a ''return'' to traditionalism, a rejection of ''communism''... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14938805
Hello friends,

Years ago, I decided to basically take my leave for this forum, having decided at the time that I had nothing further to say, since I had completed my transition from a rather right-wing and frankly reactionary outlook on life to thinking as something of a Left-wing ''Christian Communist''.

But that never really took. By the time I returned to the forum, a certain irony dawned on me that I had nothing much to say this time around because the illusion of the past few years has gradually fallen away from my being. A tree is known by it's fruits, and even allowing for exaggerations the ''tree'' of Marxist Leninism is bad beyond belief. No ideology born of extreme and pathological Anti-Theism can be right, whatever the evils of it's antithesis Capitalism are. I can't even call myself a ''Socialist'' at this point, it would be the lazy and easy way out. No more spiritual deception. The prayers of millions of martyrs have seen to that, Slava Bogu.

So, I've taken stock of what i've been believing all these years after my hiatus here, the journeys and impressions and I have come to be at peace with who and what I am. All this time no matter the ideological superficialities, I have always been;

1. A literal six day, young earth Creationist, in line with Scripture and the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Christian Faith.

2. Yes folks, I am also a Geocentrist.... I don't talk about it, it isn't subject to debate (nor is #1, above), it just is.

3. I have always been a Monarchist, a supporter of Orthodox Autocracy. Even as a ''Christian Communist'', I held to the seeming dichotomy of such a position just as did the ''Mladorossi'' of the 1920's and 1930's. But there's no reason for the political schizophrenia, I have rejected the Socialism for good.

4. I support private property and free enterprise, not without conditions and caveats, and there is a higher voluntary communal life possible, the monastic life, but that cannot righteously be compared to the damnable and secular attempts at ''Heaven on Earth''.

5. In fact, one will find i'm back to being about as ''reactionary'' in my traditionalism as one can get, not just in my politics or cosmology, but also in my attitudes on daily life, in morality and one's societal roles, etc... Orthodox Christianity as a full way of life the way it should be lived, in Christ Jesus.

Why? I've been a Lion, trying to convince myself that I was among these Goats, those Gaderene Swine of Marxist-Leninists... I won't be numbered among them. I was there, I saw what happened and what they did. They have only themselves to blame, but God and History will Judge.

Past is future, and I won't be numbered with the Losers. Sure, Capitalism has many evils associated with it, and my critique of it continues, but I realized that unlike Socialism, It is capable of modification, of producing a ''Third Way'' that is better for mankind than either Socialism or Communism.

And that calls to my mind another final point; Hierarchy, it's real and it's natural to the condition of life. The Cosmos is Hierarchical. No further egalitarianism from me. ''Star differs from star in glory'', while still remaining stars...

A. Faith

B. Family

C. Tsar and Nation

That's what I'm about, once more and forever. I expect to be a Terror here, to be sure.
#14938814
Albert wrote:Thank you for sharing your views. It was good to read them.

I just want to point out, I know these days some Christians believe you have to believe in creationism and stuff (as I see you are also geocentric) to be a real Christian. I hope you do realize that is not necessary right?


For a number of reasons (which as I stated I do not wish to discuss here) I do in fact believe that it is entirely necessary to believe in ''creationism and stuff'' in order to maintain a consistent and logical Christian worldview, goes to the credibility of Scripture and Holy Tradition (which based on the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ as it is, goes to His Personal Credibility which I rate as the highest.)

Believe me, I thought this all through, and held to it even when it seemed (and in fact was) inconsistent with what my heart was telling me was and is the Truth.

Your millage may vary. However, what I'm more interested in are the other aspects of my thinking, their political ramifications for one. And these are the things I wish to discuss.
#14938983
You mention the truth in your defense of the first two tenets. Its not worth debating. Its good that your views have coalesced, but you've said things I've recently agreed with. People like you have nothing to gain from talking politics with people like me. I honestly do like you and enjoy seeing your opinions on shit, but the liberal myth that we need to sit down and compromise on our deeply held beliefs is stupid. Contrary to the opinions of the LARPers on this board I don't want to see you put against a wall, but I do think you're wrong and want mostly the opposite of what you want.

Cheers to the struggle, bud.
#14939004
annatar1914 wrote:....I do in fact believe that it is entirely necessary to believe in ''creationism and stuff''


How old is the Earth? Did Homo habilis and Homo erectus exist?

in order to maintain a consistent and logical Christian worldview, goes to the credibility of Scripture and Holy Tradition (which based on the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ as it is, goes to His Personal Credibility which I rate as the highest.)


So you never read Crossan or Ehrman, or think you're a better authority than they are?


sivad wrote
kooky.


I just can't imagine a successful, future ideology harking back to medieval superstition and ignorance.
#14939008
To be a 'geocentrist', you have to be particularly egocentric. It means saying that you'll ignore all the work other people have done over a few centuries, like working out theories of gravity that apply generally, and say "no, the fact that many stars appear to move just the way they'd move if they were all pretty stationary and the Earth orbits the Sun is irrelevant; I feel that I don't move, and there must be more complicated forces in the universe that move everything else".

Or young earth creationism: its proponents feel that their chosen book of myths is all literally true, so that history, geology, dendrochronology, radioisotope dating, and ice cores have all been manufactured by an evil spirit to fool them into thinking that the age of the Earth is far more.

But it becomes hard to accept the judgement of anyone who thinks that way. If you value your sense of being the centre of the universe, or one particular set of myths, over actual facts, your advocacy on any subject has to be tested with "what evidence are you ignoring or hiding to try and make this look believable? We know you do that with simple science, so why wouldn't you do that with complicated ethical or ideological questions?"
#14939012
Albert wrote:Thank you for sharing your views. It was good to read them.

I just want to point out, I know these days some Christians believe you have to believe in creationism and stuff (as I see you are also geocentric) to be a real Christian. I hope you do realize that is not necessary right?


I am with you on this. There is no need to take Genesis literally because the meat and potatoes of Christianity is in the New Testament. Also most of those stories (from the early part of the OT) were adapted from older polytheistic religions (see the epic of gilgamesh),

Geocentrism is just an old science model that was originally formulated by an hellenic pagan anyway. The "infallible" papacy made a mistake tying their credibility to a science theory just as it was in the process of being discarded by a better model. It is wiser to be a bit flexible on cosmology.
#14939065
SolarCross wrote:There is no need to take Genesis literally because the meat and potatoes of Christianity is in the New Testament.


And the NT isn't full of issues? The vast bulk of it is pure invention, made up to "sell" jesus.

Geocentrism is just an old science model that was originally formulated by an hellenic pagan anyway.


Eratosthenes didn't buy it, but the church did.
#14939073
starman2003 wrote:And the NT isn't full of issues? The vast bulk of it is pure invention, made up to "sell" jesus.

It may be, I don't know, I am not really the right person to fight that corner but a story doesn't necessarily have to be factually true to teach something about how to be in life or provide a good example to follow; you will notice the great human interest in overtly fictional characters: Frodo Baggins, Spider man or Aesop's animal fables. I don't know what experience you have with everyday Christians but they are in my limited experience very decent people in the main, I suppose the promise of a better world after death is the bait for behaving so well in this life. Is that such a terrible thing?

starman2003 wrote:Eratosthenes didn't buy it, but the church did.

Sure and that was a mistake, it was a common mistake of the time though so the real mistake was hanging their credibility on it.
Last edited by SolarCross on 12 Aug 2018 19:54, edited 1 time in total.
#14939074
Dear Red Army, you replied that;

You mention the truth in your defense of the first two tenets. Its not worth debating.


I wouldn't say that it's not worth debating, as that I'm not putting it up for debate myself and so I wish to discuss other things. Kudos to you though for being the one so far who has managed to notice what I said, others curiously wish to ignore that...

I simply said in essence that I had those beliefs even through my ''Christian Communist'' phase, and will continue to do so. Now a belief which I also had (much as the socialist ''Mladorossi'' did) which is open for discussion is my belief in Monarchy, because while it does hold elements of the Sacred about it, is a political thing. I wish to discuss things which exist in the political realm.


Its good that your views have coalesced, but you've said things I've recently agreed with.


And you probably still will. I want to be a little more clearer in what I'm saying. I am still every bit as much of an Anti-Capitalist as I was before, and I think the Marxist critique of Capitalism is essentially correct in every way, but I have come to think that reaching Communism, short of a change in the human species itself, is impossible. And that which is impossible cannot exist. ''Socialism'', is in my opinion something that can exist, may even be more just, but perhaps is not worth the human cost. That to, I wish to discuss.


People like you have nothing to gain from talking politics with people like me.


I'm not sure about that.




I honestly do like you and enjoy seeing your opinions on shit, but the liberal myth that we need to sit down and compromise on our deeply held beliefs is stupid.


Thank you, friend. Funny thing is, I absolutely agree. My problem with Marxist Leninism is at it's core a spiritual one. I am an absolute Theist, and Marxist Leninism is at heart a Atheist undertaking. Now, strange thing perhaps, but I was a materialist in my theism prior to my Communist phase, and likewise remain so. To me, that which is real is also material in some fashion, perhaps not perceived or presently capable of being perceived, but still tangible and in existence spatially, capable of extension and division.


But much as I am a friend of Victoribus Spolia, a noble and insightful Christian, I cannot seem to conceive of George Berkeley's immaterialism as being right. Perhaps it is a failure of the imagination, but it is one failure (if it is so) that I share with people like John Milton and Tertullian, perhaps.

(As an aside politically speaking, on the subject of Victoribus Spolia, I do believe that we shall face the challenges of an increasingly Anarcho-Capitalist world as time goes on, so VS and his thinking needs to be taken seriously for sure.)

I say all this because while I'm not afraid to have my mind changed, I seem much to my own surprise to not have changed all that much. I'm a bit of a weird outlier politically and philosophically, much as I hate inconsistency, because to me reality appears to be more different than our systems can explain fully.

One may convince me of something being Just and Right, but I also think of Peace, which is also a good. What I have not been convinced of, yet, is Revolution. It too probably has it's place in the larger scheme of things, and in my mind I have a definite vision of Revolution and Counter-Revolution in a dialectic struggle that does not necessarily reflect a division between Good and Evil...


Contrary to the opinions of the LARPers on this board I don't want to see you put against a wall, but I do think you're wrong and want mostly the opposite of what you want.


That seems to be a internet phenomena, does it not, lol? And yet, these things do happen, and in the real world some things are worth fighting for, or against. You perhaps might be surprised on whose side I would be on, I think.

Cheers to the struggle, bud.


Cheers to the struggle, indeed, my friend
#14939077
SolarCross wrote:It may be, I don't know,


In fact, it's what mainstream scholars have been saying for a long time. Ehrman and Crossan reject miracle stories and just about everything else. I note for a long time Ehrman rejected Crossan's belief that jesus wasn't really buried in a tomb but eaten by dogs or other scavengers. But he conceded "that was before I really researched the matter."

I don't know what experience you have with everyday Christians but they are in my limited experience very decent people in the main,


Same probably true of muslims and others. Of course muslims are known for violence but christians have been violent since long before the inquisition or crusades.

I suppose the promise of a better world after death is the bait for behaving so well in this life. Is that such a terrible thing?


:lol: But the problem is, you can't, or shouldn't, base an ideology and way of life on phoniness. Inevitably, I think, people will abandon it. I can't believe some of these people who seem to think the catholic church will run the world of the future. Even now priests are a dying breed. Some people blame celibacy but that's not really it IMO. Seminary enrollment peaked around 1964 despite it. But now people are too well educated or materialistic to be willing to make such sacrifices for something that's becoming increasingly hard to believe or relate to.
#14939080
starman2003 wrote:In fact, it's what mainstream scholars have been saying for a long time. Ehrman and Crossan reject miracle stories and just about everything else. I note for a long time Ehrman rejected Crossan's belief that jesus wasn't really buried in a tomb but eaten by dogs or other scavengers. But he conceded "that was before I really researched the matter."



Same probably true of muslims and others. Of course muslims are known for violence but christians have been violent since long before the inquisition or crusades.



:lol: But the problem is, you can't, or shouldn't, base an ideology and way of life on phoniness. Inevitably, I think, people will abandon it. I can't believe some of these people who seem to think the catholic church will run the world of the future. Even now priests are a dying breed. Some people blame celibacy but that's not really it IMO. Seminary enrollment peaked around 1964 despite it. But now people are too well educated or materialistic to be willing to make such sacrifices for something that's becoming increasingly hard to believe or relate to.


Go find your own thread to shit on, not mine. I do not care about the nonsense you spout, haven't for a long time, with your onanistic obsession with Ehrman and Crossan and their ''scholarship''.

But in any case, I am here to discuss politics, not your atheistic rantings, so unless you have something to say about Communism or it's opposites, GTFO.
#14939112
So anyway, it seems to me that in this late stage period of global history, ''Right'' and ''Left'' no longer have any real meaning. A real Communist is not a Liberal, a real Conservative should be expected to actually ''conserve'' something, etc...

So what we really have today along the political spectrum, in real existence, are the following;

1. A Nationalist-Populist cluster of ideologies, shading into Fascism

2. National Bolshevism/Soviet Patriotism, etc..

3. Anarcho-Capitalist/Libertarian/Objectivist

4. Pre-Modern/Islamist/Traditionalist/Reactionary thought

5. Liberalism/representative democracy

6. Marxist-Leninist

The latter is where pretty much the entire political spectrum in the United States is located, until President Trump came along. Most of his supporters appear to be #1, while he seems to me to be in reality #3. And #3 is the wave of the future which challenges the status quo, as #6 was in the 20th Century.
#14939114
starman2003 wrote:Eratosthenes didn't buy it, but the church did.

I think you're talking about a flat earth, not geocentrism. Eratosthenes calculated fairly accurately the size of the globe; I don't think he was the first to suggest that it is, but getting the size roughly right helps a lot in making it a credible theory, and it was some Christian fundamentalists who were the last to cling to a flat earth among "learned" people, around 500AD. Since then, any serious argument has accepted the earth is round.

Geocentrism is saying that the earth is stationary, and that the sun orbits around it; and, strictly, that the planets orbit around the earth too. This wasn't an unreasonable position until accurate observations were made; Copernicus in the 16th century was the first significant advocate of seeing the earth as another planet orbiting the sun. Tycho Brahe made the best pre-telescopic observations, and his theory was that all the planets orbit the sun, but that orbits the earth. Kepler's laws of planetary motion were a convincing explanation for everything orbiting the sun, and Newton's theories of motion and gravity tied it all together with simple physical laws. Later observations such as parallax motion of stars put the final nails in the coffin of geocentrism. Plus, in the last century, going into space.

Very wordy, but the point is that geocentrism was a reasonable theory until the measurements got better, and science started - about 400 years ago.
#14939117
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:I think you're talking about a flat earth, not geocentrism. Eratosthenes calculated fairly accurately the size of the globe; I don't think he was the first to suggest that it is, but getting the size roughly right helps a lot in making it a credible theory, and it was some Christian fundamentalists who were the last to cling to a flat earth among "learned" people, around 500AD. Since then, any serious argument has accepted the earth is round.

Geocentrism is saying that the earth is stationary, and that the sun orbits around it; and, strictly, that the planets orbit around the earth too. This wasn't an unreasonable position until accurate observations were made; Copernicus in the 16th century was the first significant advocate of seeing the earth as another planet orbiting the sun. Tycho Brahe made the best pre-telescopic observations, and his theory was that all the planets orbit the sun, but that orbits the earth. Kepler's laws of planetary motion were a convincing explanation for everything orbiting the sun, and Newton's theories of motion and gravity tied it all together with simple physical laws. Later observations such as parallax motion of stars put the final nails in the coffin of geocentrism. Plus, in the last century, going into space.

Very wordy, but the point is that geocentrism was a reasonable theory until the measurements got better, and science started - about 400 years ago.


I find all that debatable, but not by me and not now. This is not why I started the thread, to talk about my cosmological beliefs but to mention them in passing to indicate that even during my ''Christian Communist'' phase, I still believed as I do today in these pre-modern era beliefs. I did say that I'd be happy to debate Monarchism though, as this is very much a political system and that's what I wish to discuss here; politics.

Kindly respect this intention which I have expressed from the very beginning of this thread, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the other ideas I have talked about; Capitalism, Communism, etc..
#14939123
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:I think you're talking about a flat earth, not geocentrism. Eratosthenes calculated fairly accurately the size of the globe; I don't think he was the first to suggest that it is, but getting the size roughly right helps a lot in making it a credible theory, and it was some Christian fundamentalists who were the last to cling to a flat earth among "learned" people, around 500AD. Since then, any serious argument has accepted the earth is round.

Geocentrism is saying that the earth is stationary, and that the sun orbits around it; and, strictly, that the planets orbit around the earth too. This wasn't an unreasonable position until accurate observations were made; Copernicus in the 16th century was the first significant advocate of seeing the earth as another planet orbiting the sun. Tycho Brahe made the best pre-telescopic observations, and his theory was that all the planets orbit the sun, but that orbits the earth. Kepler's laws of planetary motion were a convincing explanation for everything orbiting the sun, and Newton's theories of motion and gravity tied it all together with simple physical laws. Later observations such as parallax motion of stars put the final nails in the coffin of geocentrism. Plus, in the last century, going into space.

Very wordy, but the point is that geocentrism was a reasonable theory until the measurements got better, and science started - about 400 years ago.


You missed Galileo, he was the first to observe moons orbiting Jupiter, which right there suggests that the earth wasn't the centre of the whole universe. It was this observation that lead to his quarrel with the church, and the beginning of the schism between science and religion. In a way it was quite an unnecessary quarrel because the Christian church doesn't need Geo-centrism, if they had been a bit more flexible on that point then secularism may have never gotten off the ground.
#14939129
SolarCross wrote:You missed Galileo, he was the first to observe moons orbiting Jupiter, which right there suggests that the earth wasn't the centre of the whole universe. It was this observation that lead to his quarrel with the church, and the beginning of the schism between science and religion. In a way it was quite an unnecessary quarrel because the Christian church doesn't need Geo-centrism, if they had been a bit more flexible on that point then secularism may have never gotten off the ground.


If you continue to shit on and troll this thread I will contact a moderator.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls Why do you think that? If you wer[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]