Eastern schismatics depend on their State overlords

Saw it during Covid. People are embarrassing

Bro is firing shots at Vatican 2 every chance he gets 😂

Monarchy that is hereditary would be damaging to a Christian society.  There’s no guarantee that a wise king will beget a wise son.  We have humongous historical for this case.

More like the market

The claim that an Orthodox Christian state would protect society from tyranny overlooks the long historical record showing that combining religious authority with state power can itself enable persecution, coercion, and suppression of dissent. Replacing a secular state with a Christian one does not solve the problem of unchecked authority; it simply changes who claims the moral right to exercise that authority.

This entire system proposed by Jay Dyer is flawed because it ultimately confronts a fundamental question: who gets to speak for God when God is not physically present to settle political and legal disputes? A monarch, bishop, or church hierarchy claiming that its laws represent divine will can become extremely difficult to challenge precisely because political authority has now been given sacred justification.

An Orthodox Christian state therefore contains the same potential for tyranny that he attributes to secular government—and potentially an additional danger when rulers can portray opposition to themselves as opposition to God. I and millions of others would never support such a terrible theocracy.

Making a quick buck of the sinking titanic

The state is nothing but a cheap theif and swindler.

Jay Dyer for President

Everything changed for me when I began defining masculinity precisely AS defined sexual potency. Masculinity is distinguished sexual potency, or, if you like something more on the nose, particularized sexuality.

I had always been concerned with developing my theory that the democratization of sexuality IS Feminism. In other words, since it aims at equality of the sexes, seeking thus to blur any lines of distinction between its polar forms, I thought it might be fitting to simply reduce things down to the formulaic "Feminism is a force for Homoarchy, or total sameness of all sexual potency." This would seem fitting if you consider that you can have a Patriarchy or you can have a Matriarchy, or you can try to have both, but you'll just end up with neither in the form of Homoarchy. This equality between the sexes always results in Homoarchy, or a society in which all the vibrancy and vitality and generativity of high voltage sexual polarity has been snuffed out, leaving only "degeneracy" in its wake. But increasingly I'm beginning to see the error in my thinking about sexual polarity. I used to think masculinity was just one well-formed and defined sexual potency, and that this was to be contrasted with "Feminity," its own separate and well-defined "thing." What I'm starting to see, however, is that Feminity is almost by definition undefined sexual potency. Now I can see that sexual potency is rendered masculine the moment it begins to be expressed in clear terms, and since femininity contrasts with masculinity on the basis of whether it is clearly expressed, you come to a point of realizing why masculinity and homosexuality are so anathema to each other. It's not just the normal revulsion of two men making out or performing sexual acts on each other; it's actually something deeper, down at the very conceptual level in which masculinity and homosexuality are hostile to each other and very much mutally exclusive. An associative analysis like this can really open your eyes to why women are usually so much more congenial to gays and why it would not be completely wrong to categorize femininity as a species of homosexuality. Masculinity cannot exist on a continuum; only femininity can do that, which is the masculine and feminine are less polar than you might realize. feminity and homosexuality are polar extremes of a continuum, whereas masculinity is, by its very definition, DISCRETE SEXUAL ENERGY.

You could actually read books that would answer this question like the deliberate dumping down of America or the curse of Canaan leaning in on a talking Heyer is a foolish mistake that too many people are making right now reading the intellectuals of the 20th century there are no intellectuals in the 21st-century only grifter. But to answer the question, the reason why America is degenerate now in western civilization, is due to an old strategy of cultural Marxist subversion perpetuated by the elite oligarch banker class.

the state actually feeds the poor. your god doesn’t. if god wanted good in the world there would be more of it but hey don’t worry once saved always saved .

Notbmy god my god is the lord