[annatar1914]

@Political Interest , on ''wants'' versus ''needs'';

So do I. A lot of life in the civilised world involves looking for what we want.

I suspect at least with myself that the search for what we want is conducted in order to avoid finding what we need, or to obscure that we already have what is truly essential all along within and around us.

Thank you. Funnily enough there does seem to be some sort of parallel for this in North America. Canada and the US are two different countries but it is entirely possible that if history had been different that Canadians would today be US Americans too. The ethnography of English speaking Canada was relatively similar to the colonies which later became the US. It was again a case of people living in borders, living locally but being shaped by circumstances beyond their control. People separate from the big politics and the empires. Hence identity, whether this be Canadian or US American was largely imposed on rural populations.

Very much so, imposed. And over time I think that more organic identity will overtake the notion of the official borders, sooner than people might think.

The similarity suggests that people are very much shaped by the ideologies they are exposed to, hence why assimilation of different peoples into larger ethnoses often results in their full acculturation. Rural Scotsman could be assimilated into Russia and likewise a rural Russian could be assimilated into Scotland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_ ... h_Sherwood

They were an Anglo-Russian family of architects.

To a degree, yes, and we also have the example of Pushkin's Ethiopian Grandfather who was a servant of Tsar Peter I. But after Peter's time the upper classes those immigrants generally became part of were increasingly isolated themselves from an understanding of the common Russian people in those days. The Romanovs were basically Germanic almost from the start.

Overall it seems to me that rural identity and social structure forms a malleable base on which other ideologies can then be introduced. Anyone living in the countryside anywhere, in the Middle Ages would adopt the language and religion of their ruler. Likewise in the Early Modern Period we saw vast multi-ethnic empires, but in rural areas the most differentiating characteristic was the religion. Concepts such as nationality were not as well defined as they are now, and nobody in the 17th or 18th centuries was a fascist or communist.

This is why in Russian language the word for ''Peasants'' is ''Khrestany'', or ''Christians''. But before the Revolution that understanding worked both ways; Peasants would frequently call the Israelites and other Biblical figures of the People of God, even Christ Himself; ''Russians'', containing a meaning that is alien to most people today but truly conflated the idea of one's faith and one's people and one's cultural experience into one single universal world-encompassing archetypal symbol or meaning.

Now with the development of modern cities, the countryside again becomes ideologically influenced, this time by whatever comes from these towns, whether it be liberalism, secularism, nationalism, communism, woke ideology etc. So the countryside, farmers, nomads or others are ideologically neutral, they are the closest to nature and the natural state of traditional life. They can believe what they like, whether this be good or bad, and are subject to the influence of metropolitan life when they come into contact with it.

And these people, whether having an impressive intellect or education or not, are far wiser than any cosmopolitan no matter how erudite, as long as these rural folk are not seduced and ruined for good by exposing themselves to the city's ways.

Those urbanites that form ethno-racial and religious communities and enclaves within the cities are maintaining (or attempting to maintain) what they brought with them when they arrived to the cities in the first place, that rural wisdom and inner life.

[Political Interest]

I suspect at least with myself that the search for what we want is conducted in order to avoid finding what we need, or to obscure that we already have what is truly essential all along within and around us.

I think so too. At least in my case I am trying to escape ennui.

Very much so, imposed. And over time I think that more organic identity will overtake the notion of the official borders, sooner than people might think.

Is there a natural continuity between the US and Canada?

To a degree, yes, and we also have the example of Pushkin's Ethiopian Grandfather who was a servant of Tsar Peter I. But after Peter's time the upper classes those immigrants generally became part of were increasingly isolated themselves from an understanding of the common Russian people in those days. The Romanovs were basically Germanic almost from the start.

Indeed. Perhaps the example of the aristocracy was not very suitable.



The Slavonic tribes and Finnic peoples were different but the latter were absorbed and assimilated by the Slavs into the Kievan ethnos.

Rooted to their lands, they would have not known the concept of modern Russia or perhaps even of Orthodoxy in the case where they were yet to be baptised. They were a blank slate.

After the formation of Russian identity and the adoption of Orthodoxy they were then ruled by the Tsarist system. Only in the 19th century do they encounter the socialist and liberal ideas from Europe. Now in the 21st century the Russians are getting exposed to the post-modern madness from the West. Beliefs and ideology shift depending on time and place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks

Bosniaks were exposed to many religious influences through their history, they eventually converted to Islam.

After this they were then exposed to communism, liberalism and fascsim in the 20th century. In the 21st century they are also exposed to post-modernism.

This is why in Russian language the word for ''Peasants'' is ''Khrestany'', or ''Christians''. But before the Revolution that understanding worked both ways; Peasants would frequently call the Israelites and other Biblical figures of the People of God, even Christ Himself; ''Russians'', containing a meaning that is alien to most people today but truly conflated the idea of one's faith and one's people and one's cultural experience into one single universal world-encompassing archetypal symbol or meaning.

Very interesting.

And these people, whether having an impressive intellect or education or not, are far wiser than any cosmopolitan no matter how erudite, as long as these rural folk are not seduced and ruined for good by exposing themselves to the city's ways.

Those urbanites that form ethno-racial and religious communities and enclaves within the cities are maintaining (or attempting to maintain) what they brought with them when they arrived to the cities in the first place, that rural wisdom and inner life.

Yes, these barbarians will live a mode of existence that is not tested by time or circumstance, it's the most primordial state of human civilisation.

This is why the Afghan people resisted communism, it was a foreign urban idea completely alien to what they knew.

[annatar1914]

@Political Interest ;

I think so too. At least in my case I am trying to escape ennui.

We try to find diversions, and to an extent I see nothing wrong with that.

Is there a natural continuity between the US and Canada?

I think on some basic level there is, or would be were it not for ''Americanism''. I can't speak for every American of course but with us there seems to be an insecurity about our experiment in politics that makes most Americans look like they have a case of ''protesting too much'' about it, hyper-patriotism of a certain sort, jingoism and a calculated ignorance and arrogance about other nations... Despite being a nation of immigrants. America is more of a kind of civic religion than a country, a civic religion with an unquestioned idealism and set of assumptions that makes Americans a ''people'' and not the ''population'' we'd otherwise be, if you get my distinction.

Indeed. Perhaps the example of the aristocracy was not very suitable.



The Slavonic tribes and Finnic peoples were different but the latter were absorbed and assimilated by the Slavs into the Kievan ethnos.

Rooted to their lands, they would have not known the concept of modern Russia or perhaps even of Orthodoxy in the case where they were yet to be baptised. They were a blank slate.

There's much more to the Baltic/Finno-Urgic/and Slavic peoples on a fundamental level than one might suspect, I think. I believe that what it means to be human will be defended by such people, not so much elsewhere.

After the formation of Russian identity and the adoption of Orthodoxy they were then ruled by the Tsarist system. Only in the 19th century do they encounter the socialist and liberal ideas from Europe. Now in the 21st century the Russians are getting exposed to the post-modern madness from the West. Beliefs and ideology shift depending on time and place.

That exposure as you call it, it can only be survived in my opinion by peoples who have went through those earlier unique collective experiences first, or similar trials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks

Bosniaks were exposed to many religious influences through their history, they eventually converted to Islam.

After this they were then exposed to communism, liberalism and fascsim in the 20th century. In the 21st century they are also exposed to post-modernism.

One theory i've heard is that the Bosniaks were originally Bogomils/Paulicans in the Middle Ages. It's been a strange trip for them to be sure.

Very interesting.



Yes, these barbarians will live a mode of existence that is not tested by time or circumstance, it's the most primordial state of human civilisation.

This is why the Afghan people resisted communism, it was a foreign urban idea completely alien to what they knew.

Yes, even as a sort of ''Socialist'' I find the reasons for non-acceptance of Socialism and Communism to be at least as interesting as the reasons people give for accepting them, if not even more interesting.

[Wellsy]

Man generally can always get what he needs, but the desire for desire itself and its perpetual sustenance means we never get what we want.

Cant get no... satisfaction!

[annatar1914]

@blackjack21, @Wellsy , @Political Interest , @Potemkin , @Verv , and others;

I read somewhere that Cicero once wrote in his 'de Officiis' that Julius Caesar like to quote an old Greek saying, that; ''The only excuse to violate the law is to grab the supreme power, every other reason the gods forbid'', or words to that effect.

Our civilized concepts of law and justice are founded upon fragile things like custom, popular opinion, but ultimately on power and injustice as Blaise Pascal often wrote about.

Our elites have broken the laws and twisted the laws in their favor so very much, but require this constitutional facade lest more intrepid and bold men take everything from them without any facade of law and justice at all. No one among the elites right now wants to be the first seen breaking the constitutions of the modern liberal state with absolute openness and impunity, in order to try to establish a new power on a surer foundation than this present modern one one. Too much risk. But that day will come when some will take that risk.

What happens then gentlemen?

[Political Interest]

I read somewhere that Cicero once wrote in his 'de Officiis' that Julius Caesar like to quote an old Greek saying, that; ''The only excuse to violate the law is to grab the supreme power, every other reason the gods forbid'', or words to that effect.

Our civilized concepts of law and justice are founded upon fragile things like custom, popular opinion, but ultimately on power and injustice as Blaise Pascal often wrote about.

Our elites have broken the laws and twisted the laws in their favor so very much, but require this constitutional facade lest more intrepid and bold men take everything from them without any facade of law and justice at all. No one among the elites right now wants to be the first seen breaking the constitutions of the modern liberal state with absolute openness and impunity, in order to try to establish a new power on a surer foundation than this present modern one one. Too much risk. But that day will come when some will take that risk.

What happens then gentlemen?

We can see that this happens in the Global South. Western states do not seem overly concerned about human rights or extra-judicial procedures when it is local clients indulging in these extra-legal excesses.

Suharto's 1965 military coup is a perfect case in point, as well as numerous other textbook examples. So there is no apparent shyness around breaking the constitutions of modern liberal states when it's happening out of sight and therefore out of mind of most Western citizens, that is to say in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Even in Russia during the Yeltsin years there were attempts to cultivate Russia as an acceptable friend, but because the Russians never went the full course of integration into NATO and the EU they were never normalised as socially acceptable partners. Yeltsin's liberal democratic credentials were somewhat lacking but this was never made into an issue.

If the constitutions of modern liberal Western states are ever violated in a flagrant way it will come at a time when the system is about to collapse. I've made previous predictions that we'll see this in the 2070s or around then. We can already see the beginnings of this now. With Biden's election in America, for example, the position of the centre ground could be strengthened, but that is only if he can fix the problems of the country. It may not help because the American centre is already becoming less centrist after the events of the last four years. The same is happening in most Western countries. COVID-19 has accelerated and provoked what are already significant systemic weaknesses in the liberal democracies. I fear it is going to be a dangerous next four to five decades.

[annatar1914]

@Political Interest , it seems we are in close agreement on this issue, you replied;

We can see that this happens in the Global South. Western states do not seem overly concerned about human rights or extra-judicial procedures when it is local clients indulging in these extra-legal excesses.

And as things go on, that attitude will creep into the center from the periphery if the elites are threatened enough.

Suharto's 1965 military coup is a perfect case in point, as well as numerous other textbook examples. So there is no apparent shyness around breaking the constitutions of modern liberal states when it's happening out of sight and therefore out of mind of most Western citizens, that is to say in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Even in Russia during the Yeltsin years there were attempts to cultivate Russia as an acceptable friend, but because the Russians never went the full course of integration into NATO and the EU they were never normalised as socially acceptable partners. Yeltsin's liberal democratic credentials were somewhat lacking but this was never made into an issue.

I think it comes down to the money, as with most things political, and a very real desire to see the destruction of certain nations.

If the constitutions of modern liberal Western states are ever violated in a flagrant way it will come at a time when the system is about to collapse. I've made previous predictions that we'll see this in the 2070s or around then. We can already see the beginnings of this now. With Biden's election in America, for example, the position of the centre ground could be strengthened, but that is only if he can fix the problems of the country. It may not help because the American centre is already becoming less centrist after the events of the last four years. The same is happening in most Western countries. COVID-19 has accelerated and provoked what are already significant systemic weaknesses in the liberal democracies. I fear it is going to be a dangerous next four to five decades.

I agree. We're still within the range of what has happened before in American history in particular, so that I'm not too concerned just yet, but I think that this will gradually change into a more severe crisis. And I do not know if the pandemic has sped things up or slowed them down, it's hard to say. Perhaps it has sped up some processes, while being a conservative mechanism in others.

My gut tells me though that the ''hypernormalization'' and the ''Simulacrum of the Real'' some talk about, the Matrix illusion so many in the West have been buried deep into, this is over, at least temporarily. And this was the real reason for the rejection of President Trump and no other, under regular illusionary circumstances the Establishment would have come to terms with him and he would have sailed into re-election in 2020, had it not been for the COVID-19 pandemic.

In fact, I think America might have already stumbled into a regional or even world war had it not been for the pandemic, the assassination of General Soleimani perhaps being the trigger for that. Wilful delusion can be a powerful force.

[Political Interest]

And as things go on, that attitude will creep into the center from the periphery if the elites are threatened enough.

Most certainly. But I believe there will be a threat to the centre from what are as of now essentially peripheral forces within Western countries themselves.

I think it comes down to the money, as with most things political, and a very real desire to see the destruction of certain nations.

Money and careerism, the two biggest problems in Western politics today.

I agree. We're still within the range of what has happened before in American history in particular, so that I'm not too concerned just yet, but I think that this will gradually change into a more severe crisis. And I do not know if the pandemic has sped things up or slowed them down, it's hard to say. Perhaps it has sped up some processes, while being a conservative mechanism in others.

The failure of Western elites to deal with the pandemic only compounds the systemic crisis. It provokes a massive loss of faith in the political class in general, even the opposition.

My gut tells me though that the ''hypernormalization'' and the ''Simulacrum of the Real'' some talk about, the Matrix illusion so many in the West have been buried deep into, this is over, at least temporarily. And this was the real reason for the rejection of President Trump and no other, under regular illusionary circumstances the Establishment would have come to terms with him and he would have sailed into re-election in 2020, had it not been for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Definitely. Reality struck a major blow to the simulacrum. In spite of this you still have people in some Western countries pretending none of this is happening and don't want to face reality.

In fact, I think America might have already stumbled into a regional or even world war had it not been for the pandemic, the assassination of General Soleimani perhaps being the trigger for that. Wilful delusion can be a powerful force.

That's a distinct possibility and was definitely looking that way when it happened. Seems the people in Washington, Paris and London are intent on having their own private little wars every ten or 15 years. Iran might have given them a little more than they bargained for, however and could have even become a global conflict.

[annatar1914]

@Political Interest ;

Most certainly. But I believe there will be a threat to the centre from what are as of now essentially peripheral forces within Western countries themselves.

Well now, the Center has basically alienated everyone not directly benefiting from being retainers of the Elites themselves, not just those marginalized within and outside the Western cultural area. This is not a situation which can be perpetuated without eventual removal of the Elites.

Money and careerism, the two biggest problems in Western politics today.

Indeed. And they have zero public service spirit or altruism for the common good. When they unite with others for a task, it is merely the uniting of criminals intent on plunder.

The failure of Western elites to deal with the pandemic only compounds the systemic crisis. It provokes a massive loss of faith in the political class in general, even the opposition.

Yes, that's the possibly negative effect of the pandemic, although it could be a positive thing depending on one's perspective.

Definitely. Reality struck a major blow to the simulacrum. In spite of this you still have people in some Western countries pretending none of this is happening and don't want to face reality.

It makes me curious what will possibly happen when we go back to the ''normal'' as those people think of it.

That's a distinct possibility and was definitely looking that way when it happened. Seems the people in Washington, Paris and London are intent on having their own private little wars every ten or 15 years. Iran might have given them a little more than they bargained for, however and could have even become a global conflict.

Yes, as bad as things are and all the blundering and sleepwalking into disaster going on, the Divine Providence may well have prevented more terrible evils from happening this past year, up to and including nuclear war.

[Wellsy]

What happens then gentlemen?

I think to this summary by Marx.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch04.htm

Thus by now stigmatizing as "socialistic" what it had previously extolled as "liberal," the bourgeoisie confesses that its own interests dictate that it should be delivered from the danger of its own rule; that to restore tranquillity in the country its bourgeois parliament must, first of all, be given its quietus; that to preserve its social power intact its political power must be broken; that the individual bourgeois can continue to exploit the other classes and to enjoy undisturbed property, family, religion, and order only on condition that their class be condemned along with the other classes to like political nullity; that in order to save its purse it must forfeit the crown, and the sword that is to safeguard it must at the same time be hung over its own head as a sword of Damocles.

The gains of liberal democracy, for al their limitations have themselves been distorted. Because the emerging capitalist class did represent advancement upon some aspects of society, that it wasn’t perfection speaks only to its human quality. We are never without problems.
Although those ideals themselves were perhaps more vibrant and real in their youth than they are now. Or perhaps this is a projection of our ideals onto the past as no reality ever fits perfectly to its concept although the concept of it is its true measure.
[url]rickroderick.org/202-nietzsche-on-truth-and-lie-1991/[/url]

There are certain things which after long use have become obligatory for us to believe are true. I have heard, and I have heard it ad nauseam… ad nauseam. Let me say it in my West Texas way. Until I want to puke, I have heard it. That the United States is a democracy. Because after long use, after herd like obedience to this word, we have come to believe it. The most dangerous thing – in some ways – that threatens our democracy is the belief of the overwhelming majority of our citizens that perhaps in some sense we do have one. If we questioned deeply what a democracy is. You know, a government in which the power really does come from a people or whatever. If we question these worn out metaphors, and looked behind… In other words, try to look for their origins in power and who deploys them, it might become interesting to see that this is an illusion about which we have long since forgotten that it is one.

This is… the power of Nietzsche’s genealogy is to look at how important words to us, like truth, good, evil, and in the case I just used, democracy. Not in order to destroy these words forever, or to destroy their employment, but in order to point out how they become worn out after long use. And certainly, compared to the vibrancy of the word democracy. You know, its earlier – as he said – earlier when the word was used in the dawning of the bourgeois revolutions, when it was used with such sensuous power, with such affect, you know, with little town meetings and public spheres, people fighting things out. Vigorous like that. At least as we idealise it, perhaps that was an illusion too. But compared to that, our current democracy does seem – to borrow the metaphor – to be like a coin without a face. A metaphor that is worn out and lost its power.

Now many of you are going to go “Oh it hasn’t lost its power, oh hell, everybody is becoming a democracy, the whole world is”. Which may just simply mean, in Nietzsche’s terms, that Nihilism, that threat that I mentioned before that comes along with modern life, along with the spread of the commodity and work as the relation that all humans will be subjected to, it may just simply mean that that will win. That that will win. And if it’s called democracy, it will just be a herd like lie, something we say to one another so that we don’t stand out at dinner parties.

I mean you don’t want to stand out. When someone says: “Well I don’t live in a democracy, I don’t think”, and you start giving reasons, see you stand out! It makes you feel uncomfortable. So this is part of Nietzsche’s take here, is that truths become comfortable through long use. So, through long use it becomes comfortable to say “You know, we are a democracy…

The capitalists must resort to their original form before the gains of past struggles which were then objectified in the institutional laws enforced by the state as abstract equality.

So this degradation is not something new but I’d say the success of some social movements/struggles made anomalous some aspects of the 20th century which are seen as benevolent gifts by the state by some even if in response to movements.

Now we’re returning to how states were prior to universal suffrage and the sort. Where we have liberal democracy in some form but it is still by and large capture by the elite in representation and political avenues the liberal freedom of choice disregard for the very basis of choosing the conditions of choosing.

But a grab for supreme power would necessarily be violent in opposition, the question isn’t one of fate though as the future is still undecided although reading into the future from the past in some ways makes it seem only causally determined. Peace and stability come from strong hegemonic rule, they are challenge when there is ample powers alternative to the rule. Open conflict then emerges and its who ever wins that fight usually decides things autocratically but the political content and direction may differ. The character of civil war and revolution varying. But revolutions in having to stabilize themselves always have clear authority who disposes of the revolutions real creators. They carry out purges underneath the banner of the revolution who they in effect end.

But i have no speculations to the future. World history is deterministic in the same sense a game of cricket is although much more conplex. there are parameters and probabilities. Many variables can be considered for the outcome of a game of cricket in terms of rules, skill, weather conditions and so on but that doesn’t give you causal necessity in prediction even while it is a result of causal actions.
So I don’t tend towards predictions as much as trying to figure out the usual contours/outlines of certain events and phenomenon. But even as things appear the same as the past they are still in their way unique, one can’t recreate the past any better than one creates something entirely new like opera as the attempted recreation of the greek tragedy.

So what will happen, we’re in some sort of decline and are ever cynical. But an end to it doesn’t necessarily arrive any sooner for it as cynicism is amicable to not making massive change. Maybe we’ll live out oir post apocalypse with little outburst.

[annatar1914]

Very well said, @Wellsy .

The capitalists must resort to their original form before the gains of past struggles which were then objectified in the institutional laws enforced by the state as abstract equality.

I agree, but in my opinion that means the practical near-abolition of the State in order for this process to be carried out.

So this degradation is not something new but I’d say the success of some social movements/struggles made anomalous some aspects of the 20th century which are seen as benevolent gifts by the state by some even if in response to movements.

Possibly anomalous, some still think that reform of the system is workable and even inevitable. I personally think that it is not.

Now we’re returning to how states were prior to universal suffrage and the sort. Where we have liberal democracy in some form but it is still by and large capture by the elite in representation and political avenues the liberal freedom of choice disregard for the very basis of choosing the conditions of choosing.

Yes, the clans of private Oligarchs will strangle the government which they will own entirely, siphoning off every last bit of the people's wealth as they do so. Think ''Ukraine'' and ''last days of the Roman Republic'' for what is coming.

But a grab for supreme power would necessarily be violent in opposition, the question isn’t one of fate though as the future is still undecided although reading into the future from the past in some ways makes it seem only causally determined. Peace and stability come from strong hegemonic rule, they are challenge when there is ample powers alternative to the rule. Open conflict then emerges and its who ever wins that fight usually decides things autocratically but the political content and direction may differ. The character of civil war and revolution varying. But revolutions in having to stabilize themselves always have clear authority who disposes of the revolutions real creators. They carry out purges underneath the banner of the revolution who they in effect end.

It will always end in Caesarism or foreign conquest.

But i have no speculations to the future. World history is deterministic in the same sense a game of cricket is although much more conplex. there are parameters and probabilities. Many variables can be considered for the outcome of a game of cricket in terms of rules, skill, weather conditions and so on but that doesn’t give you causal necessity in prediction even while it is a result of causal actions.
So I don’t tend towards predictions as much as trying to figure out the usual contours/outlines of certain events and phenomenon. But even as things appear the same as the past they are still in their way unique, one can’t recreate the past any better than one creates something entirely new like opera as the attempted recreation of the greek tragedy.

I think you've done a pretty good case of that anyways, making predictions.

So what will happen, we’re in some sort of decline and are ever cynical. But an end to it doesn’t necessarily arrive any sooner for it as cynicism is amicable to not making massive change. Maybe we’ll live out oir post apocalypse with little outburst.

We're in the ''Long Emergency'' as some have put it. It goes on long enough and slowly enough that most people simply don't realize they're in it.

I pick certain years to illustrate major turning points; 1914, 1933, 1989, 2008, 2020. One look and you can see why I think they're important markers along the journey, but note that these years extend across what would be an entire human lifetime for some.

[annatar1914]

One of the things that American Conservatives and Liberals alike tend to assume is that Christianity is a ''Conservative'' religion generally and that ''Leftism'' is pretty much the preserve of Atheists and Secular Materialists.

Then what do they make of Ayn Rand, a ''Right Wing'' Atheist and Materialist?


No folks, the real Right Wing in this world is entirely Pagan at it's heart, and entirely against monotheistic revealed religion. It draws it's force and intellectual heft from Neitzsche, from Schopenhauer, Heidegger and Evola and Schmidt and Spenser, from lesser known giants like Ludovici;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Ludovici

And a good introduction to his work;

http://anthonymludovici.com/intro.htm



No, deep down the real Conservative has a hatred of the weak, of the ugly and the deformed, of the sick and the unhealthy in mind or body, of children and of women, of the poor, of the alien, of the ''racially inferior'' and the slave. The real Conservatives are Haters of the truly religious and spiritual people, of the socialist, of any true ''liberal'' or progressive or ''do-gooder''.

The real Conservative is an admirer of amoral and raw physical strength and intellect and beauty and power. And don't let their fig leaf of idealism fool anyone; they love Mammon at least as much as they love Mars. They are believers in rigid hierarchy in all things, of aristocratic and monarchial rule in substance if not form. They believe in the Will, the Propaganda of the Deed, of the cult of the Hero and the Master, of anyone who has achieved Glory in a worldly sense in this life. They cling to the concept of Private Property like a talisman.

[Wellsy]

Edit: Double Post

[Wellsy]

Very well said, @Wellsy .

I agree, but in my opinion that means the practical near-abolition of the State in order for this process to be carried out.

As in anarcho-capitalism, a kind of feudalism in which capitalists have their own fiefdom. The thing I question though is why not play out the continued struggle between different factions of capitalists for state control? It is an effective tool and we live at a scale much larger than during feudalism which seems to be at a time of great economic retardation and the country/rural predominates in a way and hence the very fragmented structure compared to the more central authority of the state.
I see it as a stripping back of the state to its clear role of class dominance/oppression, where it becomes more blatantly the will of a capitalist class without any gesture to even being representative of the 'universal' will, which simply doesn't exist.

Possibly anomalous, some still think that reform of the system is workable and even inevitable. I personally think that it is not.

Well everything has to breakdown eventually, even in attempting to keep things the same, they must change. I think many see reform because they don't like to consider the prospect of what a change means for themselves.
The radical is exemplified as a true believer who wishes to actualize their beliefs rather than hold them off.
[URL]https://www.lacan.com/zizrobes.htm/url]

To break the yoke of habits means: if all men are equal, than all men are to be effectively treated as equal; if blacks are also human, they should be immediately treated as such. Recall the early stages of the struggle against slavery in the US, which, even prior to the Civil War, culminated in the armed conflict between the gradualism of compassionate liberals and the unique figure of John Brown:

African Americans were caricatures of people, they were characterized as buffoons and minstrels, they were the butt-end of jokes in American society. And even the abolitionists, as antislavery as they were, the majority of them did not see African Americans as equals. The majority of them, and this was something that African Americans complained about all the time, were willing to work for the end of slavery in the South but they were not willing to work to end discrimination in the North. /.../ John Brown wasn't like that. For him, practicing egalitarianism was a first step toward ending slavery. And African Americans who came in contact with him knew this immediately. He made it very clear that he saw no difference, and he didn't make this clear by saying it, he made it clear by what he did. [11]

For this reason, John Brown is the KEY political figure in the history of US: in his fervently Christian "radical abolitionism," he came closest to introducing the Jacobin logic into the US political landscape: "John Brown considered himself a complete egalitarian. And it was very important for him to practice egalitarianism on every level. /.../ He made it very clear that he saw no difference, and he didn't make this clear by saying it, he made it clear by what he did." [12] Today even, long after slavery was abolished, Brown is the dividing figure in American collective memory; those whites who support Brown are all the more precious - among them, surprisingly, Henry David Thoreau, the great opponent of violence: against the standard dismissal of Brown as blood-thirsty, foolish and insane, Thoreau [13] painted a portrait of a peerless man whose embracement of a cause was unparalleled; he even goes as far as to liken Brown's execution (he states that he regards Brown as dead before his actual death) to Christ. Thoreau vents at the scores of those who have voiced their displeasure and scorn for John Brown: the same people can't relate to Brown because of their concrete stances and "dead" existences; they are truly not living, only a handful of men have lived.

We all compromise with the imperfect state, but a true believer is dangerous, even if it is in the idea of US liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which the nation claims to stand upon. As such concepts are never realized as they can in the mind and thus their pursuit is always a criticism of the present and a call for action/change.
Many, my self find comfort in the present state of things somewhat. I live a better life than I could've imagined despite of the problems and limitations of the US. I'm no revolutionary but seek out a simple life.
BUt unlike reformers I assert that they want things tweaked where the solution to problems requires a fundmanetal change, that the problems emerge from things which are essential to capitalism.

Yes, the clans of private Oligarchs will strangle the government which they will own entirely, siphoning off every last bit of the people's wealth as they do so. Think ''Ukraine'' and ''last days of the Roman Republic'' for what is coming.

Indeed, they can't stand to leave any sort of wealth outside of their hands. I see it in AUstralia with people's retirement investments - superannuation, a massive cash cow that they always want to try and find a way to capture.

It will always end in Caesarism or foreign conquest.

Well, the revolution at home allows people to have their emotional outburst whilst not really solving the basis of the revolution.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

The growing proletarianization of modern man and the increasing formation of masses are two aspects of the same process. Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves. The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property. The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life. The violation of the masses, whom Fascism, with its Führer cult, forces to their knees, has its counterpart in the violation of an apparatus which is pressed into the production of ritual values.

All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. This is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today’s technical resources while maintaining the property system. It goes without saying that the Fascist apotheosis of war does not employ such arguments.

And the above makes a similar point in that the war at home itself can then lead to the war abroad.

I think you've done a pretty good case of that anyways, making predictions.

I feel the future much like my life as an unclear haze.
Though having said what I said, I know how to consider Zizek's contrary characterization here"
http://loydo38.blogspot.com/2011/05/christianitys-perversion-zizek-and.html

One should thus invert the existentialist commonplace according to which, when we are engaged in a present historical process, we perceive it as full of possibilities, and ourselves as agents free to choose among them; while, to a retrospective view, the same process appears as fully determined and necessary, with no room for alternatives: on the contrary, it is the engaged agents who perceive themselves as caught in a Destiny, merely reacting to it, while, retrospectively, from the standpoint of later observation, we can discern alternatives in the past, possibilities of events taking a different path.

Revolutionaries (the context is discussing Jesus and William Wallace) are characterized as called to destiny.

We're in the ''Long Emergency'' as some have put it. It goes on long enough and slowly enough that most people simply don't realize they're in it.

Easier to block it out and anesthetize ourselves, out of side out of mind
Sometimes even the panicked look for explanations and call to action I consider cynically as being of the same sort.

I pick certain years to illustrate major turning points; 1914, 1933, 1989, 2008, 2020. One look and you can see why I think they're important markers along the journey, but note that these years extend across what would be an entire human lifetime for some.

Our experience of time has definitely shortened, I know I don't quite have the historical sense some have, particularly the more busy I get in day to day life, your sense of living gets more immediate. Even though I do like to daydream.

[annatar1914]

@Wellsy , you said with regards to my prognostications that;

As in anarcho-capitalism, a kind of feudalism in which capitalists have their own fiefdom. The thing I question though is why not play out the continued struggle between different factions of capitalists for state control?

I think they will as long as there is something there, before they seize full power in their fiefdoms and become the State themselves in that particular locality.

It is an effective tool and we live at a scale much larger than during feudalism which seems to be at a time of great economic retardation and the country/rural predominates in a way and hence the very fragmented structure compared to the more central authority of the state.

I think that modern scale is possible only for a while longer, in a time of resource depletion and resource wars on the horizon.

I see it as a stripping back of the state to its clear role of class dominance/oppression, where it becomes more blatantly the will of a capitalist class without any gesture to even being representative of the 'universal' will, which simply doesn't exist.

Fascism, whatever else it's called by it's followers.

On my opinion as to the prospect of reform;

Well everything has to breakdown eventually, even in attempting to keep things the same, they must change. I think many see reform because they don't like to consider the prospect of what a change means for themselves.
The radical is exemplified as a true believer who wishes to actualize their beliefs rather than hold them off.
[URL]https://www.lacan.com/zizrobes.htm/url]

While it's true in one sense that ''there's nothing new under the sun'', it's also true that the possibility of change has entered human existence and made the fears of reactionaries very real and ''justified'' to an extent.

We all compromise with the imperfect state, but a true believer is dangerous, even if it is in the idea of US liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which the nation claims to stand upon. As such concepts are never realized as they can in the mind and thus their pursuit is always a criticism of the present and a call for action/change.
Many, my self find comfort in the present state of things somewhat. I live a better life than I could've imagined despite of the problems and limitations of the US. I'm no revolutionary but seek out a simple life.
BUt unlike reformers I assert that they want things tweaked where the solution to problems requires a fundmanetal change, that the problems emerge from things which are essential to capitalism.

When it's gets to the point of choosing between global collapse and capitalism versus socialism and a high state of human society, I wonder what the ''reformers'' will chose, increasingly hated by reactionaries?

On the parasitical siphoning of public wealth by the Oligarchs;

Indeed, they can't stand to leave any sort of wealth outside of their hands. I see it in AUstralia with people's retirement investments - superannuation, a massive cash cow that they always want to try and find a way to capture.

''Austerity measures'' and the ''great reset'' only mean what they've always meant; plunder by the Bourgeoisie of the Worker's wealth.

Well, the revolution at home allows people to have their emotional outburst whilst not really solving the basis of the revolution.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

And the above makes a similar point in that the war at home itself can then lead to the war abroad.

I feel the future much like my life as an unclear haze.
Though having said what I said, I know how to consider Zizek's contrary characterization here"
http://loydo38.blogspot.com/2011/05/christianitys-perversion-zizek-and.html

Revolutionaries (the context is discussing Jesus and William Wallace) are characterized as called to destiny.

Well, I can't secularize the figure of Jesus Christ, but I find it most curious that He did conduct Himself as a Man carrying out a profound and covert Revolution, God Himself. It's because of Free Will that He does so. Part of the problem of the West has been the false dichotomy of Transcendence and Immanence, Determinism and Free Will, as if these elements cannot be reconciled in this world or the next.

I am a Christian and a Socialist, but I find ''Liberation Theology'' neither instructive of Liberation nor of Theology. Zizek and others for example posit a situation where God ''needs'' our help, so to speak, and posits a kind of perverse ''con'' (the ''Atonement'') run on the Devil as being the theology of traditional Christianity. Again, in the West that has been the case since Anselm of Canterbury, but it really isn't so. The West focuses on the Passion, the Crucifixion, but the real focus is and should be on the Resurrection and the Ascension, and the Second Coming.

Easier to block it out and anesthetize ourselves, out of side out of mind
Sometimes even the panicked look for explanations and call to action I consider cynically as being of the same sort.

Our experience of time has definitely shortened, I know I don't quite have the historical sense some have, particularly the more busy I get in day to day life, your sense of living gets more immediate. Even though I do like to daydream.

In some respects immediate active living is better than a reflection that ends up in nothing and which does nothing.

[annatar1914]

The material substrate beneath all of my macroeconomic musings is the one of resource depletion, organic and inorganic. Spirit is a bit more subtle than thinking about ''Peak Oil'', but Spirit does illuminate why some elites would want to collapse the economy in a controlled implosion in order to check unrestrained consumption of not only goods and services, but the very fuels that make modernity run in the first place.

Some regions of the world, and peoples, may not be allowed to reach for the level of the West in consumption, it will be found impossible to let that happen and keep the standard of living previously enjoyed.

[annatar1914]

Barbarism did not surface in these attacks today. A Barbarian culture is one of oaths, and reviles oathbreakers who are untrue to what they are sworn to uphold and sworn to not do as well. An Oath is a sacred thing, affirming before Heaven that which is right, and the ways of one's government on Earth.

Even had the election been stolen, the American government has certified it's results, and so to attempt to overturn those results with violence is something that can only have come from the amoral and hypocritical swamp of decadent civilization.

A righteous leader will never knowingly encourage a lie, or encourage his followers to do that which is wrong. He takes an oath, even if they do not, to follow the laws of the land and see them faithfully executed, nor will a righteous leader use the letter of the law to pervert the spirit of the laws, as when President Buchanan refused to take any action against the Southern secessionists before President Lincoln took office, failing to find a legal way to put down the rebellion when he could have taken action as President Jackson did against South Carolina.

A good man is true to his Oath, and will always find a way in his Oath to do the right thing and not do the evil things.

I pray for Vice-President Pence tonight, he's always been a good man in a difficult position.

[annatar1914]

Orthodox Christian Christmas Eve. Wise men still seek to find Him even if they do not fully know Him. Evil men still seek His Life and shed innocent blood trying to do it. And the Poor still search for a place to live safely and provide for themselves, fearing the rich and the powerful.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Wellsy , @Political Interest , @Verv, and others;

I think I read somewhere that Stalin when asked by a subordinate if it was okay to arrest Boris Paternak, said; ''No, don't arrest him, he's a cloud dweller''...

Another story i've read recounts that King Tarquin the Proud of Rome (the last before the republic) sent his son to another town he desired to conquer by subterfuge, and a messenger from the son ran to the King and asked him what he should do. King Tarquin, in his garden of poppies, simply cut the tallest poppies blooms off with his sword, the messenger and Tarquin's son understood the father. The leading men of the town were murdered by the son and his men, and King Tarquin of Rome added the town to his domain.

These examples are the difference between the Modern age and the Pre-Modern and Post-Modern ages; the Pre-Modern and Post-Modern is simply the World as it is, nothing more or less, whereas the Modern age is a set of Ideas about the World, theories.

How do these stories illustrate the differences? The Modern Age and it's ideas and ideals and theories are no real threat to people like Stalin who operated in the Real World.

King Tarquin simply wanted another town as a possession, and so firmly was he of a same mind with his son, that he knew that his son would kill the leading men who would otherwise be standing in the way of that conquest without King Tarquin even having to verbally explain himself to the messenger. That's the real world, the fallen world we live in. Where the real rulers are glorified bandits, gangsters.

So in 7 B.C. it should come as no surprise then that King Herod ''the Great'' sought the Life of Christ once born, and massacred the male children of Bethlehem 2 years and younger, for this is the World, and this is how It operates. Moderns, civilized as we are, don't quite understand that, being beyond good and evil and all (and see? ''modernity'' might as well be called ''Civilization'', while ''Barbarism'' is just a society or person in a state of realism about the World)

I mean, think about it; a King gets a visit from Astrologers, the Magi from far away lands who say that a King will be born in Judea. His own scholars narrow down the place, and he tells the Magi and the assembled court that he wants them to return to him so that he might then know and worship the Christ also. And of course, nobody of sense believes him. But nobody can prevent the massacre, for that is just what Herod and evil Kings do, in the World.

For King Herod knew in his heart that Christ Is not a ''Cloud-dweller'', despite the later comments about rule and government during Our Lord's Passion. Kings under His rule, the rule of a Christian society, just can't go around lopping off heads like poppies and killing children as and if they please, can they?

But that's what Kings can do, in the World, in reality, right?

We moderns laugh or shake our head at such seeming 'stupidities' and 'savagery' and 'superstition' in wonder, and twist ourselves into such logical pretzels to deny the realities of the situation. If a person does not have absolute power and ultimate responsibility in a country, then nobody truly does, and thus power is diffused by ideas and theories along with any potential credit or blame for actions and failures to act.

Past few days, We Americans and Moderns in general had a fresh encounter with the World, when a band of supporters of President Trump broke into and briefly occupied the Capitol Building. The Spell was broken, and cannot be unbroken. What ''spell''? The spell in the minds of a President's followers that is a consensus among Americans for over 200 years, that says Presidents must have term limits and be elected or re-elected after winning an legitimate election to continue to hold that office, because that's what a bit of Modern ''Scripture'' called a Constitution says, being an Idea, a Theory.

Did such a paper document, written by imperfect men, raise itself up and drive these people out of the building, this ''Sacred Temple''? Hell no, armed men ordered by certain politicians to drive them out did it, as well they should have. Governments don't take well to being challenged in that way, regardless if run by a King Tarquin or a King Herod or King Solomon or allegedly by a Piece of Paper representing the rule of the ''Sovereign People'' for that matter.

But speak to me then afterwards of Righteousness or the Mandate of Heaven, rather than the ''Constitutionality'' or ''Unconstitutionality'' of the proceedings! I'm not civilized enough, modern enough, to swallow all that ''cloud dwelling''.

I have more thoughts on the subject, but I need the input of others, other minds to weigh in on this.

[Political Interest]

@Potemkin , @Wellsy , @Political Interest , @Verv, and others;

I think I read somewhere that Stalin when asked by a subordinate if it was okay to arrest Boris Paternak, said; ''No, don't arrest him, he's a cloud dweller''...

Another story i've read recounts that King Tarquin the Proud of Rome (the last before the republic) sent his son to another town he desired to conquer by subterfuge, and a messenger from the son ran to the King and asked him what he should do. King Tarquin, in his garden of poppies, simply cut the tallest poppies blooms off with his sword, the messenger and Tarquin's son understood the father. The leading men of the town were murdered by the son and his men, and King Tarquin of Rome added the town to his domain.

These examples are the difference between the Modern age and the Pre-Modern and Post-Modern ages; the Pre-Modern and Post-Modern is simply the World as it is, nothing more or less, whereas the Modern age is a set of Ideas about the World, theories.

How do these stories illustrate the differences? The Modern Age and it's ideas and ideals and theories are no real threat to people like Stalin who operated in the Real World.

King Tarquin simply wanted another town as a possession, and so firmly was he of a same mind with his son, that he knew that his son would kill the leading men who would otherwise be standing in the way of that conquest without King Tarquin even having to verbally explain himself to the messenger. That's the real world, the fallen world we live in. Where the real rulers are glorified bandits, gangsters.

So in 7 B.C. it should come as no surprise then that King Herod ''the Great'' sought the Life of Christ once born, and massacred the male children of Bethlehem 2 years and younger, for this is the World, and this is how It operates. Moderns, civilized as we are, don't quite understand that, being beyond good and evil and all (and see? ''modernity'' might as well be called ''Civilization'', while ''Barbarism'' is just a society or person in a state of realism about the World)

I mean, think about it; a King gets a visit from Astrologers, the Magi from far away lands who say that a King will be born in Judea. His own scholars narrow down the place, and he tells the Magi and the assembled court that he wants them to return to him so that he might then know and worship the Christ also. And of course, nobody of sense believes him. But nobody can prevent the massacre, for that is just what Herod and evil Kings do, in the World.

For King Herod knew in his heart that Christ Is not a ''Cloud-dweller'', despite the later comments about rule and government during Our Lord's Passion. Kings under His rule, the rule of a Christian society, just can't go around lopping off heads like poppies and killing children as and if they please, can they?

But that's what Kings can do, in the World, in reality, right?

We moderns laugh or shake our head at such seeming 'stupidities' and 'savagery' and 'superstition' in wonder, and twist ourselves into such logical pretzels to deny the realities of the situation. If a person does not have absolute power and ultimate responsibility in a country, then nobody truly does, and thus power is diffused by ideas and theories along with any potential credit or blame for actions and failures to act.

Past few days, We Americans and Moderns in general had a fresh encounter with the World, when a band of supporters of President Trump broke into and briefly occupied the Capitol Building. The Spell was broken, and cannot be unbroken. What ''spell''? The spell in the minds of a President's followers that is a consensus among Americans for over 200 years, that says Presidents must have term limits and be elected or re-elected after winning an legitimate election to continue to hold that office, because that's what a bit of Modern ''Scripture'' called a Constitution says, being an Idea, a Theory.

Did such a paper document, written by imperfect men, raise itself up and drive these people out of the building, this ''Sacred Temple''? Hell no, armed men ordered by certain politicians to drive them out did it, as well they should have. Governments don't take well to being challenged in that way, regardless if run by a King Tarquin or a King Herod or King Solomon or allegedly by a Piece of Paper representing the rule of the ''Sovereign People'' for that matter.

But speak to me then afterwards of Righteousness or the Mandate of Heaven, rather than the ''Constitutionality'' or ''Unconstitutionality'' of the proceedings! I'm not civilized enough, modern enough, to swallow all that ''cloud dwelling''.

I have more thoughts on the subject, but I need the input of others, other minds to weigh in on this.

My friend, I hope all is well with you.

In my opinion we should be cloud dwellers. The world would be a better place if we had more people who are not completely involved in the contemporary world as it is.

The people of this modern world are not real cloud dwellers because they don't dwell on much. If they really were dreamers and living in the blue clouds they wouldn't be producing such superficial contrived nonsense that is the output of Western universities. A cloud dweller like Pasternak is incapable of such theories. All the writers and producers of art of any value I would say are cloud dwellers, because the creative impulse is not grounded in hard material realities. A great writer like Mikhail Bulgakov seems to me to have been not so much a politician or banker. And what of Sergei Yesenin? I think he was also somewhat of a man in the clouds, at least a man who was in his own universe, and yet he was not a bourgeois but a real peasant son of Mother Russia!

Most certainly the people of pre-modern times were not cloud dwellers but the majority of people today are not either. It's very difficult to understand people who carry on through life with no thoughts that aren't entirely grounded in reality. But perhaps that is just me, because I too am very much a cloud dweller and not entirely grounded.

I simply think that the majority of people in the modern world don't really think very deeply about much, except that which concerns their every day lives. They believe in many artificial notions of reality and live in virtuality but none of these they have given much thought. Most of them are second hand opinions they've taken from the press or social media.

The developments in Washington are the product of material realities and a politicised public who have absorbed the Trumpist ideology. It's unlikely many of those people have given their political beliefs much thought, perhaps none at all. Afterall how could someone lost in any sort of thought be drawn into the Trumpist movement let alone participate in such lunacy. Trump is not the sort of man who is going to attract book reading introverts, or perhaps it is a broad brush generalisation on my part. What we can be certain of is that Trump is not a philosopher or a deep thinker, he's a deal maker and a doer. In a sense it alludes to the man of action that the fascists want to lead them.