I Reject, I Affirm. ''Raising the Black Flag'' in an Age of Devilry. - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#15027085
@Victoribus Spolia; @Rei Murasame;

Returning to my broader reflections that provide a framework for this thread of mine, it has probably occurred to some that I am, based on my posts on other threads, kind of a ''post-socialist'' anti-capitalist, when an ''unironic National Bolshevik of traditionalist Christian beliefs'' might be a better descriptor. But what it really comes down to is that 'there is nothing new under the Sun', and while in the previous 7000 years the set of beliefs regarded as ''Modern'' was hidden in the depths of the pagan mystery schools worldwide , now it is the case that traditional Orthodox Christianity is hidden (or not so much that, as unseen and insignificant to today's world) and without political meaning or social significance at least in the West. Not that it is wrong, it most emphatically is right and should be spoken of as such. My original reaction was to analyze the modern world and see how it can be changed or modified to be less anti-human and anti-God, since it cannot be undone by mortal men. Now, I see that everything has to proceed to it's denouement.

Not only is this an absence of the idea of Progress, it is the absence of the idea of Politics as we've known it for some 500 years. How can I speak about the border and immigration problem for example, when I don't believe that Westphalian nation-state modernity contains within itself any of the solutions?

So here I am in my own little cave, and I'm preparing to watch the 'cities of the plain' burn, today or in 400 or so years time in which case someone else will, because i'd rather not have the fate of one of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus.
#15027094
Palmyrene wrote:@annatar1914

Why is this in the fascist sub forum.


Call it a kind of encoded letter to crypto-fascists (if you can call them that), and certain of their enemies, who both just happen to be ''in the know'' on certain matters. There are people I have kind of a respect for, even if I see what they promote as a very great evil, but not lacking in an infernal grandeur.

As for myself I'm just kind of a canary in the coalmine, doing what canaries in a coalmine do. Almost everybody else on PoFo with a few exceptions is kind of clueless, perhaps unfortunately.
#15027102
annatar1914 wrote:Call it a kind of encoded letter to crypto-fascists (if you can call them that), and certain of their enemies, who both just happen to be ''in the know'' on certain matters. There are people I have kind of a respect for, even if I see what they promote as a very great evil, but not lacking in an infernal grandeur.

As for myself I'm just kind of a canary in the coalmine, doing what canaries in a coalmine do. Almost everybody else on PoFo with a few exceptions is kind of clueless, perhaps unfortunately.


What do you mean by "in the know" and "clueless"?

And why are you encoding it to fascists?
#15027107
Palmyrene wrote:What do you mean by "in the know" and "clueless"?

And why are you encoding it to fascists?


Isn't that kind of my affair?

After all, I'm not that hard to read, and I think your Middle Eastern mind can at least unconciously understand me well enough. After all, all of this pretty much began there.

I'll give you a superficially good enough reasoning, close enough to the truth of the matter, without lying; I've come across ideas and information that place me pretty closely to Victoribus Spolia's ideological bent, that i've been wrestling with for a few years, given my previous understandings on matters I won't discuss.
#15027112
annatar1914 wrote:Isn't that kind of my affair?

After all, I'm not that hard to read, and I think your Middle Eastern mind can at least unconciously understand me well enough. After all, all of this pretty much began there.

I'll give you a superficially good enough reasoning, close enough to the truth of the matter, without lying; I've come across ideas and information that place me pretty closely to Victoribus Spolia's ideological bent, that i've been wrestling with for a few years, given my previous understandings on matters I won't discuss.


All of what began there?

And my mind is my own. It is neither Middle Eastern nor Muslim nor Arab.
#15027121
Palmyrene wrote:I don't understand the code here.


Then i'd have to be clearer I suppose. Sometimes I write for everybody, sometimes I write for myself, and sometimes I write just for specific people and their interests, or against them. I am not deliberately obscure, although some of my thinking can be. This is because there is little in this world that is entirely wrong, and beliefs held by most cannot be entirely without a basis in fact somewhere. Therefore, I give every devil their due, in full.
#15027174
annatar1914 wrote:Then i'd have to be clearer I suppose. Sometimes I write for everybody, sometimes I write for myself, and sometimes I write just for specific people and their interests, or against them. I am not deliberately obscure, although some of my thinking can be. This is because there is little in this world that is entirely wrong, and beliefs held by most cannot be entirely without a basis in fact somewhere. Therefore, I give every devil their due, in full.


I still have no idea what you're saying.

Would you like to hear about my belief system? We could exchange our ideas :)
#15027452
Palmyrene wrote:I still have no idea what you're saying.

Would you like to hear about my belief system? We could exchange our ideas :)


Put up a thread on your views and I'm sure to write something in response. But if you don't know what i'm saying now, or as you say;


I'm not really into this spiritual stuff. I've made my own sort of "religion" or belief system as a hobby but I'm not that into it.


Then i'm afraid that perhaps there might not be much to talk about between you and I. See, I am ''into this spiritual stuff'' but I don't ''make things up'' or regard it as a ''hobby'', although I know many do. I take it very seriously, because that's pretty much the definition of religion; A self-binding set of answers to questions of common ultimate human concern, that translate into a way of life for persons, informs every aspect of it. Usually it's a community thing. ''Who are we?'', ''Where do we come from?'', ''where are we destined to go to, personally and collectively?'', ''what is the nature of reality?'' and similar questions and their answers.

Now, there are people who understand this, and believe this themselves, but don't like the other religions, don't believe they supply the right answers to those questions of ultimate human concern I mentioned earlier. Some of the people I've addressed are very antithetical to what I've said on this thread and elsewhere, others, not so much. But they regard all this as very serious.
#15027456
annatar1914 wrote:Put up a thread on your views and I'm sure to write something in response. But if you don't know what i'm saying now, or as you say;

Then i'm afraid that perhaps there might not be much to talk about between you and I. See, I am ''into this spiritual stuff'' but I don't ''make things up'' or regard it as a ''hobby'', although I know many do. I take it very seriously, because that's pretty much the definition of religion; A self-binding set of answers to questions of common ultimate human concern, that translate into a way of life for persons, informs every aspect of it. Usually it's a community thing. ''Who are we?'', ''Where do we come from?'', ''where are we destined to go to, personally and collectively?'', ''what is the nature of reality?'' and similar questions and their answers.

Now, there are people who understand this, and believe this themselves, but don't like the other religions, don't believe they supply the right answers to those questions of ultimate human concern I mentioned earlier. Some of the people I've addressed are very antithetical to what I've said on this thread and elsewhere, others, not so much. But they regard all this as very serious.


I don't really have answers to those questions but I don't really bother myself about them. There could be some spiritual stuff in the world like jinns, demons, angels, ghosts, psychics, etc. or there may be not and natural phenomenon can explain them. There may be an afterlife and I have reason to believe there is but there's an equal chance there isn't.

While I do have my own belief system based on Islam, Persian, Hellenistic philosophy, it's more like my attempt at somewhat reforming Islamic beliefs to more suit anarchist ideas using the things already there. It isn't something I fully believe in; I don't if there something is greater in the works or if it's nothing more than coincidence or the culmination of events and decisions made thus far.

This is fundamentally the reason why I stick to politics and the materialistic sphere, because that is what I know. I also have a severe dislike for these sorts of "it's all according to plan"-type religions because it leads to quietism and submission. If I were to believe in a religion, it would have to be more active and invigorating.

I'll be sure to tag you when I post the thread.
#15030638
annatar1914 wrote:@Victoribus Spolia; @Rei Murasame;

Returning to my broader reflections that provide a framework for this thread of mine, it has probably occurred to some that I am, based on my posts on other threads, kind of a ''post-socialist'' anti-capitalist, when an ''unironic National Bolshevik of traditionalist Christian beliefs'' might be a better descriptor. But what it really comes down to is that 'there is nothing new under the Sun', and while in the previous 7000 years the set of beliefs regarded as ''Modern'' was hidden in the depths of the pagan mystery schools worldwide , now it is the case that traditional Orthodox Christianity is hidden (or not so much that, as unseen and insignificant to today's world) and without political meaning or social significance at least in the West. Not that it is wrong, it most emphatically is right and should be spoken of as such. My original reaction was to analyze the modern world and see how it can be changed or modified to be less anti-human and anti-God, since it cannot be undone by mortal men. Now, I see that everything has to proceed to it's denouement.

Not only is this an absence of the idea of Progress, it is the absence of the idea of Politics as we've known it for some 500 years. How can I speak about the border and immigration problem for example, when I don't believe that Westphalian nation-state modernity contains within itself any of the solutions?

So here I am in my own little cave, and I'm preparing to watch the 'cities of the plain' burn, today or in 400 or so years time in which case someone else will, because i'd rather not have the fate of one of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus.


A few days pass, while I was away during the Dormition Fast, and I detect some unfortunate pessimism in my earlier statements.

I trust the working people, I favor their democracy, true democracy. Enlightened and given political and economic freedoms, the majority of the people can be trusted to plot out their destiny after discussing the matters important to them and the lives of their families, together coming to a decision. Further along, they can be trusted to elect representatives with legislative and executive power, who are bound to strictly follow the will of the council of people who they represent. But the reverse is also true, that after their representatives debate, I trust the people in that they will let go of factionalism and agree to all follow the course decided upon by those representatives.

Not so much that I fully trust the individual person given fallen human nature, but experience of history shows that most cultures (except the American one) are generally more collective and cooperative than individualistic and self-interested. Being American albeit not so very Western minded, I still had a hard time believing that this greater unity of purpose was even possible.

If this is ''Statism'', than it is the ''State of the Whole People'', popular and representative-democratic but illiberal (because also Authoritarian, and because the People really are more virtuous than the Elites or former Elites). Socialist and Meritocratic of course, because the People everywhere have always been Proto-Socialist and Meritocratic in their hearts, which is why the Elites fear and hate the People whom they exploit, and thus also why the Elites have always been possessed of a tendency towards what might be called Proto-Fascism. Both tendencies are natural in a sense to mankind, like Good and Evil are.

Because of this, this is where the Marxists are also wrong; you just don't have the State whither away...It's simply not possible.
#15030653
annatar1914 wrote:A few days pass, while I was away during the Dormition Fast, and I detect some unfortunate pessimism in my earlier statements.

I trust the working people, I favor their democracy, true democracy. Enlightened and given political and economic freedoms, the majority of the people can be trusted to plot out their destiny after discussing the matters important to them and the lives of their families, together coming to a decision. Further along, they can be trusted to elect representatives with legislative and executive power, who are bound to strictly follow the will of the council of people who they represent. But the reverse is also true, that after their representatives debate, I trust the people in that they will let go of factionalism and agree to all follow the course decided upon by those representatives.

In other words, Leninist democratic centralism. This old commie approves! :) :up:

Not so much that I fully trust the individual person given fallen human nature, but experience of history shows that most cultures (except the American one) are generally more collective and cooperative than individualistic and self-interested. Being American albeit not so very Western minded, I still had a hard time believing that this greater unity of purpose was even possible.

And this is precisely why American society, as it currently exists, is actually one of the most Godless and materialistic societies which has ever existed in all of human history, despite their attachment to Christian fundamentalism. They are the Cities of the Plain, not the City set on a hill.

If this is ''Statism'', than it is the ''State of the Whole People'', popular and representative-democratic but illiberal (because also Authoritarian, and because the People really are more virtuous than the Elites or former Elites). Socialist and Meritocratic of course, because the People everywhere have always been Proto-Socialist and Meritocratic in their hearts, which is why the Elites fear and hate the People whom they exploit, and thus also why the Elites have always been possessed of a tendency towards what might be called Proto-Fascism. Both tendencies are natural in a sense to mankind, like Good and Evil are.

Because of this, this is where the Marxists are also wrong; you just don't have the State whither away...It's simply not possible.

The state apparatus is an instrument whereby one class of people can oppress all other classes of people in a given society. This, indeed, is precisely why it was founded in ancient Sumeria, in ancient Egypt, in ancient China, and in ancient Meso-America. The priestly caste and the owning class in the first cities needed a means to economically and socially oppress the toiling masses, and they found that means in the state apparatus, which they surrounded with the mummery of religious ritual.

But in any society which has developed beyond the need for one class to oppress another, the state apparatus will have become obsolete. Who would need to use it, and for what reason?
#15030664
Potemkin wrote:But in any society which has developed beyond the need for one class to oppress another, the state apparatus will have become obsolete. Who would need to use it, and for what reason?
Do you really believe the state will wither away? Did religions wither away when science shattered their universe-building and when the state encroached on their social support for the poor and weak?! For all various reasons humans will just honour and continue with institutions and ideas even when these things have lost their function.
#15030666
This idea that the "state" came into existence to oppress people is silly and ahistorical.

Prior even to the "state" one tribe will have to protect itself from other tribes as they bump up against each other. And internally any tribe will have individuals who have behaviors outside the range of what other individuals can tolerate: stealing, pedofiddling, lying or whatever for example.

Solving conflicts can be done by diplomacy but usually brute force just works better. The success of force in solving conflicts scales with strength which comes down to numbers. Thus tribes will defend themselves from external predators and internal deviants through some co-ordination of their numbers to leverage their strength. This co-ordination is governance. Co-ordination requires a co-ordinator and that is government.

When tribes settled down in farms and cities this co-ordination continues of course but some modern people like to call this co-ordination "the state" now.

While people have external enemies and internal deviants there will always be a chain of causation thus:

conflict -> co-ordination -> co-ordinator

And there always will be these things somewhere in the universe for as long as life exists.

Some of you dimwits seem to think the chain of causation is the exact reverse, lol.
#15030815
@Potemkin , you said in response to my post that;

In other words, Leninist democratic centralism. This old commie approves! :) :up:


Yes, Democratic Centralism and Soviet Democracy. These things were actually real to a significant degree long ago, perhaps they can be built up again on stronger foundations than before.

And this is precisely why American society, as it currently exists, is actually one of the most Godless and materialistic societies which has ever existed in all of human history, despite their attachment to Christian fundamentalism. They are the Cities of the Plain, not the City set on a hill.


Absolutely, I cannot disagree, it's almost as if another species of mankind arose, significantly different in degree and kind from everything and everyone before. ''American Exceptionalism'' is a very real thing, but the reality of that belief is not what the coiners of the phrase ever would have wanted to hear.

The state apparatus is an instrument whereby one class of people can oppress all other classes of people in a given society. This, indeed, is precisely why it was founded in ancient Sumeria, in ancient Egypt, in ancient China, and in ancient Meso-America. The priestly caste and the owning class in the first cities needed a means to economically and socially oppress the toiling masses, and they found that means in the state apparatus, which they surrounded with the mummery of religious ritual.


False Religion (built on the essentially pagan idea of the Divine/Human relation as being something of a Capitalistic business partnership or agreement; you do something for me, and i'll do something for you and your human acolytes' benefit in exchange), yes. Of course even the true religion can have such false adherents within it as well.

But in any society which has developed beyond the need for one class to oppress another, the state apparatus will have become obsolete. Who would need to use it, and for what reason?


The Socialistic Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in a naturalistic sense and within those naturalistic parameters of speculation, is as high and as evolved and refined civilizationally as we humans can get in my opinion. It's better than Capitalism, to be sure. But nothing's perfect made of imperfect people I'm afraid, and I think human nature as it stands today secretes Reaction as much as it does Progress contra Marxism perhaps, while being clear on where the Good and True and Beautiful lies in this life, with Progress.
#15032059
I said;

"But nothing's perfect made of imperfect people I'm afraid, and I think human nature as it stands today secretes Reaction as much as it does Progress''


I think that it even has a name or two; Entropy. Inertia. What happens? People think they've reached a ideal point of social well-being, at least for themselves and their posterity, and freeze society into place to keep the good times rolling. They say; ''we've reached the End of History and the Last Man'', etc...

Not everyone is an Arsonist longing to Ignite the entire Universe. Some really want to do what they've always done, throughout the ages as they roll by.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 13
Another school shooting

I was replying to your post I'm not the one on an[…]

the Gaza riots are not peaceful protests thats wh[…]

The idea that we can get more gas and oil from th[…]

I agree! However, the killing methods are vastly[…]