Comments by "Voryn Rosethorn" (@vorynrosethorn903) on ""But how do you know you're right?" - Objective Theory of History" video.

  1. The truth is only subjective from the perspective of universalism, this is a trick the socialists use to whataboutism all specifics when it comes to their ideology. It is true that human knowledge is fallible and limited and that we are restricted within our perspective, however all this means is that our view is an extrapolation of our perspective and the wider influences that shaped it, such perspectives are shared in the same sense that the interests of groups are shared. Sure according to the ridiculous moral standards of a leftist evil was good and good evil, but you aren't a leftist and you don't hold to their perspective. The problem with debate is that it is decided by assumed values underlying the whole thing, in a very real sense it is the practice of sophistry more than of logic, debates based on logic have clear definitions and don't entertain. From the perspective of the universe who know's what the standards of anything are, but from the standards of Christianity, Islam, Liberalism and other dogmatic belief systems it is quite clear, the world follows on from the logic of those beliefs, they certainly lead to different results but ultimately the clash of such beliefs is the evolution of human civilisation and thought. The point western civilisation went wrong was thinking that it's beliefs were universal truths separated from the assumptions underlying them, the problem is everyone else thinks what they think is true and once you have abandoned your mooring that can easily be pointed out and used to attack your confidence in the existence of truth, or subverted to justify the desires of people with malicious intentions who in a society built on principles rather than self-confidence would find the reactions to their actions rather bothersome. In the same way that animals evolve so do societies, the more successful society is the one that dominates in the harshness of reality, the reason we have been having trouble in the west is that state power has been used to force socially damaging ideas on the society through mass education and media, prior to the enlightenment societies were composed of many autonomous communities of shared loyalty, if the centre went mad the peripheries would grow in prominence due to continuing successful structures, in time the power balance would be shifted to them. Group ideas are very largely how things move as humans usually go alone with their wider setting, the pervasiveness of the modern state is likely why individuals are now the main points of resistance, but without wider organisation this small nodes of resistance do not have much ability to perpetuate their ideas, let alone threaten the power of the state. The internet has revolutionised thought, but not the social bonds necessary to put it into action. As I see it our only path is a return to Christianity, the source of the western perspective, and the forming of families and communities outside of the current regime, and so perpetuating their own beliefs generationally, given that liberals don't have kids the main problem from that point is dealing with the likely shattering of the European identity by mass immigration in the wake of the inevitable collapse of liberal governments (which like the Soviets persist by consuming), basically we get to look forward to a return of the dark ages, hopefully the monks preserve as much this time round. Of course individual states could take a different path and be left as a power among ruins, but they are globalist and wig so I don't think they want to or can even accept the problems as they are.
    1