Except, I'm not talking about leftards, I'm talking about conservatards who believe Communist or Christian ideology who claim their ideology isn't rooted in leftism and claim every nation is dies in that ideology wasn't "real x" but all the nations that survived are "real x"
I don't give a shit about what reddit tankies say, I give a shit about what the actual Chicoms say cuz they are the ones actually running the country.
Go up to them and ask them about why they would be communist despite it being a destructive ideology, they'll the same shit.
"That wasn't real Communism, real communism is the People's Republic of China and we are thriving therefore Communism works and is proof that Communism can be a foundation of great societies"
With commies, I've found this is 50-50. Sure there's absolutely a lot who insist that it wasn't real Communism when a commie state goes under. Plenty others, however, who will argue endlessly that ackshually they were doing a heckin' real Communism there and just got done in by the machinations of the evil capitalist world, not any real failure of their own.
With Christians? No way. I've never heard of anyone arguing that Christian states failed because they weren't 'really' Christian. Certainly I've never once seen anyone, neither the most retarded Groyper tradcath nor raghead nor fedora tipper, make the insane pitch that the Kingdom of Jerusalem (for example) failed because it wasn't 'really' Christian or insufficiently faithful. Nobody says that about the Byzantines either to bring this back to the original topic, in fact the fall of Constantinople & the last stand of Emperor Constantine XI remains one of the most celebrated & lamented tragedies to both faithful Christians (Orthodox most of all obviously, but it's not like Catholics or even many Protestants don't get sad about it) generally & Greeks specifically from the late medieval/early renaissance period, and in spite of their final failure and demise Constantine & his troops are well-regarded as Christian heroes to this day.
I'm aware that Britain and the US are not 100% lassez-faire Capitalist.
I don't see what that has to do with my point? I am not talking about heavily specific policies that the countries run on.
I am just saying there are many instances that retarded ideologies and systems can start out retarded and change into something that's workable and functional which creates the illusion that it "works" and it's not a retarded ideology.
Communism is dying because true Communist countries that stay true to Communist ideology are dying and the only ones remaining are the ones that work.
That's my only point.
My point is, again, that
your point is so ridiculously broad it ceases to have any meaning.
Every single religion and secular ideology alike has to adapt to function within the realities of our world, to use this as the measuring stick with which to judge Christianity is foolish since it's a test nobody else can pass either. It would be far more reasonable to judge each ideology/religion by their fruits & how much they had to deviate from their core principles to adapt to the world, and by
that metric, Christianity comes out well ahead of Communism & really most of its competitors (became the spiritual backbone of kingdoms & empires that lasted for ages & conquered almost the entire known world by 1900, motivated huge numbers of soldiers & martyrs to heroic deeds, inspired numerous scientists, as said spiritual backbone the societies it animated were among the least niggerish in world history, etc.).
How would it not? Islam is about killing yourself many other people to die in heaven and be rewarded with 72 virgins. It's the religion of killing other people in the name of Allah if they do not convert to Islam and basically being a doomsday death cult even more so than Christianity.
If someone is less murderery, and less radical about being willing to kill other people to convert them to your religion, you are less of a Muslim because you are deviating from the core rhetoric of the religion.
The same way that someone who is like "I favor capitalism but I am okay with a few exceptions like having universal healthcare, or putting some regulations on companies destroying the environment or whatever is less of a Libertarian than someone who is a straight up anarcho-capitalist who believes in a 100% laissez-faire capitalism and free trade with no adaptation to realities of respective situations.
Sure, you can say that is retarded and insane, but it is the "realest" version of Libertarianism than the common "I wanna lower taxes and still support some universal healthcare" Libertarianism lite.
Another example of how someone can be more of a "real libertarian" is if they think the moon landing is fake, because Libertarianism is basically hating anything the government does
Islam is killer deathcult, if some Muslim politician decided to make his Muslim society stray from the violent doctrine of Islam and turn his country into a "kumbaya, we are a religion of peace and we support le coexistence with other religions cuz peace man" version of a muslim society.
He is fundamentally less Muslim, even if he reforms his society to something more functional and better than being a shitty deathcult that stones people for objecting to worshipping a man who married a 9 year old.
Would it be a better society? Sure, but it is essentially less muslim. Than "real Islam"
Feminism is saying men and women are the same and there is no difference between them and it's all just social constructs.
But then there are terfs who claim that Feminists who support troons are "not real feminists" and that the terfs are the "real feminists" despite the fact that 2nd wavers laid the foundation of troonery when they said that any difference between man and women expressed in society like gender roles and norms were social constructs.
This lead to the idea that gender is a social construct which led to troonery since gender being a social construct is basically permission for someone to put on a skirt and call themselves a girl because "it's all just a social construct so why stop me from calling me a girl?"
And of course, women on this site love to lecture about how feminists supporting troons is "not real feminism" when it's completely ass backwards.
Real Feminism is hysterical women screeching about patriarchy and wanting to deny any existence of gender differences between men and women to the point of supporting troonery, the more you deviate that by not being a gender deconstructivist and not supporting troonery, the less of a feminist you are even if you are more sane because of it.
And it's literally the thing they always use, "That example of X is not real X because that led to bad things, but the version of X is real because it led to good things." it's the same exact argument that every person who supports shitty ideology and doctrines who don't want to admit that they are inherently shitty ideologies and doctrines use and you are not an exception.
First, refer again to what I said above about how literally every religion/ideology out there has to adapt to function IRL and how this is such a broad net that it won't catch a thing if you toss it into the sea, essentially. Second - yes, hewing more closely to Islam's roots and core principles will fuck your shit up. So will hewing more closely to the core of feminism, and this is evidenced by the trainwrecks that societies which
do do that turn out to be, from Pakistan to Sweden and pockets of America.
Hewing more closely to core Christian principles, however, has historically been shown to make societies more successful (ex. Protestant work ethic for industriousness or Catholic fervor for battlefield success) and less shitty for the people living in there (ex. post-Roman serfs in the medieval Christian kingdoms still lived better than their ancestors did as slaves on Roman
latifundiae, this has actually been proven by
more recent archaeological studies which determined that childhood malnutrition went down & people got a lot taller in the centuries after the WRE fell, something which even Christian-hating Romeboos on Reddit have to consneed). It is of course impossible to attain Christian perfection & by extension, to establish a 100% unwatered-down/unadapted Christian state in this fallen world, as anyone who has cracked open the Bible or the works of any Christian thinker in the past 2000 years should know. But this trend vs. the trend for what societies turn out to be when they try to embrace Islam, feminism, state atheism/Communism, etc. should go a long way to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over the latter.
Any ideology can "adapt" to become the "founding cornserstone of successful and long-lasting kingdoms/nations because "Ideologies" and religions don't create things.
- The descendants of those successful kingdoms/nations that you are thinking of are in decline.
- China is now on its way to becoming a superpower.
Whenever the Soviets made any new innovation in the nuclear arms race, they often love to credit "Muh communism" for the fact that some mathematician in that worked in their space agency was able to come up with the right equations to make their missiles fly.
When the Chinese probably start making rapid advancements in AI technology faster than the West, they are going to credit the communist party because their computer scientists were intelligent enough to code in and program the AIs to make them even better than Grok or something.
Whenever the UAE makes yet another ridiculously big and expensive resort hotel skyscraper, or an update to their weather manipulation system. Muslim scholars there love to credit "Islamic values" for the fact that their engineers were able to calculate the right equations to make the buildings stand.
Religions or Ideologies do not create things, people do. If I went back in time to the Roman Empire right when Christianity began to surface and instead preached Pastafarianism, all those "successful and long-lasting kingdoms/nations would have remained largely the same except Pastafarianism would be their state religion.
And we would be having the exact same conversation except you would be praising Pastafarianism as the "cornerstone of many successful and long-lasting kingdoms/nations"
It's retarded to assume you can make a long-lasting and especially a prosperous society out of just any ideology or religion. You sure as fuck can't do that with Islam or feminism or Communism, as abundantly demonstrated already, the way you can with Christianity. And not only is it presumptuous to claim you could totally build a functioning society off of Pastafarianism, the construction of a new society on a fedora-tipping 'enlightened' parody of Christianity & more traditional religions has already been attempted:
the French Cult of Reason. Wanna know how long they lasted? I'll save you the necessity of reading even the Wikipedo article I just linked, it failed in one fucking year.
