The Postwar Consensus is why evil is tolerated

[com7fy8]

Yes, I should not generalize that all racists hate the group they are racist about.

Even if ones don't actively hate ones of another group, are they loving them as themselves?

And Jesus does say >

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

Of course, ones of groups subjected to racism can themselves love only or mainly ones who love them, including ones they hope to use. And racists can accept ones they use.

One time, a Ku Kluxer woman was trying to keep a woman from getting her kid into a school, maybe it was. And the woman was in tears.

The Ku Kluxer said she repented, because she did not realize she was hurting the black woman so much.

Where I have been in church, ones have been concerned about interracial conflict. One guy contacted black friends for advice.

And we have been involved in trying to correct shackers

So . . . we have Jesus peopje who take on whichever problem comes along. And we emphasize growing in Jesus and how He has us loving any and all people unconditionally.

 

[lifepsyop]

Yes, I should not generalize that all racists hate the group they are racist about.

Even if ones don't actively hate ones of another group, are they loving them as themselves?

And Jesus does say >

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

You haven't really defined what a racist is yet, so it's hard to understand what you're talking about.

Your concepts of love and hate are also confusing.

Would you say that one is passively hating other children of the world if they show preference to their own biological children? That seems to be what you're implying?

The analogy is that an ethnic group, people with a shared history, shared traditions, etc. look to the health and well-being of their homelands before trying to help foreigners. This is also known as an "order of loves" ... you love your own children before loving other children.

Everyone, including yourself, naturally lives this way. You would immediately find it very wrong to not show some love preference to those most close to you in your life, both physically and those you share history or blood ties with. Does that mean that you "hate" other people? I would say clearly not, unless the words "love and "hate" are going to lose all meaning.

Of course, ones of groups subjected to racism can themselves love only or mainly ones who love them, including ones they hope to use. And racists can accept ones they use.

You seem to be generalizing again. And in your view, what exactly is a racist?

 

[com7fy8]

You haven't really defined what a racist is yet, so it's hard to understand what you're talking about.

Well, since each of us can be so unique, plus so complicated that you could not define each of us . . . since God's ways are "past finding out" (in Romans 11:33) and therefore each of us is made with God's ways which can not be figured out and defined, possibly . . . may be, then, we can not perfectly define a racist since we can not define each person who is racist.

lololololololololol

What matters, in any case, is how Jesus on the cross suffered and died for every one of us. He loves us equally and evaluates us according to our hearts, by the same measure. Yet, we can define and judge people according to their outward stuff, and based on only outward stuff we can see people as being not equal to love equally.

"'Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.'" (John 7:24)

So, now that I think of it, racism has to do with judging people according to what is outward, then using that to decide how we treat people. And racism has people using the same measure for all the people of a certain ethnic or racial group, without considering how Jesus has come for all of us to be adopted by God.

So, they are not having hope for any and all people equally to become adopted as God's own children!!

But instead they stay humanly attached to, at best, loving their own kids, yes, as you have said . . . in limited loving.

So, of course, non-racist can do the same basic thing; so therefore it can be maybe not possible to define them totally separately.

 

[lifepsyop]

So, now that I think of it, racism has to do with judging people according to what is outward, then using that to decide how we treat people. And racism has people using the same measure for all the people of a certain ethnic or racial group, without considering how Jesus has come for all of us to be adopted by God.

So are you okay with the idea of recognizing these two things:


1. All people of all races/ethnicities are open to the salvation offered by the cross of Christ, and the actual Church body should be open to all people.

2. Races and ethnicities do indeed have distinct differences and average patterns of behavior, most importantly shared histories, cultures, and traditions, and each of them has a right to preserve and defend those if they desire to, without necessarily being forced to mix together.


The 20th century religion of the Postwar Consensus enters in when you cannot possibly imagine both of these points being true.

In the Postwar Consensus mind, #2 is a blasphemy/heresy, and to reject the ideology of the Open Society/Ethnic Melting-Pot is the ultimate sin, just as bad as denying the salvific power of the cross itself.

 

[com7fy8]

So are you okay with the idea of recognizing these two things:


1. All people of all races/ethnicities are open to the salvation offered by the cross of Christ,

All may be saved, but many can be against Jesus. So, not all members of each group are open to salvation.

and the actual Church body should be open to all people.

Yes . . . 1 Timothy 2:1-4 says to pray for all people because God desires all to be saved.

2. Races and ethnicities do indeed have distinct differences and average patterns of behavior, most importantly shared histories, cultures, and traditions,

How can any of us speak for each of the more than seven billion people on earth, so we can say this is true or not??

My opinion is that each individual is very different than anyone else. However, there can be cultural copy-catting so ones seem more alike than they really are; this false identification can be used for harvesting blocs of votes!

But I have seen how a child from one group can be adopted and grow up to copy-cat the ways of the adopting group.

Did you see that film about the baby human who for a while lived with only exposure to the behavior of a chimpanzee baby? I'll bet any baby from any group would have done the same thing.

I have seen how two adopted Chinese girls grew to be able to talk about candy in the foolish way that white American kids can.

In order to prepare dogs to protect sheep, they can keep the dogs growing up with the sheep so they think they are sheep.

and each of them has a right to preserve and defend those if they desire to, without necessarily being forced to mix together.

I agree that you do not have to change to mix with how somebody else is copy-catting. But with Jesus so creative . . . better than any cultural copy-catter - - - we can do better loving than any cultural group can. Mixing outward culture is only outward. We have seen how a predator in a church can put on the religious acting of a group and even become a priest or pastor and many can't tell the difference; so outward conforming is vain and can be dangerous.

so, we can be wise not to give ourselves to protecting and maintaining what is vain. But discover better with Jesus.

So, I say every person needs to get deeper than one's own superficial history and cultural upbringing which give the person only superficial identity. And grow in Jesus and how He has us loving.

But do use what you have, for education and customs, when this can help for loving with communication.

The 20th century religion of the Postwar Consensus enters in when you cannot possibly imagine both of these points being true.

It seems I do not imagine **either** to be true. People can take sides and both can be wrong . . . or vain.

In the Postwar Consensus mind, #2 is a blasphemy/heresy, and to reject the ideology of the Open Society/Ethnic Melting-Pot is the ultimate sin, just as bad as denying the salvific power of the cross itself.

Conforming outwardly can be a trick for being able to control a group. And the ones controlling are inferior to God.

 

[lifepsyop]

so, we can be wise not to give ourselves to protecting and maintaining what is vain. But discover better with Jesus.

correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're saying ethnic groups are vain? well, relative to what? everything on earth is temporal of course, but it almost seems hateful to disparage a people group for the mere act as existing as a nation or ethnic group.

are nations and laws and national borders vain? or do they help facilitate the good with temporal order?

Paul called the Cretans liars, but he didn't discourage them from the mere act of being a particular people.

Both the Jew and Greek are One in Christ, but, short of worshipping false gods, that doesn't mean they must cease to be their own people with their own customs and ways of life, any more than we cease to be male and female after we've accepted Christ. Indeed, to do so would cause a great deal of chaos, strife, and violent disorder across the world. (Let's not forget that it was God who created distinct nations in the first place)

So, I say every person needs to get deeper than one's own superficial history and cultural upbringing which give the person only superficial identity. And grow in Jesus and how He has us loving.

It is true that we do have a deeper identity in the truth of Christ and his eternal kingdom, but this doesn't mean a people are evil for wanting to maintain their identity as a people.

so yes, let us agree we can always get deeper to eternal truth of who we are in Christ, as long as we can also agree that a particular people (be it culture, ethnicity, race, etc. ) are not sinning for wanting to preserve their identity.

Christianity disappears and the 20th century Postwar Religion takes over a person when they look at a place like Japan and say "they are evil for wanting to remain ethnically Japanese" ... or as you might say "vain" ?

As Christians we might rejoice if all of Japan accepted the Gospel,

but that victory would be extinguished if we attached the Postwar Religion onto the Cross and demanded the Japanese not only accept Christ, but also open up their borders to completely ethnically dissolve themselves. That is a sick religion of the 20th century atomized liberal order, an order that despises all ethnic particularity.

 

[com7fy8]

In 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 our Apostle Paul says >

"I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

So, I see from this, that Paul would use people's cultural ways in order to reach them for Jesus . . like how Jesus came in a human body in order to reach us.

And by sharing in cultural activities with our neighbors of our ethnic groups we can reach them.

But do not do this in a vain way.

"He who loves his life will lose it," Jesus says in John 12:25.

 

[lifepsyop]

In 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 our Apostle Paul says >

"I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

So, I see from this, that Paul would use people's cultural ways in order to reach them for Jesus . . like how Jesus came in a human body in order to reach us.

And by sharing in cultural activities with our neighbors of our ethnic groups we can reach them.

But do not do this in a vain way.

"He who loves his life will lose it," Jesus says in John 12:25.

but surely, in the meantime, you do not advocate for the destruction (i.e. forced splitting / mixing ) of ethnic groups do you?

 

[bèlla]

Why are you so concerned about ethnicity? All is inferior to the gospel. That is our identity. Labels are a reflection of the old but we’ve been borne anew. I find these fixations disturbing and an impediment to the kingdom.

~bella

 

[com7fy8]

but surely, in the meantime, you do not advocate for the destruction (i.e. forced splitting / mixing ) of ethnic groups do you?

no

 

[FireDragon76]

I think this is reductionistic. Postwar liberalism actually didn't tolerate pornography being widely available in society in general.

Pageau has some interesting ideas but I am afraid he is in danger of moving in a reactionary direction. Perhaps not as dark as Julius Evola, but when he seems to gloat over the collapse of liberalism, I think he's making a profound error that shows a misunderstanding of what truly makes something like the Bible or Christianity meaningful, and is a kind of moral and spiritual blindness. Grail Country recently had an episode that discussed something like this from a Christian POV. Liberalism is a huge improvement over the past in many ways, even if it isn't completely unproblematic. Nobody would want to actually live in premodern Europe or America.

 

[FireDragon76]

And now, since the 1960's onwards, that sexual objectification through pornography is openly celebrated as freedom. That was certainly not the case for several centuries prior, where sexual immorality certainly exited but had to be confined to the shadows for the most part.

Pretty much a disaster for Christian PWC (Postwar Consensus) defenders. It's hard to imagine a more worse off situation you could have put men, women, boys, and girls into. The deleterious effects are difficult to even put into words, they are so far reaching.



That's a difficult subject, but I think your claim that black Americans are doing better now in the year 2025 than they were say in 1925, is highly, highly questionable.

It's not difficult. It's a fact that African Americans today enjoy more safety and security in their rights than in 1925. The 20's was still the era when lynching was not rare in much of the US, and in many states Blacks were denied the right to vote de facto.

 

[lifepsyop]

Why are you so concerned about ethnicity?

And you are not concerned about it?


I'm more concerned with our society's obsession with policing thought related to ethnicity.

As I explained in the original post, to have the wrong opinion regarding race/ethnicity is quite literally our new blasphemy codes.

There are many problems with this, but the main one is that Christians no longer care about traditional sins nearly as much as they care about the new 20th century, post-WW2 "sins", mostly concerning the subject of race.

All is inferior to the gospel. That is our identity. Labels are a reflection of the old but we’ve been borne anew. I find these fixations disturbing and an impediment to the kingdom.

~bella

I agree, we have a very unhealthy obsession with the subject of Racism and worrying about whether or not someone is expressing the wrong opinions regarding the subject of race. We need to stop fixating so much on it.

 

[bèlla]

And you are not concerned about it?

No I’m not. But I don’t feel endangered or fear I’ll be replaced. Maybe that’s the issue we should discuss?

I'm more concerned with our society's obsession with policing thought related to ethnicity.

Do you honestly believe that’s the lone area of policing or is it the one that concerns you most? I can name others that are more egregious and dangerous in the long run. It’s a mechanism for division. Nothing more or less. If you ignore the other side of the tactic you can‘t counter it effectively. When times are good a button goes ignored. But when things tighten it has a greater effect. The American Dream is evading many who thought they’d have it or more. That’s the issue. The other tentacles are pricking the sore spot.

There are many problems with this, but the main one is that Christians no longer care about traditional sins nearly as much as they care about the new 20th century, post-WW2 "sins", mostly concerning the subject of race.

Race is one of many problems we’re wrestling with. God lays different burdens on our hearts and we should seek to understand the reasons behind a position instead of viewing one another adversarially.

~bella

 

[lifepsyop]

I think this is reductionistic. Postwar liberalism actually didn't tolerate pornography being widely available in society in general.

No, but it was the generation that grew up in Postwar liberalism that began steadily breaking down all those barriers to degeneracy and immorality.

Pageau has some interesting ideas but I am afraid he is in danger of moving in a reactionary direction. Perhaps not as dark as Julius Evola, but when he seems to gloat over the collapse of liberalism, I think he's making a profound error that shows a misunderstanding of what truly makes something like the Bible or Christianity meaningful, and is a kind of moral and spiritual blindness. Grail Country recently had an episode that discussed something like this from a Christian POV. Liberalism is a huge improvement over the past in many ways, even if it isn't completely unproblematic. Nobody would want to actually live in premodern Europe or America.

Most people are entirely focused on their individual desires, and that is what Liberalism offers them.

You've lost any shred of resemblance of a cohesive God-fearing community, but you now have the freedom to sit in your bedroom and play videogames and watch pornography all day. That is Liberalism. God willing, may it be utterly obliterated in our lifetimes.

 

[lifepsyop]

No I’m not. But I don’t feel endangered or fear I’ll be replaced. Maybe that’s the issue we should discuss?

I'm glad you don't feel endangered, but surely you have no problem with other people who might feel that way and decide they want to preserve their ethnic/racial identity?

Do you honestly believe that’s the lone area of policing or is it the one that concerns you most? I can name others that are more egregious and dangerous in the long run.

Not the lone area, but the most focused on, or around the subject of race.

You don't believe that peoples' thoughts related to race are heavily policed in our society?

It’s a mechanism for division. Nothing more or less. If you ignore the other side of the tactic you can‘t counter it effectively.

I agree that racial issues are a mechanism for division. We have an entire political/media/academic industry built around the politics of stoking resentment towards the evil "supremacist" tendencies of one race in particular. That engineered resentment is a perpetual barrier to any hope of peace in a society.

Race is one of many problems we’re wrestling with. God lays different burdens on our hearts and we should seek to understand the reasons behind a position instead of viewing one another adversarially.

~bella

So you are okay with people having different views on race than you do? Some people may like the idea of mixing races/ethnicities together, some people may want to preserve their own race/ethnicity. Either view is okay, right?

 

[lifepsyop]

It's not difficult. It's a fact that African Americans today enjoy more safety and security in their rights than in 1925. The 20's was still the era when lynching was not rare in much of the US, and in many states Blacks were denied the right to vote de facto.

how was the health/stability of the average black family comparatively?

do you think things have gotten better the more democratic the country has become?

 

[bèlla]

I'm glad you don't feel endangered, but surely you have no problem with other people who might feel that way and decide they want to preserve their ethnic/racial identity?

How was that done in the past? In my recollection it involved marriage, reproduction, a strong family unit and community. If you’ve chosen to do otherwise and succumbed to worldly teachings that eradicate the above you must accept responsibility for your mistakes and correct them.

Not the lone area, but the most focused on, or around the subject of race.

You don't believe that peoples' thoughts related to race are heavily policed in our society?

I think it’s one of many and we often see the thing we prioritize. Since race is yours you’ll see it more often than others.

I agree that racial issues are a mechanism for division. We have an entire political/media/academic industry built around the politics of stoking resentment towards the evil "supremacist" tendencies of one race in particular. That engineered resentment is a perpetual barrier to any hope of peace in a society.

We cannot be indoctrinated when the foundation is sure. That begins at home and lays the groundwork for furtherance in adulthood. It’s unwise to permit our mind to move unilaterally. Life is rarely black and white and multiple things can be true simultaneously. There are several things underway to erode our peace. No one puts their eggs in one basket when masterminding demise. You use several methods that are custom designed for the groups you’re targeting.

So you are okay with people having different views on race than you do? Some people may like the idea of mixing races/ethnicities together, some people may want to preserve their own race/ethnicity. Either view is okay, right?

Difference is a fact of life. Some ideologies concerning race are anti-christ and others are less harmful. No one is prevented from doing the things that build strong bonds and healthy cultures. Others do it within the country without complaint. I invite you to explore the groups who adhere to the principles noted earlier to accomplish the goal. Perhaps you can learn from them and apply the same. Asians have the highest marriage rate and the lowest rate of divorce and a strong culture.

~bella

 

[lifepsyop]

How was that done in the past? In my recollection it involved marriage, reproduction, a strong family unit and community. If you’ve chosen to do otherwise and succumbed to worldly teachings that eradicate the above you must accept responsibility for your mistakes and correct them.

I agree with you, but I notice you avoided my question.

If some people consider the preservation of strong families/communities to also coincide with some aspect of racial/ethnic preservation, I am assuming you have no issue with that?

I think it’s one of many and we often see the thing we prioritize. Since race is yours you’ll see it more often than others.

Race is one of many, but probably at the top of policed subjects. I think I'm more reacting to a collective obsession with policing appropriate views on race.

I think people like to say "why do you care so much about it?", and then when you scratch the surface you find out they themselves are quite obsessed with a singular view on the subject of race and they are uncomfortable with any deviation.

We cannot be indoctrinated when the foundation is sure.

That's true, but our foundation is not sure. Look at the state of our communities, virtually everywhere. The church checked out of trying to maintain a good and virtuous society a long time ago.

Difference is a fact of life. Some ideologies concerning race are anti-christ and others are less harmful.

Sure, wanting to hurt or kill other people is very anti-christ, but that has been known for thousands of years.

But wanting to preserve one's ethnic group, and have the freedom to live around and associate with one's own ethnic group as Christians of all types have done for millenia, surely you wouldn't call that anti-christ would you?

No one is prevented from doing the things that build strong bonds and healthy cultures.

Try rallying your church to organize politically to improve the health of your community. You'll find the church leadership is very quick to prevent this.

Others do it within the country without complaint. I invite you to explore the groups who adhere to the principles noted earlier to accomplish the goal. Perhaps you can learn from them and apply the same. Asians have the highest marriage rate and the lowest rate of divorce and a strong culture.

~bella

Well, some Asians, such as Japanese, also have a very strong degree of ethnic cohesion.

So can I assume you would be okay with a European ethnicity doing the same thing?

 

[FireDragon76]

No, but it was the generation that grew up in Postwar liberalism that began steadily breaking down all those barriers to degeneracy and immorality.



Most people are entirely focused on their individual desires, and that is what Liberalism offers them.

Desire is not the problem. Life is not the problem. That is where many religious people, Christian or otherwise, go off the rails. It's called spiritual bypassing. The true spiritual life is about transfiguring and transforming our desires, not repressing them.

You've lost any shred of resemblance of a cohesive God-fearing community, but you now have the freedom to sit in your bedroom and play videogames and watch pornography all day. That is Liberalism. God willing, may it be utterly obliterated in our lifetimes.

Liberalism never mandates that people do that. That's the result of personal freedom divorced from ethical responsibility. But liberalism isn't inherently opposed to ethics, even religious ones. It simply won't carry water for authoritarian religious impulses. Nor should it.