The Global Realignment Continues

img-2013535
So, this weekend I was out in the sticks, and I returned from my holiday to nowhere to find Senhor Bolsonaro to have won the presidency of Brazil.

Naturally, the dishonest media is calling him “The Brazilian Trump,” and forecasting their own demise. It’s a shame their predictions never come true.

There is a historical cycle that capitalist societies go through. In the first stage, things get more and more decadent as people vote themselves increasing levels of privilege. Eventually, those same people who asked for the life-without-working awaken, horrified, at the danger to their children. They then create the most masculine government they can manage.

If the people are successful, then the masculine government rapidly burns out all the pillage and excess and corruption in their society. At this point, the people find all those rules boring, and go back to asking their capitalist masters to manage their lives for them again.

Case in point: UKIP, after Brexit.

Brazilian society is now at the apex of dissatisfaction with the pointlessness that is commodity capitalism. They’ll be grateful to a Bolsonaro government that imprisons the rich commodities traders and throws a few entitled pseudoleftists out of random helicopters. Eventually, these same people will have the luxury of electing more libertarian overlords, and the cycle will repeat anew.

Truly, people get what they deserve. The people of Brazil have a strongman now. History suggests that he’ll do a good job and then be cursed by the same people who begged him to serve.

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

35 thoughts on “The Global Realignment Continues”

  1. It’s always funny when people look at a particular moment and think “This is it. This is the future” without realizing that such cycles occurred. We’re always hearing that “This is the most important election of your life!!!” and about the death of such-and-such a party or ideal or something. Let’s see how Senhor Bolsonaro does.

  2. Seems like the more decandant society becomes the more criminal behavior takes off.

    Eventually people get fed up with evil people not getting justice and good people not doing anything about it.

  3. Eventually people get fed up with evil people not getting justice and good people not doing anything about it.

    Very surprising to see you express such sentiments, which presuppose that people are born good, the majority is inherently good, and that it is only a tiny minority of evil people who are fucking everything up.

    Very Marxist of you. lol

    I’m of the opinion that everyone in a society which has slid to this level is ultimately at fault. Everyone likes the idea of living at the expense of his neighbor.

    One thing Marx espoused that was absolutely true was his homo faber ideal. Human beings were born to work. We take great satisfaction in our ability to improve our environment. Without work, people become disenchanted.

    The challenge to the Bolsonaros is to engineer the necessity of work, in order to meet man’s psychological and creative needs, while keeping people from being overworked and exploited, which triggers the death-drive fantasy of living without working.

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/1967/end-utopia.htm

  4. Besides Uncle Karl would never get on a cross of his ethos to prove the validity of it.

  5. “‘Very Marxist of you. lol’ Well if they actually follow Christ….Besides Uncle Karl would never get on a cross of his ethos to prove the validity of it.”

    Have you considered becoming a Hutterite? They are what happens when you mix communism and Christianity. It’s a win-win. Not only do they follow a man who died on a cross, they also have died standing up for their beliefs, murdered by Catholics and Turks. Their stance of marriage is quite traditional.

  6. Have you considered becoming a Hutterite?

    You asking me or Earl?

    I grew up with Hutterites. They’re nice people. I suppose I could convert to the religion, but one can’t really “join” an ethnic group.

    They are what happens when you mix communism and Christianity. It’s a win-win. Not only do they follow a man who died on a cross, they also have died standing up for their beliefs, murdered by Catholics and Turks. Their stance of marriage is quite traditional.

    The Hutterites often bend their rules about military service. Some of the Hutterites from Cardston area are in the CF, and at least one is a mountie. With that in mind, why didn’t you guys ever form your own state? It would at least give some of you a place to run to when the Turks and the Cats start killing y’all again (and they will – give them time).

  7. “You asking me or Earl?”

    Earl…but it was half a communism joke. There is no way he would actually do it. The Amish are a solid choice too. You can get a good wife, make good money with a good career, and you don’t have to live in the middle of nowhere.

    “…why didn’t you guys ever form your own state?”

    The first time it was tried, it ended poorly. The early Anabaptists that embraced violence got weeded out pretty quickly. By the time the movement settled, non-violence became core doctrine in almost every sect.* It’s one of the things that separates the Anabaptists from the Baptists. So to answer your question directly, it’s really hard (i.e. impossible) to start your own state without using violence. But there is another limitation (see below).

    I got into an internet discussion about voting and government participation. I claimed that Christians shouldn’t bother to vote and that holding public office is incompatible with Christianity. My antagonist wondered how governments could survive if no one voted. Without going into the reasoning, this led to an interesting observation:

    If Christians stopped voting and non-Christians were all converted, government would simply cease to be a thing. It would be a theocracy. The Hebrews never had a ruler until God gave them one (under protest). They had judges and leaders (~elders), but no king but God. Jesus shunned political leadership. Paul said that our responsibility to government was to be good citizens, not rulers.

    The natural and logical conclusion to Anabaptist theology is a theocracy with a semi-authoritarian hierarchical leadership structure (committees of elders rather than a dictator) within a proto-communist society. I find it immensely interesting that this is also the logical conclusion of Mormonism (at least as far as I understand it). Also interesting is how Catholicism flipped the script.

    “The Hutterites often bend their rules about military service. “

    * The Anabaptists have become increasingly liberalized along with the rest of Christianity. In the late 1800s they were splitting over Sunday School and whether it was OK to attend higher education. Today they are splitting over gay ministers and gay marriage. I would imagine the Hutterites justify their actions by allowing certain forms of self defense, even in service of the government. Still, it’s quite a change from choosing to go to their deaths in Alcatraz in 1918/1919 rather than to serve even in non-combatant roles.

  8. Earl…but it was half a communism joke. There is no way he would actually do it.

    I think Earl would make a really good priest, and seminary is something he might actually do. He has a calm demeanor and can simply tell people what’s what, without ever seeming to get upset or devolve into mocking his critics, which is very priest-like. If he’d do it, I’d totally go watch him lecture at least once a week.

    Of course, he’s a heterosexual, which probably disqualifies him.

  9. “Well if they actually follow Christ….”

    But that’s the problem. This world offers ten million lies but only one truth. People get fed up with crony capitalists so they embrace socialism, then they call for a dictator to rescue them from the Soviets, then they run away into the boonies to be left alone, then they send their kids to the cities so they can have a future, then a crony capitalist makes them a really great deal… like blind men feeling their way though a knife factory.

    What’s really happening is people want to believe in a Somebody who will magically fix their problems without crimping their lifestyle.

  10. ‘They are what happens when you mix communism and Christianity.’

    Mind you communism at its heart is atheistic in nature (or the state is the god). Can’t mix the two anymore than eating at the table of demons and being a Christian.

  11. ‘I think Earl would make a really good priest, and seminary is something he might actually do. ‘

    I did visit one a year ago…didn’t really get a call but I liked the discipline there. Some of the seminarians would ping the gaydar but of course I didn’t want to find out if that was true.

    ‘Of course, he’s a heterosexual, which probably disqualifies him.’

    I get the joke but just try to counter the homo loving priest or the ‘alleged’ homo priests and they are just as thin skinned and adverse to anything representing an obstacle as the flaming homo or male feminist you might know down the street. We need more celibate hetero priests just due to the fact that we need more masculine men as clergy.

    Fr. James Martin, SJ(W) is the most known example of a homo loving priest. And he’ll block you if you even hint at the fact sodomy has always been a sin.

  12. Celibacy is a discipline…and rather than removing disciplines for the clergy (and men in general) men need them back. A lot of effeminacy is not wanting to do any self-denial or mortification. If you can’t at least practice go through adversity you won’t have the stones to go through it when it happens.

  13. “…didn’t really get a call but I liked the discipline there”

    Perhaps your call is to be a priest to the heathens and heretics on the internet. You don’t get any of the benefits: wear the frock, take the official label, or deal with people who are not contrary. Misfits like Boxer or myself see you as their priest. Following God’s call is sometimes funny like that.

    “Mind you communism at its heart is atheistic in nature (or the state is the god). Can’t mix the two anymore than eating at the table of demons and being a Christian.”

    Boxer says you have a calm demeanor, but your words (like this) carry fire.

    You are correct that atheistic communism (and socialism too) is evil. This fact has, IMO, tripped up many Mennonites, including those familiar to me (running against an Amish-born congressman…will wonders never cease?). However, as I’ve argued here and elsewhere, many people can’t comprehend that non-Marxist and/or non-atheist versions of communism can exist, despite the historical evidence of their existence. For example: Cane Caldo (see my absolute favorite takedown by Boxer… I’m still laughing). Both socialism and communism have been tried successfully in the Christian setting.

  14. ‘Boxer says you have a calm demeanor, but your words (like this) carry fire.’

    They do…I was paraphrasing St. Paul.

    https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-21.htm

    ‘Both socialism and communism have been tried successfully in the Christian setting.’

    I doubt that was socialism or communism…were the Christian settings being forced by their overlords to do it (mainly for the overlord’s benefit) or did they do it out of the kindness of their hearts to be more like Christ?

    That’s how I would view the difference…is it an act of free will or being forced by someone to do it with some sort of veiled threat…(or to the grandest extent the gulag like Stalin would do).

  15. “I doubt that was socialism or communism”

    And so it goes: socialism has never been tried and communist countries are not actually communist. If Boxer, the resident expert on the subject, wishes to point us to a definitive definition, I’ll consider that. Until such time, I’ll consider these terms to be fluid and applicable.

    “…were the Christian settings being forced by their overlords to do it (mainly for the overlord’s benefit) or did they do it out of the kindness of their hearts to be more like Christ?”

    The answer to this question depends on which side of the aisle you are on. When the Catholic church excommunicated or executed heretics, did it do so because they were a threat to the overlords or out of obedience to Christ? The difference is that the Anabaptists are non-violent by doctrine.

    Do you consider observance of the sacraments something you are required to do or do you just do it out of the kindness of your heart? The difference between “forced to” and “out of kindness” is not so simplistic.

    The success of all government systems, be they socialist, communist, democratic, republican, monarchical, authoritarian, or theocratic, depends on the qualities of its rulers and its peoples, especially their motivations and choices. This is true irrespective of government organization. So you can pick up a history book and read about successes (the communist Hutterites; the socialist-capitalist Amish) and failures (the Mennonite support of Nazism). You can see how the overlords (or is it Christ-loving elders and bishops?) effectively use excommunication.

    “I was paraphrasing St. Paul”

    Indeed, I had noticed. It’s ironic that you would quote that in light of our doctrinal dispute (Consider the Hebrews: do the sacrifices they eat mystically turn into chunks of the altar?).

  16. ‘The answer to this question depends on which side of the aisle you are on.’

    So which side of the aisle are you on?

  17. If Boxer, the resident expert on the subject, wishes to point us to a definitive definition

    Communism is defined simply by collective ownership of the means of production.

    It has certainly been tried before. At the beginning of human history we had no money and no bosses. Each man found a niche, making things of value, and traded them with his neighbor.

  18. “So which side of the aisle are you on?”

    On the right side of the aisle, of course, where all the male Anabaptists and Catholics sit.

    Joking aside and more to the point: the side of Christ. But my joke and your question does allude to my point. If the pope declared that Acts 4:32 was the normative ideal and we should all pool our possessions and live in communes, then it wouldn’t be evil. If people did it out of Christ-like obedience, it would be successful (history confirms this). The theoretical possibility highlights that there is nothing inherently wrong with collective ownership of the means of production.

    On the other hand, the Catholic abuses highlight what happens when Christ-like obedience is abandoned in “Biblical” theocratic systems of government.

  19. ‘On the other hand, the Catholic abuses highlight what happens when Christ-like obedience is abandoned in “Biblical” theocratic systems of government.’

    Well from what I read even the Protestants went all abusive on you guys because the group wouldn’t submit to secular governments either.

    So if you don’t submit to church or government authority who do you submit to? Christ established the church and God established governing bodies.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13%3A1-7&version=ESV

  20. “Well from what I read even the Protestants went all abusive on you guys because the group wouldn’t submit to secular governments either.”

    Sounds plausible. We’ll let you set up your own church but if you don’t participate in the civil gov’t either then pissiness is in the forecast. Nobody likes being colonized.

  21. “You guys almost sound like the libertarians of Christianity.”

    This is off the mark. Catholics and Anabaptists are not as different as you might think. Anabaptists are authoritarian, just like Catholicism. Certain rules of behavior must be adhered to and infractions are dealt with harshly. Excommunication is quite effective. This is how divorce is eliminated.

    Man’s rules result in bondage and oppression, while God’s rules result in freedom and liberty (e.g. rules of sex and marriage).

    Consider the Amish practice of barn raising. The labor is unpaid and mandatory (What system does that sound like?). It is also an act of love and Christian fellowship.

    “So if you don’t submit to church or government authority who do you submit to? Christ established the church…”

    The church (Greek: ecclesia) is an assembly or congregation: it is the whole body of believers together for civil or religious purposes. The church does not submit to its own authority. Jesus instructed Peter to build a body of believers for worship and/or civil independence. That body submits directly to Jesus and his authority.

    “God established governing bodies.”

    Yes. All of them, in every size and shape, from the God-fearing theocracies to the Christian-murdering authoritarian regimes.

  22. I doubt that was socialism or communism…were the Christian settings being forced by their overlords to do it (mainly for the overlord’s benefit) or did they do it out of the kindness of their hearts to be more like Christ?

    The Hutterites I lived around were really interesting people. It was explained to me that they modeled their society after a bee hive. The minute they said this, I realized we had stolen some of our communist ideas from them (this is our symbol too.)

    Everyone owns everything in common. When resources get scarce, they somehow figure out how to divide the group up, and the collective farm purchases a new plot of land, and those chosen go there and start the process over. They always have big families, so this happens every couple of generations. The Hutterites who lived near Cardston were originally a colony that came from Saskatchewan.

    There are secular Hutterites, and some Hutterites who join the CF and the police, and some of them live in town. People describe it as shunning, but they don’t seem to have hard feelings. If someone doesn’t want to live the order (our word, but they do it) they don’t really run them off. They help them get a job and buy a house, and people stay cordial.

    Whether this is accurate for all of them or not I don’t know. I just know the ones who live near my ancestral home.

    Incidentally, the town where my family is from is sorta interesting. You can tell the difference between the Hutterites and the Mormons pretty much by sight, in less than a second. There’s a third ethnic group, who are first nations / “indians”. The kids generally mix well on the basketball court until puberty, but nobody ever intermarries or dates outside their own group.

  23. ‘ Jesus instructed Peter to build a body of believers for worship and/or civil independence. That body submits directly to Jesus and his authority.’

    He gave Peter as the leader of His church, authority.

    https://biblehub.com/matthew/16-19.htm

    ‘ The labor is unpaid and mandatory (What system does that sound like?). It is also an act of love and Christian fellowship.’

    So what happens if a rebellious Amish doesn’t want to do it? Why not just call it Christian fellowship…instead of tainting it with the secular idea of ‘communism’. It wasn’t like Uncle Joesph was kindly encouraging the Ukraine farmers to produce their fields for the believers of Christ.

  24. @Boxer, re: Hutterites

    Living in Amish country on the East Coast, I’ve never met a real Hutterite, only read about them, their history, and general Anabaptist beliefs. Yet despite the hundreds of years of sect development, they sound similar to the Amish, Mennonites, or Church of the Brethren I might find around here (e.g. family oriented and hard working). You can tell an Amish and Old Order Mennonite by sight (the buggies give it away too).

    “Shunning” is another word for “excommunication”. It’s based on Matthew 18:15-35 (which I quote often). Anabaptists are big on forgiveness, so cordiality is expected. Technically those who are shunned are to be treated as “a pagan or tax collector”, but balanced against forgiveness. Those who leave voluntarily wouldn’t need to be shunned. The severity of the shunning is presumably based on the severity of the unrepented sin. In some sects, a family would refuse to associate with (or even talk to) a family member who got a divorce and remarried. It’s not all that different from the historical use of excommunication (and banishment) by the Catholic church and without all the burning, hanging, and drowning.

  25. “So what happens if a rebellious Amish doesn’t want to do it?”

    It doesn’t happen. It’s also why divorce is so rare among conservative Anabaptists. A rebellious Amish or divorced Mennonite is a former Anabaptist. If they are especially lucky, their families will still talk to them.

    “Why not just call it Christian fellowship…instead of tainting it with the secular idea of ‘communism’.”

    Part of masculinity is not being ruled by feelings. The history of communism’s use and the feelings attached to it fill people with dread, but there is nothing actually scary about the word. The word communism has a specific meaning and that meaning applies to this situation, so the word is used.

    Keep in mind that many progressive Mennonites self-identify as communists or socialists precisely because of their faith.

  26. ‘Keep in mind that many progressive Mennonites self-identify as communists or socialists precisely because of their faith.’

    Then why don’t they identify as Christian…since that is their faith?

    That’s why this whole aisle thing and titles are important. I get a facet of the Christian faith is loving your neighbor as yourself.

  27. “He gave Peter as the leader of His church, authority.”

    Nobody ever denied that the body of believers has people who take leadership positions, but those leaders are not the church. The authority of the church is in Jesus. The leaders reflect this or else they are cast aside.

    Your confusion lies in your misunderstanding of the Rabbinic system, of which Jesus was a part. “Keys to the kingdom” is an idiom representing nothing more complicated than God’s authority. The “binding and loosing” is also not complicated. It is the interpretation and explanation of God’s law. This is what leaders in a church do, they guide their flock through interpretation and explanation of God’s commands.

    But there is a more subtle point. The “to be” verb used in Matthew 16:19 (and Matt. 18:18) is future passive periphrastic, not the simple future tense. So “whatever you bind on earth must have already been bound in heaven” is a proper rendering. The only authority granted to leaders of the church is to declare that which God has already done. Anything else exceeds their authority.

    In short, it is the permission to speak in God’s name. When a rabbi passed the torch to his disciples, he granted them the authority to do what he did. This is what Jesus did.

    Peter was the foundation of the assembly. He job was to preach the gospel and make disciples, for this is how the assembly is built: one person at a time. Indeed, Peter was basically the first convert to Christianity, its first leader, and the first to bring in converts. The promise was fulfilled.

    So back to the original point. Anabaptists need leaders from a logistical standpoint, but their authority comes from Jesus. This is not unique to leaders, but to all believers. Your concern…

    “So if you don’t submit to church or government authority who do you submit to? Christ established the church…”

    …just reflects a misunderstanding of what “church” means, where authority comes from, and the purpose of that authority. Church leaders are just metaphorical “agents of the state” (state = God).

    “Then why don’t they identify as Christian…since that is their faith? That’s why this whole aisle thing and titles are important.”

    Not really. I identify as a parent, a photographer, a (former) Wikipedian, a Christian. Labels are just labels and you can have many. Titles don’t matter either. Nobody cares if I have a Masters of Science in Pretentiousness at XYZ University.

  28. ‘Labels are just labels and you can have many.’

    I see you don’t get it.

    A person can call themselves a ‘Communist Christian’ or a ‘Feminist Christian’ all they want…when the rubber meets the road you’ll see which side they’ve actually chosen.

  29. A person can call themselves a ‘Communist Christian’ or a ‘Feminist Christian’ all they want…when the rubber meets the road you’ll see which side they’ve actually chosen.

    Collectivizing the means of production, and eliminating class distinctions: it’s all so devilish. Here’s Jesus’ own apostles to tell us that money and capital is godly, and that socialism is “a Jewish plot, hatched by Satan to destroy Christianity” (quoted verbatim from some goon over on Dalrock’s comment section):

    44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

    45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

    46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

    47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

    Seriously: what is it about this concept that triggers you so? Communism is a way (one way, of many) through which people self-organize socially. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the spiritual life. The Hutterites live in a worker’s state, but they all pray together also. It’s not too much different from a monastery, if monks were allowed to have families.

  30. You guys almost sound like the libertarians of Christianity.

    I know you mean this as an insult, but there’s really not too much difference between Ayn Rand’s objectivism and Marxist-Leninist philosophy, other than a temporal shift.

    Recall that Lenin forecast the withering away of state power as workers became more and more autonomous. The Soviet ideal was every family being pretty much autonomous, and answerable only to their own neighborhood or small-town council. Ayn Rand (who grew up in the Soviet Union) simply wrote away the revolutionary tendency and projected Americans as living in the socialist paradise already.

    If people would have just behaved as the Leninists and Randians think they should, and done good things without being prodded by the threat of starvation or imprisonment, we’d be living in their paradise right now.

  31. ‘Seriously: what is it about this concept that triggers you so?’

    Because without God in the concept the only people who benefit are those leading the socialism or communism. It unleashes greed…everyone’s production goes to people like Hugo Chavez and his family.

  32. Because without God in the concept the only people who benefit are those leading the socialism or communism. It unleashes greed…everyone’s production goes to people like Hugo Chavez and his family.

    You’re presupposing that Chavez didn’t get elected until all the people who voted for him renounced God. What evidence do you have of this?

    I suppose Derek will join you in disagreeing, but I think it’s perfectly possible for people to join a political party and still maintain their faith in the divine. I know very religious Christians and Jews who also vote in elections. I would never assume those people were hypocrites or what-not.

Shout!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.