Re degredation of religion, there's a good quote from the Lectures on Faith which connects the requirement for religion to be rigorous to salvation:
"""
Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God.
"""
If we do not sacrifice our all to God, i.e. if we aren't willing to give up whatever we want to do and pursue what God wants us to do, then we will not generate the faith necessary for salvation. Religion must be rigorous, otherwise it is useless.
When I think about my friends and family who walked away from the Faith, I have a hard time blaming them. They were presented such a lame and accommodating version of it that there's really not much point. Incredibly sad! We've got work to do to make things right.
Good stuff. Reminds me of Marcus Aurelius's comments on taking responsibility. To quote Professor Michael Sugrue's summary:
"Stoicism takes the position that the wise man (the good man, the philosopher) is a man who lives in accordance with nature. He fears only abdicating his moral responsibility."
We too should fear abdicating our moral responsibilities. We cannot blame our circumstances (internal, e.g. genetic predispositions, or external, e.g. environment we were raised in, choices others make which affect us) for our **choices** (though these certainly affect our *options* available, they do not affect which choice we make between those options). We **must** take responsibility ourselves, never blaming another for our mistakes.
Brief word on ozempic, patients gain most of the weight back after they come off of it. And I have yet to find research that shows whether that little bit of weight that stays off is muscle or fat (none of the research even thinks to consider that, which is a huge mistake).
Is this an egalitarian age? Sure, the need to dress for success has gone away, but grovelling and following the leader has gone up.
And today, the parties of the Right are the parties of farmers, truckers, and carpenters. Yeomen, not elite.
The Left is no longer promising equality. It is promising an elite that will take care of everyone as long as they Obey. "You will own nothing and be happy." Very serfy.
Reminds me of Alan Walker's song, [Lily](https://youtu.be/hdonNbzHHXE). In it, there's this demonic figure chasing after the protagonist:
"""
It told her, don’t you worry just
Follow everywhere I go
Top of all the mountains or valley low
Give you everything you’ve been dreaming of
Just let me in
Everything you want in gold
gonna be the magic story you've been told
And you’ll be safe under my control
Just let me in
"""
The demon offers "everything you want, in gold", promises her life will "be the magic story you've been told", promises she'll be safe; but this all comes at the price of letting the demon in, which gives up your control to it.
This is the price of abdicating responsibility: If you blame others for your actions, you can let in demons (e.g. pornography) which take control over you. It seems gilded and rewarding, but in reality it destroys you from within.
So too with the WEF's promise of safety and happiness at the expense of losing your freedom. If you surrender your agency to the demon, it may give you the seeming goods of safety and short-term pleasures, but at the price of more enduring goods.
I don't agree with all of this, but your main point, about reverse democratization, is true and extremely important. For some reason, everything seems to be conspiring to increase inequality in much the same way that Tocqueville thought everything was conspiring to reduce it. Times have changed, 180°.
And you're right about in noblesse oblige too. We need to get past the myth of equality of opportunity, and re-embrace the idea that the fortunate, the virtuous, the noble, can recognize their superiority, but avoid taking full credit for it, and treat it as a warrant and a mandate to be of service to others on a grand scale.
This was a favorite point of mine from C.S. Lewis's essay on Chivalry: with a classless society such as ours in the USA, there's no standard of goodness people look up to (as people would look up to the Queen of England as a standard of etiquitte, poise, etc.), so the danger is that everyone falls to the lowest common denominator.
We must resist the backward treadmill of life and run forward!
I would even go as to say that the nobles aren’t obliged to do just good for the masses but lead them to the truth. The truth being Christ and salvation. It’s the city of god vs the city of man.
Well, for one thing, I think the negativity about obesity is kind of exaggerated. It's good to stay fit, but to be a bit overweight isn't a huge barrier to virtue.
I'm more concerned with the loss of the tradition of the virtues, as diagnosed by Alasdair MacIntyre. Are you a fan of a MacIntyre. If you haven't studied his writings, I recommend him highly.
"Thanks to decades of predatory policies and a total absence of leadership, the normies are degraded and suffering—and will need actually noble people to guide and look out for them. Noblesse oblige must ride again, if we are to build anything better in place of the current ruins."
Is this why you made your debut in politics?
"This means opportunities for you, Anon!"
What kind of opportunities? This article points out the rise of influence and power for the elite class at the expense of the average joe, and I assume most people reading this are not in positions of power. Isn't that contradictory?
The responsibilities of the nobility are clearly laid out here, but what are the social obligations of average, everyday people in our times? Is it simply a matter of taking religion more seriously and being physically fit? Surely there's more to it than that.
btw, "casual religion" is such a great phrase. It describes boomer Catholicism quite well. That's where I would still be if it weren't for traditional societies of apostolic life and the TLM.
Re degredation of religion, there's a good quote from the Lectures on Faith which connects the requirement for religion to be rigorous to salvation:
"""
Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God.
"""
If we do not sacrifice our all to God, i.e. if we aren't willing to give up whatever we want to do and pursue what God wants us to do, then we will not generate the faith necessary for salvation. Religion must be rigorous, otherwise it is useless.
When I think about my friends and family who walked away from the Faith, I have a hard time blaming them. They were presented such a lame and accommodating version of it that there's really not much point. Incredibly sad! We've got work to do to make things right.
Good stuff. Reminds me of Marcus Aurelius's comments on taking responsibility. To quote Professor Michael Sugrue's summary:
"Stoicism takes the position that the wise man (the good man, the philosopher) is a man who lives in accordance with nature. He fears only abdicating his moral responsibility."
We too should fear abdicating our moral responsibilities. We cannot blame our circumstances (internal, e.g. genetic predispositions, or external, e.g. environment we were raised in, choices others make which affect us) for our **choices** (though these certainly affect our *options* available, they do not affect which choice we make between those options). We **must** take responsibility ourselves, never blaming another for our mistakes.
Brief word on ozempic, patients gain most of the weight back after they come off of it. And I have yet to find research that shows whether that little bit of weight that stays off is muscle or fat (none of the research even thinks to consider that, which is a huge mistake).
Great piece! This needs to be explored more.
Thank you kindly 🙏🏼
Is this an egalitarian age? Sure, the need to dress for success has gone away, but grovelling and following the leader has gone up.
And today, the parties of the Right are the parties of farmers, truckers, and carpenters. Yeomen, not elite.
The Left is no longer promising equality. It is promising an elite that will take care of everyone as long as they Obey. "You will own nothing and be happy." Very serfy.
Reminds me of Alan Walker's song, [Lily](https://youtu.be/hdonNbzHHXE). In it, there's this demonic figure chasing after the protagonist:
"""
It told her, don’t you worry just
Follow everywhere I go
Top of all the mountains or valley low
Give you everything you’ve been dreaming of
Just let me in
Everything you want in gold
gonna be the magic story you've been told
And you’ll be safe under my control
Just let me in
"""
The demon offers "everything you want, in gold", promises her life will "be the magic story you've been told", promises she'll be safe; but this all comes at the price of letting the demon in, which gives up your control to it.
This is the price of abdicating responsibility: If you blame others for your actions, you can let in demons (e.g. pornography) which take control over you. It seems gilded and rewarding, but in reality it destroys you from within.
So too with the WEF's promise of safety and happiness at the expense of losing your freedom. If you surrender your agency to the demon, it may give you the seeming goods of safety and short-term pleasures, but at the price of more enduring goods.
I don't agree with all of this, but your main point, about reverse democratization, is true and extremely important. For some reason, everything seems to be conspiring to increase inequality in much the same way that Tocqueville thought everything was conspiring to reduce it. Times have changed, 180°.
And you're right about in noblesse oblige too. We need to get past the myth of equality of opportunity, and re-embrace the idea that the fortunate, the virtuous, the noble, can recognize their superiority, but avoid taking full credit for it, and treat it as a warrant and a mandate to be of service to others on a grand scale.
This was a favorite point of mine from C.S. Lewis's essay on Chivalry: with a classless society such as ours in the USA, there's no standard of goodness people look up to (as people would look up to the Queen of England as a standard of etiquitte, poise, etc.), so the danger is that everyone falls to the lowest common denominator.
We must resist the backward treadmill of life and run forward!
Love the Lewis reference!
I would even go as to say that the nobles aren’t obliged to do just good for the masses but lead them to the truth. The truth being Christ and salvation. It’s the city of god vs the city of man.
Which parts do you disagree with?
Well, for one thing, I think the negativity about obesity is kind of exaggerated. It's good to stay fit, but to be a bit overweight isn't a huge barrier to virtue.
I'm more concerned with the loss of the tradition of the virtues, as diagnosed by Alasdair MacIntyre. Are you a fan of a MacIntyre. If you haven't studied his writings, I recommend him highly.
"Thanks to decades of predatory policies and a total absence of leadership, the normies are degraded and suffering—and will need actually noble people to guide and look out for them. Noblesse oblige must ride again, if we are to build anything better in place of the current ruins."
Is this why you made your debut in politics?
"This means opportunities for you, Anon!"
What kind of opportunities? This article points out the rise of influence and power for the elite class at the expense of the average joe, and I assume most people reading this are not in positions of power. Isn't that contradictory?
The responsibilities of the nobility are clearly laid out here, but what are the social obligations of average, everyday people in our times? Is it simply a matter of taking religion more seriously and being physically fit? Surely there's more to it than that.
btw, "casual religion" is such a great phrase. It describes boomer Catholicism quite well. That's where I would still be if it weren't for traditional societies of apostolic life and the TLM.