[annatar1914]

Nothing was ever secure and the bloodletting didn't begin with the modern age. You're nostalgic for a golden age that never was. It's always the best of times and the worst of times. There is no way back and even if there was you'd just be heading into a deathtrap because anything in nature that's not on its way up is on its way out.

I am looking at the literally industrial scale of the slaughter in the modern age, which possibly can't be un-entangled from the rationalist philosophies which accompanied it.

[Sivad]

I am looking at the literally industrial scale of the slaughter in the modern age, which possibly can't be un-entangled from the rationalist philosophies which accompanied it.

Oh I'm pretty sure it can be, people would have slaughtered each other regardless. It was only rationality that prevented our self-annihilation. I don't know if you can disentangle the technological progress from the progress of reason but I do know that if our technological evolution wasn't accompanied by an epistemic revolution you and me or anyone wouldn't be here right now to discuss it. I also know that if there was no technological evolution it would only be a matter of time until an asteroid or a plague or a super volcano wiped us all out. Onward and upward is our only viable route of escape from this miserable deathtrap and even if the world wasn't a deathtrap human existence is too paltry and miserable to be an end in itself.

[annatar1914]

Oh I'm pretty sure it can be, people would have slaughtered each other regardless. It was only rationality that prevented our self-annihilation. I don't know if you can disentangle the technological progress from the progress of reason but I do know that if our technological evolution wasn't accompanied by an epistemic revolution you and me or anyone wouldn't be here right now to discuss it. I also know that if there was no technological evolution it would only be a matter of time until an asteroid or a plague or a super volcano wiped us all out. Onward and upward is our only viable route of escape from this miserable deathtrap and even if the world wasn't a deathtrap human existence is too paltry and miserable to be an end in itself.

Is it? Would it? That ''epistemic revolution'' is what I and others on this thread (@Potemkin , and @Wellsy mainly) have discussed recently and I for one in a less than optimistic vein.

There is no ''onward and upward'' escape that we can do of and by ourselves.

[Sivad]

Is it? Would it?

Do you really doubt it considering what petty nasty brutish superficial selfish creatures we are? Just material impoverishment alone makes life for most of us not worth living but even the vast majority of those of us who enjoy relative freedom from material want are so intellectually and spiritually impoverished that life is pretty much wasted on us. Without the promise of some kind of evolution, whether it be mystical or psychophysical, human existence is not only pointless and futile, it's also absolutely fucking doomed to extinction.

That ''epistemic revolution'' is what I and others on this thread have discussed recently and I for one in a less than optimistic vein.

Don't get me started, I'm right there with you. I definitely don't think we're anything near what you'd call enlightened but I do think that with a good bit of luck we maybe do have just enough epistemic integrity to get us through the evolutionary gauntlet by the skin of our teeth.

There is no ''onward and upward'' escape that we can do of and by ourselves.

I agree with you on that, I absolutely do believe that there's an angel that rides the whirlwind directing this storm. It's called the Logos, it's the force that draws order out of the chaos. I'm a person of deep faith, I have zero faith in humanity but I do have a great deal of faith in the Good.

[annatar1914]

@Sivad ;

Do you really doubt it considering what petty nasty brutish superficial selfish creatures we are? Just material impoverishment alone makes life for most of us not worth living but even the vast majority of those of us who enjoy relative freedom from material want are so intellectually and spiritually impoverished that life is pretty much wasted on us. Without the promise of some kind of evolution, whether it be mystical or psychophysical, human existence is not only pointless and futile, it's also absolutely fucking doomed to extinction.

Life is worth living, for those who see us all as being made in the image and likeness of almighty God, alienated to a degree from Him by sin, but given the promise that He Himself will redeem us and give us new life. In the interim, we are told that ''man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God'', and so our schemes for what is best politically for man universally are exactly that, vain schemes.

Don't get me started, I'm right there with you. I definitely don't think we're anything near what you'd call enlightened but I do think that with a good bit of luck we maybe do have just enough epistemic integrity to get us through the evolutionary gauntlet by the skin of our teeth.

I will say that I do not subscribe to evolution (devolution is more properly the term for the phenomena) but akin to that, I do not believe in luck either.

I agree with you on that, I absolutely do believe that there's an angel that rides the whirlwind directing this storm. It's called the Logos, it's the force that draws order out of the chaos. I'm a person of deep faith, I have zero faith in humanity but I do have a great deal of faith in the Good.

I'd say ''Him'' rather than ''It'', but yes.

[Potemkin]

Do you really doubt it considering what petty nasty brutish superficial selfish creatures we are? Just material impoverishment alone makes life for most of us not worth living but even the vast majority of those of us who enjoy relative freedom from material want are so intellectually and spiritually impoverished that life is pretty much wasted on us. Without the promise of some kind of evolution, whether it be mystical or psychophysical, human existence is not only pointless and futile, it's also absolutely fucking doomed to extinction.



Don't get me started, I'm right there with you. I definitely don't think we're anything near what you'd call enlightened but I do think that with a good bit of luck we maybe do have just enough epistemic integrity to get us through the evolutionary gauntlet by the skin of our teeth.



I agree with you on that, I absolutely do believe that there's an angel that rides the whirlwind directing this storm. It's called the Logos, it's the force that draws order out of the chaos. I'm a person of deep faith, I have zero faith in humanity but I do have a great deal of faith in the Good.

"A Klee painting named ''Angelus Novus'' shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress." - Walter Benjamin, Theses on the Philosophy of History.

Angelus Novus

[annatar1914]

"A Klee painting named ''Angelus Novus'' shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress." - Walter Benjamin, Theses on the Philosophy of History.

Angelus Novus

Something or rather Someone breaks though the cycle of history's red wheel, and we are given choices in our lives. I suspect that sooner than we think, those choices for life and love and truth or their opposites, are going to have to be made and there will be no third option.

[annatar1914]

Iran is the new center of world Revolution in this day and age;

But it isn't ''Left'' or ''Right'', ''progressive'' or ''reactionary'', is it?



Choose wisely.

[Wellsy]

Which is why most government throughout history has been some kind of Monarchy. And why I too temper my personal ideology of Socialist Republicanism with a Monarchy also, things which superfically appear to be antithetical to each other and in tension.

I think a monarch can epitomize the effectiveness of counsel decision making and avoid some of the pitfalls of majority (democracy) or consensus (community) decision making.

Although I'm not sure if I am entirely given to monarchy because of the limitations and distortions we see with modern liberal democracies. As I think the concept of majority vote is still a sound basis of governance, it just can be corrupted just as a monarch can. A ruler needs to be virtuous but ideally the community is and being effected by such decisions they are best considered in the decision making of that which effects them.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/subject-position.htm

“All participants” is a more precise specification than “all those affected,” because in the first place, we define the others as fellow participants, as subjects, rather than defining them as passively affected objects. Rather than dividing the world into actors on one hand, and on the other hand, those who are acted upon, but who then, as a result of being acted upon, are to be given a say, we accept everyone as participants who claims to be a participant, all equally to decide on what the project is. A participant defines themself as a participant. A person who defines themself as “affected,” ipso facto places a claim for recognition as “participant.” The “all those affected” criterion raises the problem of who is to decide who is affected and who is not? Deciding on who are the participants in the project are to be, is the most crucial decision made in any project, a decision usually made at the highest level. For example, government may appoint participants in a project team or board of enquiry, or the CEO of a company; by nominating members of Parliament, the people exercise the highest authority over their own affairs. So if the “all those affected” criterion is to have any meaning at all, the claim to be affected must be tantamount to a claim for participation.

And I think that the mass population can be quite good in their decision making when there are sustained avenues to support people's political involvement rather than their alienation.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/On%20Political%20Representation.pdf

Advocates of ‘citizen juries’ have convincingly shown that a randomly chosen group of citizens, if given time and the same kind of expert advice given to elected politicians, generate better decisions than career politicians or even social movement activists. But the suggestion following from this that election of governments should be replaced by such randomly chosen focus groups is premature. Politicians are tasked not just with devising good policies, they are the mediating link in the process whereby the people govern themselves. It is a sorry reflection on our political process that the electorate is incapable of forming themselves into a coherent whole around a sensible social and political program. But that problem needs to be tackled at source rather than bypassed by random selection of legislators.

Now don't think this means I am oppose to leadership and representation, rather I think the ideal of democracy in which a representative becomes the symbol of a groups interests and resolved upon particular actions and ends is clearer superior than those who oppose all forms of rule and wish to flatten things to only the group.
I quite like this take on the horizontalism of anarchists: https://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/ported/faculty/upload/Blunden%20review.pdf

Spoiler: show

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Collaborative%20Ethics.pdf

Counsel
The most ancient paradigm of collective decision making is Counsel. This form of collective decision making was codified by St. Benedict c. 500AD, amply recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Witanegemot and is documented in African traditional societies under the name of Lekgotla. In Counsel, one person, the ‘Chief’ let us say, takes moral responsibility for making the decision, but is obliged to consult every one of the collective before announcing the decision. Counsel is still the dominant form of decision making in private firms and traditional families and is often the de facto form of decision making even where the procedures characteristic of Majority or Consensus are acted out. Counsel also applies to artistic projects, such as when a sculptor engages a technician to make castings, and so on, to the extent that Counsel is sometimes seen as the art paradigm of decision making because of its emphasis on realising the authentic vision of the artist rather than the satisficing of diverse visions.
Counsel should not be discounted as a genuine and effective form of collective decision making. The King is only as wise as his counsel, but whereas both Majority and Consensus risk producing compromise decisions which are some kind of arithmetic mean of divers points of view, a decision by Counsel is the considered, undiluted and informed decision of one well-advised person.
According to those who have documented this paradigm, although there are procedural requirements to consult everyone implicated in the decision, the ethic of Counsel is primarily an ethic of virtue. The attributes of the good chief are many, but include wisdom, charisma and the ability to listen. Once the Chief has made a decision, there is no dissent, so an outsider can easily mistake Counsel for Consensus.
Instances where a person is vested with authority in a chain of command or in the field of action, I count as truncated or degenerate forms of Counsel. An officer commanding soldiers in the field is not engaged in collective decision making but simply executing her/his appointed role and the soldiers theirs; likewise tradespeople overseeing apprentices. Nevertheless, some features of Counsel will be manifested in these instances. It makes more sense to count command and mentoring relationships as truncated forms of Counsel than to take them as distinct modes, as neither command nor mentoring necessarily involve collective decision making at all.

Majority
Majority decision making dates from the break up of the early medieval period with the emergence of a merchant class and independent tradespeople based in the towns who had no rights in a feudal system organised by land ownership, tenancy and kinship. In order to look after their own welfare in the absence of protection in feudal society, they formed guilds and corporations based on voluntary association and mutual aid. Modern parliaments, companies and trade unions all originate from these medieval guilds and by and large inherit from them the same procedures for collective decision making and the same ethical principles.

Majority is distinguished from Counsel and the norms of feudal society in general by its egalitarianism which is reflected in the capacity of each member of the collective to cast one vote equal in value to the vote of every other member. Such a procedure was simply unthinkable in feudal times though it did exist in truncated form within the Church and in Church elections. Although Majority may have originated as a pragmatic measure to allow decision making under conditions of equality, solidarity and tolerance, over the centuries it became hardened into a powerful ethical principle in its own right. During the nineteenth century and during later struggles for universal suffrage Majority became arguably the most powerful and significant principle of political ethics, acting as a proxy for the notion of universal equality.
Under conditions where there is just one question to be decided and there is no dissent on the question to be posed, Majority is capable of producing a valid decision subject to provisos such as those outlined by Habermas in his Communicative Ethics. However, as Marquis de Condorcet showed 230 years ago and Amartya Sen has demonstrated quite exhaustively, majority voting is unable to consistently and reliably decide on realistic differences, which are invariably multi-dimensional and multivalent, between individual members of a collective. However, over the centuries, elaborate procedures have been developed on the basis of the principle of Majority to facilitate relatively satisfactory decisions under a wide variety of conditions. Majority decisions carry great moral weight, foster creative deliberation, rational and reasonable dialogue and are invariably accepted by participants and concerned non-participants as ethically valid, if arrived at in accordance with agreed traditional procedures, such as those documented in Robert’s Rules of Order or Walter Citrine’s ABC of Chairmanship.

Majority itself not does not warrant automatically an ethically valid decision because of the fact that majority votes can only decide one question. A case in point is the 1999 referendum on an Australian Republic where the PM, a monarchist, asked voters to choose between an unpopular model of a republic and the status quo; although the majority of voters favoured a republic, a majority were not in favour of the model offered. Another case is the Egyptian election in 2005 in which the run-off election was between a military leader who favoured a return to the regime just overthrown and the Muslim Brotherhood. The democratic grouping had come third in the first round, but in a head-to-head contest would have won against either of the other two.

The ethical status of Majority is an established moral fact of modernity, even though it cannot reliably and consistently function as a proxy for the moral equality of all persons. But it is the product of a tradition which is more than any other responsible for the very existence of modernity. Its ultimate justification is that tradition.

Majority decision making expresses, in addition to the principle of majority, three other ethical principles which are part of the same tradition and are built into the procedures for Majority decision making: equality, tolerance and solidarity.

As remarked above, it was the principle of equality which made possible and gave rise to Majority and is expressed in the equal value of each vote. The principle of equality means the equality of all members of the collective as autonomous agents having a stake in the decision.

The impulse which gave rise to Majority was not equality itself but the principle of solidarity, the same principle as referred to above in connection with relations between projects. Members extend mutual aid and maintain the collective irrespective of whether they are in agreement with the decision(s) – the minority works under the decision of the majority. This principle probably arose from pragmatic grounds inasmuch as a voluntary association can only survive by the fact that all contribute equally irrespective of whether they agree with the conduct of the collective. Over the centuries the pragmatic acceptance of this principle became a matter of deeply held moral conviction, as is manifested in the opprobrium attached to words like traitor, scab, turncoat, etc.

Tolerance is the principle that complements and sustains the principle of solidarity – the majority sustains the loyalty of the minority and secures its continued participation, including its dissenting voice in decision making. Tolerance differs from laissez faire because the dissident is still required to maintain their contribution to the collective. And nor does it imply mutual respect, because even while the dissident is recognised as an independent moral agent with an equal stake in the decision and procedures will ensure that their voice is heard, if a view is in a minority no compromise is required out of respect to the minority view. Respect would entail that a minority view is not only listened to but respected in action

These three ethical principles – equality, solidarity and tolerance – have been nurtured under the principle of Majority in the formation of the modern world.

Majority became fixed as an ethical principle in opposition to the rule of a wealthy or privileged nobility. However, in practice, in capitalist societies, it is restricted to a judiciously defined public sphere while the real decisions are made in a so-called private domain. As a consequence, Majority has proved to be an effective tool for the rule of a wealthy or privileged minority. This conundrum arises from the defects of Majority mentioned above. Voting is an abstract procedure incapable of consistently and reliably guaranteeing rational and fair decisions on concrete questions.

Consensus
Although Consensus decision making had been practised among the Quakers since 1662, effectively Consensus was introduced by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and Women Strike for Peace in the USA in 1960/61. The social strata which were mobilised by these organizations were young Blacks in the South (and the students who supported them) and middle-class housewives respectively. These were two groups who had been excluded by the post-World War Two settlement and were inspired by the national liberation movements’ on-going success in bringing an end to colonialism. Consensus spread from the SNCC and WSP to the Peace, Women’s Liberation and Environmental Movements. As the profile of the labour movement in the social justice movements outside the workplaces declined from the late 1990s, Consensus became the preferred method of decision making among a larger and larger section of voluntary associations of all kinds.

The rationale for the use of Consensus in SNCC was that no-one could be forced to put their life on the line while confronting racism with nonviolent resistance, simply on the basis of having participated in making the decision. Only if a person had positively consented in formulating and deciding on an action could they be expected to endure its consequences. For WSP, Consensus was connected to their desire to remain firmly within the ideas and forms of action which were uncontroversial within their own social base and to avoid the construction of the apparatus of a voluntary organisation. As things developed, we can see that the essential basis for Consensus is that the only resource people have is each other (lacking property assets and full-time staff), and the collective has neither the desire nor the capacity to force individuals to comply with a collective decision. The impression is one of unity, but the essential counterpoise to unity is laissez faire. The actual process of discussion which generates the collective decision is not essentially different in Consensus and Majority; both aim for unanimity. “We decide what we do” is the maxim for both. The difference manifests itself when disagreement is persistent. In the case of Majority, there is unity in action; in the case of Consensus, it is laissez faire.

Consensus fosters certain duties and virtues which are not fostered by Majority. The ethic of Consensus is above all inclusion. Discussion will continue until every point of view has not just been heard, but taken account of in the proposal. Even laissez faire supports inclusion in that multiple actions are an alternative to pressing on for actual unity. Consensus does not foster solidarity however, because the dissident minority is free to go their own way and is under no obligation to support the majority in their decision.

Consensus expresses respect for others, for the different. Whereas in Majority, the dissident is tolerated, because after all, the collective can always move to a vote. In Consensus, this option is not open; the collective must continue discussing until the dissidents’ point of view has been incorporated. This can lead to intolerance for persistent nonconformity, but at the same time it denotes respect for the different opinion.

I don’t believe that equality is an ethical principle which is relevant to Consensus; different persons are considered incommensurable rather than equal. Abstract decision making by the counting of votes is discounted in favour of exhaustive efforts to find a creative solution to differences.

There is a serious problem with Consensus however, which has ethical implications; this is the paradox of the status quo: if there is no consensus, then the status quo ante is the default decision. Let’s suppose someone can’t hear what is being said in the meeting and proposes that the air conditioning be turned off; if anyone refuses to agree, then the air conditioning stays on. But let’s suppose the complainant had simply turned it off and then left it for someone to propose that it be turned on – it would remain off. Let us suppose that all the employees in a privately owned firm meet with the owner with a view to transforming the firm into a cooperative; everyone agrees except the owner; so, under the paradigm of Consensus, the firm remains in private hands. Clearly social transformation cannot be achieved by Consensus, because participation in a social order is compulsory, and there is no possibility of opting out.

Further, the absence of solidarity in the ethics of Consensus means that it is impossible to accumulate property, and apart from the Quakers, history has confirmed this truth. If you want a leaflet printed or premises for the night, find a trade union or socialist group to help you out.

Rawls and all the discourse ethicists assume that when ethical principles are derived by dialogue between participants they presume that Consensus is the mode of collective decision making to be used. I believe that this is the reason that discourse ethics invariably arrives at liberal conclusions. But Majority is also flawed because of its reliance on the right question being asked. Thus Discourse Ethics inevitably fails in its project at least insofar as it does not explicitly take account of collaborative projects as mediating the relations between individuals.

[annatar1914]

@Wellsy ;

Thank you for your thoughtful comments!

Yes, I believe that Counsel has to be the driving principle of government between the Councils and the Prince. That while there is and would be a dialectical tension between the two, it really did work well in Orthodox Christian lands like Anglo-Saxon England and elsewhere, such as Novgorod in Medieval Russia.

[Rancid]

Jesus has odd looking eyes in those paintings.

[annatar1914]

Jesus has odd looking eyes in those paintings.

Symbolism.

[Rancid]

Symbolism.

When I commission a portrait of myself, I will request small beady eyes.

[Potemkin]

When I commission a portrait of myself, I will request small beady eyes.

Why would you need to request that, @Rancid?

[annatar1914]

Believe it or not, America is not the center of the world.

Like any pre-modern Christian, Jerusalem is for me, the center of all the drama in a meta-historical sense as well as spiritual one. There is the Heavenly Jerusalem ''also'', and there are those who wish to build a ''Zion'' here and there, but ''Zion'' for me strictly speaking is the Church and is Christ's. He is Russian of course, because really to be Orthodox Christian is to be Russian and to be Russian is to have that ''DNA'' in one's being. I once talked to some Israelis (about those 200 or so years together, Russians and Jews) who knew more than they realized when they said to me in conclusion that ''Israel is Russia and Russia is Israel'', but then, their ancestors usually had that habit, of saying more than they realized that was true...

So now we have a threat of major war in the region, and we Americans are distracted by this smoke and mirrors, this clown show, this kabuki theater. When that's over, and it will be, we'll be faced with different facts on the ground in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Because we aren't the center of the world.

[Wellsy]

@Wellsy ;

Thank you for your thoughtful comments!

Yes, I believe that Counsel has to be the driving principle of government between the Councils and the Prince. That while there is and would be a dialectical tension between the two, it really did work well in Orthodox Christian lands like Anglo-Saxon England and elsewhere, such as Novgorod in Medieval Russia.

What do you like about the two examples?
I know nothing of either.

Also, tangential but relating back to speculation about anarchist capitalists and feudalism, I found a relevant statement from VS summarizing as much.

https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14905440#p14905440

It is like Feudalism, but that is why I like it...

[Local Localist]

Also, tangential but relating back to speculation about anarchist capitalists and feudalism, I found a relevant statement from VS summarizing as much.

Oh yeah, the honest ones don't hide it. From what I've seen of him, he was definitely the kind of Anarcho-Capitalist who knew and fully supported the outcomes it would lead to, being that he was also a reactionary Catholic.

[annatar1914]

What do you like about the two examples?
I know nothing of either.

Also, tangential but relating back to speculation about anarchist capitalists and feudalism, I found a relevant statement from VS summarizing as much.

https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14905440#p14905440

Good find!

The Novgorod Republic of Russia was an excellent blend of authority at the top that was absolute but responsive to the council of citizens below, who elected him and could fire him as well;

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

Anglo-Saxon England's government(s) were also imbued with the same spirit of freedom and authority coming together;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z ... revision/1

[Political Interest]

There are still those who do not wish to have American forces leave Afghanistan because of the perceived threat to western-style ''women's rights" such a withdrawal from Afghanistan might entail. In other words, people are fighting and dying so that in the future Afghan girls can be like Miley Cyrus or similar ''role models'' too...

It's always the comfortable ones who send our men in to get shot at and die in these wars for these fake pseudo rights.

God is Sovereign. It is telling that the Orthodox Faith has kept the future dates for all the liturgical years in it's calendar up to at least the 8000th year of the world, the year 2492 AD... Beyond that or before that, who knows? There will be certain things that will happen before the Lord's Return that the Fathers in their Scriptural commentaries write of and Scripture speaks about, but there really is no way to force God's hand, in anything.

In this world do we actually have any control over our fate? I am starting to think what we can and cannot control is actually very limited. This world is like a flowing river and we can only swim in certain directions of the current, but in the end the river still takes us where it is going, whether we want to go along with it or not.

Mutual understanding is important, without necessarily giving away what is believed. And yes, social harmony would be a plus.

Most Islamophobia is born out of imperialism or as a means to justify imperialism in the Middle East. It serves neither the colonising power or the colonised but the egos and bank accounts of a few lunatics.

Or again it's the liberal racism of civilising the barbarians, teaching them how to live like the supposedly enlightened post-modern Westerners.

Indeed, an atmosphere of trade and the increasing sophistication of economic thought that hadn't been thought of before or had been subdued by religious rules against usury, etc... created the bourgeoisie in my opinion.

I believe there are bourgeois countries, that is to say nations which are essentially bourgeois in their composition, including back into the Age of Exploration.

Yes, I think that has to be the minimum baseline for proper relating with others. It's easy with ideology though to objectify people and dehumanize them even if the goal is humanistic, especially when the ideology promotes an amoral ''the ends justify the means'' praxis.

Ideology and politics, it's not possible to be involved and have clean hands. Politics is corrupt by its very nature I'd say, although there are still some good people involved.

It is my understanding that Christians must love others (even if it is tough love) unconditionally. I am sure this also extends into the sphere of international relations and relations between civilisations.

All the more important that those who do govern such people are wise and good themselves, ideally. Otherwise it will not go well for them, especially if they have the ability to vote without the wisdom to do so well.

Sadly I don't think the politicians think very deeply about very much. How many of them are kept up at night thinking about the big questions or anguished by these issues, very few I would imagine. Politics is really a popularity contest and the politicians are just every day people who have convinced people they're fit to rule. There is very rarely anything outstanding about modern politicians.

Most Mormons I've known were born into it, frankly, I don't know of too many converts personally. I personally cannot imagine with knowing what I know, intelligent people converting to it. But at second glance it offers Westerners and Americans in particular a theology and pseudo-historical background that would be tempting naturally if one didn't know any better, intelligent or otherwise.

It may not be the intelligent ones who convert in future.

Being the traditional ur-religion of the West and encoded into the cultural ''DNA'' so to speak, it could be an option which only requires a relatively younger Pope who is charismatic, intelligent and strong willed who desires the power of the Papacy in the world to be revived, and they would stand a good chance at revival.

Especially considering the state of contemporary Protestantism.

Of course one can't always choose a more prayerful setting, so I try to when and wherever I can when I feel the need to pray.

Sometimes I feel my mind is not pure enough to pray, but perhaps I should anyhow.

While nothing is impossible, it's unlikely that Iran will ever return to the kind of days there before 1979 in my opinion. Wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps not. It seems most Iranians, even those who dislike their government, are still very nationalistic. They would probably not want to be so close to the West again.

This is true, although considering the nature of the two cultural groups such alliances are not lasting, at least not lasting after the immediate Left extremist threat is gone.

We know very well what it looks like when such alliances collapse as well.

I try not to, although it probably doesn't appear that way to some, lol.

You don't come accross as dogmatic and I appreciate your civility and politeness.

I think there will be a resurgence, because as I've said before the enemies of ISIS hate and fear each other and seek to undermine and defeat each other, more than they hate and fear ISIS. It allows ISIS to tactically retreat while maintaining strategic operational depth. Only a few world leaders have seen the greater threat from ISIS and/or Al-Qaida to any significant degree. This is not something the secular and materialistic western world can stop ultimately.

Regarding a resurgence, do you think it would be possible outside of Syria? In Syria the position of the government seems very secure. Of course, because the ideology is dormant it can arise whenver the conditions are suitable.

Maybe Iraq?

This is what it comes down to, in my opinion towards the end the only options and only one is right. This does not preclude of course human decency I think at this time, as we've been discussing.

Is it wrong that I worry about this choice?

[annatar1914]

@Political Interest , thank you! You said;

It's always the comfortable ones who send our men in to get shot at and die in these wars for these fake pseudo rights.

Technology and the ''civilianization'' of political government have exacerbated that trend, whereas in earlier times political leaders either led the troops into battle, or had experience previously that proved their leadership ability.

In this world do we actually have any control over our fate? I am starting to think what we can and cannot control is actually very limited. This world is like a flowing river and we can only swim in certain directions of the current, but in the end the river still takes us where it is going, whether we want to go along with it or not.

I try to draw a balance between the perception of my free actions and the knowledge of the benign sovereignty of an Almighty but all-good and loving God.

On Islamophobia;

Most Islamophobia is born out of imperialism or as a means to justify imperialism in the Middle East. It serves neither the colonising power or the colonised but the egos and bank accounts of a few lunatics.

Most anyway in this modern age, it's true. But i'll have to admit that not being Moslem and adhering to what I consider the proper Monotheistic faith, I can't help but have some concerns.

Or again it's the liberal racism of civilising the barbarians, teaching them how to live like the supposedly enlightened post-modern Westerners.

I have found that to be the case primarily in both ''conservative'' and ''liberal'' camps in the West alike. It's bound to be rather frustrating obviously.

On the ''Bourgeoisie'';

I believe there are bourgeois countries, that is to say nations which are essentially bourgeois in their composition, including back into the Age of Exploration.

The 15th to 18th century, sure I think that's the point at which the transformation began.

Ideology and politics, it's not possible to be involved and have clean hands. Politics is corrupt by its very nature I'd say, although there are still some good people involved.

That is why the secular political world is in such sad shape, with few to honestly be able to turn to a spiritual leader for moral guidance. I still pray for them though, all of them.

It is my understanding that Christians must love others (even if it is tough love) unconditionally. I am sure this also extends into the sphere of international relations and relations between civilisations.

Yes, love unconditionally, in the spirit of truth.

Sadly I don't think the politicians think very deeply about very much. How many of them are kept up at night thinking about the big questions or anguished by these issues, very few I would imagine. Politics is really a popularity contest and the politicians are just every day people who have convinced people they're fit to rule. There is very rarely anything outstanding about modern politicians.

It's the election process and term limitations I think that help to inhibit thinking deeply. We have designed highly rational and logical political structures and mechanisms that are in reality highly irrational and coldly unwieldy in effect, that do not serve anyone well even the 1 or 2% who financially benefit the most from the process, it distorts even their reality.

It may not be the intelligent ones who convert in future.

That's true also, it comes from a person's heart good or bad, not their head so much.


On the future of the Papacy and it's prospects if a young and vigorous and intelligent Pope takes over, you agreed positively especially in comparison to other Western belief systems;'

Especially considering the state of contemporary Protestantism.

Joseph de Maistre or Juan Donoso y Cortes said once that Protestantism is the ''sliding inclined plane from Christian belief to Atheism''. And despite their Papist views, I'm still one to agree with them on that point.


On prayer;

Sometimes I feel my mind is not pure enough to pray, but perhaps I should anyhow.

Yes, I think we all should. Even if all you can do at first is groan and mumble, that's a prayer and He hears you if it's heartfelt.


On the Iranian regime and Iran never going back to the Western imitation way of life;

Perhaps not. It seems most Iranians, even those who dislike their government, are still very nationalistic. They would probably not want to be so close to the West again.

I agree, just as in the 1950's when they were more inclined to be more like the West but greatly supported the Nationalist-Populist Mossadegh.

On the ''Left'' and it's alliance with Islamist forces;

We know very well what it looks like when such alliances collapse as well.

Indeed.

You don't come accross as dogmatic and I appreciate your civility and politeness.

Thank you I appreciate that.

On an ISIS resurgence;

Regarding a resurgence, do you think it would be possible outside of Syria? In Syria the position of the government seems very secure. Of course, because the ideology is dormant it can arise whenver the conditions are suitable.

It could literally be possible anywhere, in my opinion.

Maybe Iraq?

Along the Sunni/Shia fault line, highly likely.


And on the Monotheistic options;

Is it wrong that I worry about this choice?

I'd not so much as say ''wrong'' to worry, but look into things and pray always with trust in God in your sincerity and He will guide you rightly along the winding journey.