loan based on predictions of what fruit the tree may or may not produce (it may not produce anything, thus making the fictional interest "unpayable"). This kind of thing leads to distortions as actual production may be out of sync with fictional interest rates.
 
To me this is the heart of the problem with interest on loans, although I think I've seen other people argue there's some other problem which makes interest-bearing loans wrong.
 
The Biblical ideal is to loan without expecting anything back, like giving a coat away and not even expecting it to be returned, although in justice it could be asked that it be returned if necessary: "But love ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby" Luke 6:35

This is kind of another unresolved question in the "sedevacantist" world: how far back does the vacancy go? The common agreement is Pius XII as the last pope, which I agree with.
  
A few others put it as far back as Pius X.
  
Then of course there is the eclectic example of RJMI who believes there have been no popes since the 1100s.
  
I do think some attention should be given to resolving these questions. Although I think the common view of Pius XII as the last pope prevails.
  
Anyway, Leo XIII did speak positively of the founding of America, or at least called Washington "great": https://the-american-catholic.com/2009/02/22/pope-leo-xiii-on-america-and-george-washington/
  
Therefore most sedevacantists would have to defend this as being acceptably Catholic, or at least not heretical.
  
So I guess then the question would be why this would be considered to be heretical? Would you accuse the American government of being a kind of condemned liberalism, as in the "liberalismisasin.com" book? I'm not sure if any Catholics really at that time had argued such an opinion though. Therefore I think the prevailing opinion is that the American form of government is lawful, whereas something like Communism is not. Catholics are allowed to have a wide range of political views, so long as they are not condemned views - not everyone has to believe monarchy to be the best form of government, for example.
  
So I guess I'd ask for more unpacking of this claim of Leo XIII allegedly being an heretic and about the implications of this.
  
Such accusations are made against other such popes in the past like by "Our Lady's Resistance" and "Mike4Dogma" online I believe (examples of those who believe the vacancy goes back to Pius X, I think)
 
edit: so to refute RJMI's view, to be clear I'm not just dismissing just because it's a different view. He claimed that popes since 1100s were heretics because of allowing non-Catholic gods to be painted in churches, of allegedly glorifying philosophy and pagan philosophers, or allowing indecent images to be painted in churches like the Sistine chapel. I argue these do not constitute heresy or apostasy: to the first, even the Bible mentions false gods, and art in churches often was used to educate the illiterate, hence it would not be a sin to depict false gods. I have also been concerned with the quoting on pagan philosophers, however if you read the substance of scholastic writing like with Aquinas, he found things that were true that pagan philosophers said and rejected that which was opposed to Christianity. Hence I also think this was not a charge that stands of proving apostasy. And lastly, it is conceded that indecent imagery has circulated in art, even religious art. The Sistine chapel's nudity was painted over, and then put back on display by the Vatican 2 modernists. Ultimately even if this was wrong, it would be sinful, and not a heresy or apostasy. I believe this same process of collecting and working through objections would probably happen with the popes from before papal claimant "John XXIII".