a ''return'' to traditionalism, a rejection of ''communism''... - 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 ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14948021
@Decky



Decky wrote:Sounds like God is a dialectical materialist.


For some the notion would sound blasphemous, particularly as atheistic dialectical materialists make use of the originally Hegelian Dialectic to ''explain'' the Cosmos and it's patterns of development as a method of shutting the Creator out of His Creation, denying God. I do not take it in this context as being blasphemous even though it was something cooked up by deniers of the Deity.

Because, the fact is is that there is a meaningful spiraling pattern of development and order under the appearances of chaos and conflict and contradiction in the universe, which resembles clearly what the material dialecticians are secretly striving for, a teleology. God has a habit of making Himself known and showing Himself within His Creation no matter what. Immanent, then, but ultimately Transcendent, and so then far different than the sophistries of the philosophers and savants.

I myself am exceedingly ignorant, and in recent years purposefully so to humble myself after years of living far too much in my head, but I know what I know in my heart.
#14948059
annatar1914 wrote:Ephesians 4:28 ;

Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.


This is clearly an instruction to crush the idle rich and force them actually work for a living for once in their rotten lives! How much more plain can the word of the general secretary of the heavens be? Get those suit wearing scum into productive work!

Image
#14948347
A good 48 hours give or take, and a good dose of prayer and reading of Scripture and the Orthodox Fathers, and I redouble my efforts to look through this collapsing and artificial modern world through pre-modern eyes.

So henceforward on this and other threads, I will endeavor to only utilize the insights of those whom I identify as ''pre-modern'' in thought and feeling, either before the great break that happened after the Copernican Revolution (the one that started all the others), or after.

A decent man of goodwill owes more to Sir Robert Filmer than Karl Marx, anyway, although each has their place.
#14949219
annatar1914 wrote:A good 48 hours give or take, and a good dose of prayer and reading of Scripture and the Orthodox Fathers, and I redouble my efforts to look through this collapsing and artificial modern world through pre-modern eyes.

So henceforward on this and other threads, I will endeavor to only utilize the insights of those whom I identify as ''pre-modern'' in thought and feeling, either before the great break that happened after the Copernican Revolution (the one that started all the others), or after.

A decent man of goodwill owes more to Sir Robert Filmer than Karl Marx, anyway, although each has their place.


Optimism is not truly called for, but neither is despair. Can things truly change for the better on a societal level, or are we bound to an endless cycle of poverty, scarcity, want and war, due to the limitations morally of human nature?

Is it truly a case of either Socialism or Barbarism?

Why are these sorts of questions seemingly never asked anymore?
#14949231
annatar1914 wrote:A good 48 hours give or take, and a good dose of prayer and reading of Scripture and the Orthodox Fathers, and I redouble my efforts to look through this collapsing and artificial modern world through pre-modern eyes.

The irony here is that if you could actually look at the "artificial modern world" with pre-modern eyes this "artificial modern world" would like heaven to you... Only a debauched and depraved post-modern could look at the miracles on every corner with such sniffy disdain. :hmm:
#14949252
SolarCross wrote:The irony here is that if you could actually look at the "artificial modern world" with pre-modern eyes this "artificial modern world" would like heaven to you... Only a debauched and depraved post-modern could look at the miracles on every corner with such sniffy disdain. :hmm:


@SolarCross

Oh, so you're projecting an aesthetic judgement as being the basis for what I reject? You could not be more incorrect. Let me be clear; I am rejecting ''Modernity'' which is a philosophical and intellectual aggregate of positions, a counter way of life and set of attitudes generally expressing itself as Secularism in the social sphere. It only tangentially relates to technology and science, and usually then in the ethical and moral aspects of those disciplines. However, if you think that these things ''on every corner'' that are the results of applied technology are ''miracles'', then you sir do not unfortunately know what a miracle is. And thus, do not understand the basis of my critique. It's against godlessness and immorality, relativism and a utilitarian and consumerist view of life.

Technology, Indoor plumbing, science, rationalistic exercises of man's mind, these are not "Modern" nor are they the products of the modern mindset. The Atomic Bomb, Capitalism as at least presently exercised, Liberalism and ''Identity Politics'', Transhumanism/Post-Humanism, etc.. and much of what passes for life today, those are Modern.
#14949263
annatar1914 wrote:
Oh, so you're projecting an aesthetic judgement as being the basis for what I reject? You could not be more incorrect. Let me be clear; I am rejecting ''Modernity'' which is a philosophical and intellectual aggregate of positions, a counter way of life and set of attitudes generally expressing itself as Secularism in the social sphere. It only tangentially relates to technology and science, and usually then in the ethical and moral aspects of those disciplines. However, if you think that these things ''on every corner'' that are the results of applied technology are ''miracles'', then you sir do not unfortunately know what a miracle is. And thus, do not understand the basis of my critique. It's against godlessness and immorality, relativism and a utilitarian and consumerist view of life.

Technology, Indoor plumbing, science, rationalistic exercises of man's mind, these are not "Modern" nor are they the products of the modern mindset. The Atomic Bomb, Capitalism as at least presently exercised, Liberalism and ''Identity Politics'', Transhumanism/Post-Humanism, etc.. and much of what passes for life today, those are Modern.

There is no way a pre-modern could look at the modern world without gawping in wonder, it would take years of acclimatisation before they could even begin to get sniffy about "godlessness and immorality, relativism and a utilitarian and consumerist view of life" at which point they would no longer be a pre-modern. Consumerism they would understand well enough and the immorality would be entirely familiar, pre-moderns also had drunks, slags, gamblers, thieves, murderers and liars too. The past was a lot less pure and churchy than you think it was. The things you think they would be most appalled at would be the most familiar.
#14949516
@SolarCross

You are quite incorrect. Let's examine why. You said firstly;

There is no way a pre-modern could look at the modern world without gawping in wonder


Having read about and seen members of traditionalist pre-modern societies, and even talked with some over the decades, the reaction is more a mixture of sadness, horror, and anger at the accumulated foolishness of your ''modern world''. And again, not so much at indoor plumbing or modern medicine and and such things, but the general worldview and attitude towards life evinced by a majority in first world.


, it would take years of acclimatisation before they could even begin to get sniffy about "godlessness and immorality, relativism and a utilitarian and consumerist view of life" at which point they would no longer be a pre-modern.


''Sniffy''? What are you, ten? Life doesn't work that way, and pre-moderns or anti-moderns are still normal people, even more normal in contrast to your neurotic moderns actually. What is wrong is wrong no matter where or when or how they come about. Your historicism is ludicrous.


Consumerism they would understand well enough and the immorality would be entirely familiar, pre-moderns also had drunks, slags, gamblers, thieves, murderers and liars too.


In pre-modern and anti-modern societies, shopping is not a way of life, living is, good and bad. And while immorality is familiar to any sinner under God's blue skies, in the pre-modern times they knew that they were sinners. Modern culture so obviously lacks shame, that to not see that on your part is rather a sign of modern shamelessness itself.


The past was a lot less pure and churchy than you think it was.


Don't assume what I think. ''pure and churchy'' demonstrates a contempt for the Christian worldview, in which case if you can't contain that, maybe you can find another thread friendlier for you to troll on. If you want a serious conversation however on the cluster of topics this thread is about, than i'd be happy to have a polite conversation with you in which we could both benefit.


The things you think they would be most appalled at would be the most familiar.


''Scientists'' growing ears on mice and transhumanism, not to mention secularism in general, are the sort of things pre-modern and anti-modern peoples are appalled at, and yet are an example of modernity run rampant.

Edit; hmm, SC, I tell you what has always linked regular decent normal people past present and future; is the desire to be free. Free politically, free economically. And there have always been heroes who rose up to demand justice, justice against those who consider others their inferiors and who believe the rest of mankind is like a horse suited to be ridden about with a saddle on their back. Ridden by parasites and exploited by force and fear, usury and fraud and being cheated of the fruits of their labors.

Someday these so-called ''Elites'' will be smashed, and all the thugs and goons they hire (or who foolishly prostitute themselves to them willingly) won't do them any amount of good.
#14949654
annatar1914 wrote:Having read about and seen members of traditionalist pre-modern societies, and even talked with some over the decades, the reaction is more a mixture of sadness, horror, and anger at the accumulated foolishness of your ''modern world''. And again, not so much at indoor plumbing or modern medicine and and such things, but the general worldview and attitude towards life evinced by a majority in first world.

There are no authentic pre-moderns living now so you are talking to anti-moderns wearing nostalgia goggles. Real pre-moderns were the moderns of their day, they embraced their moment just as modern people do.

annatar1914 wrote:''Sniffy''? What are you, ten? Life doesn't work that way, and pre-moderns or anti-moderns are still normal people, even more normal in contrast to your neurotic moderns actually. What is wrong is wrong no matter where or when or how they come about. Your historicism is ludicrous.

adjective, snif·fi·er, snif·fi·est. Informal.

inclined to sniff, as in scorn; disdainful; supercilious: He was very sniffy about breaches of etiquette.

That is exactly the appropriate word, what are you an idiot? :lol: (if you can call me a ten year old for using a particular word then I get to call you an idiot for using such a cheap debating trick, so stow the fake outrage you are planning in response.)

annatar1914 wrote:In pre-modern and anti-modern societies, shopping is not a way of life, living is, good and bad. And while immorality is familiar to any sinner under God's blue skies, in the pre-modern times they knew that they were sinners. Modern culture so obviously lacks shame, that to not see that on your part is rather a sign of modern shamelessness itself.

I see, so in fact by "pre-modern" you don't literally mean "pre-modern" you mean very specifically Christian. This is a misuse of language really. "Modern" by which you mean non-christians are relatively unneurotic about "shame" but they have that in common with non-chrstian pre-moderns and this is normal because shame obsession is a particularly Christian psychological manipulation technique. You should say what you mean, crying about moderns and pre-moderns when what you really mean is that you are bitter that Christian priests have less currency than they did in that past.

annatar1914 wrote:Don't assume what I think. ''pure and churchy'' demonstrates a contempt for the Christian worldview, in which case if you can't contain that, maybe you can find another thread friendlier for you to troll on. If you want a serious conversation however on the cluster of topics this thread is about, than i'd be happy to have a polite conversation with you in which we could both benefit.

I don't have a contempt for the Christian worldview but I do find some Christians to be contemptible.

annatar1914 wrote:''Scientists'' growing ears on mice and transhumanism, not to mention secularism in general, are the sort of things pre-modern and anti-modern peoples are appalled at, and yet are an example of modernity run rampant.

Man has been a biological engineer for a long time, all the species we depend on have had ten thousand years of tinkering done to them, just the tools for adjusting them were cruder than now (selective breeding being the main one). And man has always sought to transcend his limitations through the application of will and intelligence, only the tools are deeper and more sophisticated now. No genuine pre-modern fetched back out of time by a time machine would be appalled at mice growing human ears on their back, they would be amazed and inspired that such things were possible and they would be more than happy to swap a crude pegleg or hook for a modern articulated prosthetic.



annatar1914 wrote:Edit; hmm, SC, I tell you what has always linked regular decent normal people past present and future; is the desire to be free. Free politically, free economically. And there have always been heroes who rose up to demand justice, justice against those who consider others their inferiors and who believe the rest of mankind is like a horse suited to be ridden about with a saddle on their back. Ridden by parasites and exploited by force and fear, usury and fraud and being cheated of the fruits of their labors.

Someday these so-called ''Elites'' will be smashed, and all the thugs and goons they hire (or who foolishly prostitute themselves to them willingly) won't do them any amount of good.

"Heros" like Solzhenitsyn? "Elites" like filthy politburo hacks? Then I am with you, smash them smash them all.
#14949753
@SolarCross

I'm going to reply briefly to you, and then turn this thread to another line of discourse related to the subjects a few posts back. You said;



There are no authentic pre-moderns living now so you are talking to anti-moderns wearing nostalgia goggles. Real pre-moderns were the moderns of their day, they embraced their moment just as modern people do.


I think that perhaps you're having a mental block here, because it should have been quite obvious that ''Modernism'' and ''Modern Times'' (as in; the ''present moment's time'') are two different things that somewhat overlap but are not synonyms, either. The people I know that I discussed these issues with are all from traditionalist communitarian groups that continue a way of life that is pretty much the same as it was before the modern era, and will be close to the same when this modern era comes crashing down.



That is exactly the appropriate word, what are you an idiot? :lol: (if you can call me a ten year old for using a particular word then I get to call you an idiot for using such a cheap debating trick, so stow the fake outrage you are planning in response.)


Fact is, your combativeness and rudeness to others here, along with a combination of arrogance and know-nothingism show that either you are young and don't have the life experience to know any better, or you are older and don't have the social skills or maturity to relate well to others. Discussing anything with you, even when I happen to agree with you, is a discomfort because of your lack of apparent socialization. I'd prefer if we just mutually ignored each other if possible.

I see, so in fact by "pre-modern" you don't literally mean "pre-modern" you mean very specifically Christian.


No, not at all, but if that's what you think and still can't grasp what I'm saying, perhaps you should just move along.


This is a misuse of language really. "Modern" by which you mean non-christians are relatively unneurotic about "shame"


You confuse ''Guilt'' with ''Shame'', for starters. ''Guilt'' is the fact written in your conscience that tells you that you did something wrong or failed to do something right, within your ability to do so. ''Shame'' is the bad feeling you get when you break a social mores or taboo. Both are necessary and interrelated, but not identical.

but they have that in common with non-chrstian pre-moderns and this is normal because shame obsession is a particularly Christian psychological manipulation technique.


Now we're getting deep into the core of your butthurt. Your antipathy to Christianity is showing, and if you can't have a civilized conversation about these topics on this thread without you reacting like a vampire to garlic, perhaps you need to retreat to your safe space.


You should say what you mean, crying about moderns and pre-moderns when what you really mean is that you are bitter that Christian priests have less currency than they did in that past.


Like I said.... I figured it wouldn't take you long before it showed.


I don't have a contempt for the Christian worldview but I do find some Christians to be contemptible.


Deny it all you want, your contempt for the Christian worldview is obvious, as is your lack of respect for most people who disagree with you.


Man has been a biological engineer for a long time, all the species we depend on have had ten thousand years of tinkering done to them, just the tools for adjusting them were cruder than now (selective breeding being the main one). And man has always sought to transcend his limitations through the application of will and intelligence, only the tools are deeper and more sophisticated now. No genuine pre-modern fetched back out of time by a time machine would be appalled at mice growing human ears on their back, they would be amazed and inspired that such things were possible and they would be more than happy to swap a crude pegleg or hook for a modern articulated prosthetic.


Spare your Nazi Eugenics and Transhumanism for VNN or Stormfront, it has no place here in this thread.



"Heros" like Solzhenitsyn?


Solzhenitsyn was a man who by his own admission was (when writing the ''Gulag Archipelego") not talking about facts but ''impressions'', and his work was ''Art'' not History. But that's exactly what it was taken as, historical facts. So whatever he was, I think one may be permitted to wonder if he fits the definition of ''Hero''. But that's okay; few people do in reality.

"Elites" like filthy politburo hacks? Then I am with you, smash them smash them all.


Sounds like a lot of ''Alligator Mouth overrunning Hummingbird Ass'' to me :lol: . You talk a big game, but life is not a game.
#14949765
Well, I got out of the considerations and reflections just what I wanted, on this thread. I'll mull over everything and decide what is best for a honorable man to believe politically and economically in this day and age.

I want to thank everyone, but especially @Political Interest , @Victoribus Spolia , @Potemkin , @starman2003 , each of you made a fair and considerate contribution to what was in essence a hashing out in my mind of bothersome ideological issues.
#14949779
annatar1914 wrote:I think that perhaps you're having a mental block here, because it should have been quite obvious that ''Modernism'' and ''Modern Times'' (as in; the ''present moment's time'') are two different things that somewhat overlap but are not synonyms, either. The people I know that I discussed these issues with are all from traditionalist communitarian groups that continue a way of life that is pretty much the same as it was before the modern era, and will be close to the same when this modern era comes crashing down.

Everything is crashing down all the time since forever and yet still mankind ascends to the stars. People probably also thought the End Times were nigh when Christians were tearing each other to pieces from one end of Europe to the other over nothing important. It didn't happen though.

annatar1914 wrote:Fact is, your combativeness and rudeness to others here, along with a combination of arrogance and know-nothingism show that either you are young and don't have the life experience to know any better, or you are older and don't have the social skills or maturity to relate well to others. Discussing anything with you, even when I happen to agree with you, is a discomfort because of your lack of apparent socialization. I'd prefer if we just mutually ignored each other if possible.

That's rich coming from you, though you are probably among the least repellent of pofo's commies. You can dish it out but you can't take it in turn just like the rest though.

annatar1914 wrote:No, not at all, but if that's what you think and still can't grasp what I'm saying, perhaps you should just move along.

I think I will at that since there is nothing of substance to your conversation.

annatar1914 wrote:You confuse ''Guilt'' with ''Shame'', for starters. ''Guilt'' is the fact written in your conscience that tells you that you did something wrong or failed to do something right, within your ability to do so. ''Shame'' is the bad feeling you get when you break a social mores or taboo. Both are necessary and interrelated, but not identical.

You were the one that used the word "shameless".

annatar1914 wrote:Now we're getting deep into the core of your butthurt. Your antipathy to Christianity is showing, and if you can't have a civilized conversation about these topics on this thread without you reacting like a vampire to garlic, perhaps you need to retreat to your safe space.

Void of content, no comment.

annatar1914 wrote:Like I said.... I figured it wouldn't take you long before it showed.

Deny it all you want, your contempt for the Christian worldview is obvious, as is your lack of respect for most people who disagree with you.

You are the one who throws a tantrum at any disagreement. If people are rude to me, I'll be rude back, why not? I am not a Christian, there is only so much respect for your beliefs you can expect frankly, but I have a lot more respect for your beliefs (even the absurd ones) than you have for the beliefs of others.

annatar1914 wrote:Spare your Nazi Eugenics and Transhumanism for VNN or Stormfront, it has no place here in this thread.

I don't know what VNN is, though I have heard of Stormfront but that is by-the-by because what you have done here is reveal that your holier-than-thou charade is just that, a charade. You know 100% for a fact that I am not a nazi nor in any sense a sympathiser but you slander me with it just the same. That's completely trashy behaviour, scummy is what it is. Like it or not you are immoral filth in my eyes for that unless you are too proud for an apology.

annatar1914 wrote:Solzhenitsyn was a man who by his own admission was (when writing the ''Gulag Archipelego") not talking about facts but ''impressions'', and his work was ''Art'' not History. But that's exactly what it was taken as, historical facts. So whatever he was, I think one may be permitted to wonder if he fits the definition of ''Hero''. But that's okay; few people do in reality.

Do you deny the holocaust as well? Any other infamies you would like to cover up?
#14949793
Everything is crashing down all the time since forever


Did I say or imply anything like that? No. But your dismissal without understanding (or pretending to not understand or care) is typical it seems.


and yet still mankind ascends to the stars.


Does it, the actual stars so many light years away it is said? Been there anytime lately? And again, I made an earlier set of distinctions whereby technological decline or advance is not a indicator of itself of societal and civilizational collapse.


People probably also thought the End Times were nigh


Did they? Do you have any solid history behind that assumption? I think not.


when Christians were tearing each other to pieces from one end of Europe to the other over nothing important.


Again your flimsy mask slips, and you reveal your anti-christian animus. Were they ''Christians'' doing this to each other? What were the historical circumstances? Are you certain that what they were fighting over truly was ''over nothing important''?


It didn't happen though.


You're right, most of what you claim happens, really didn't as you describe it.

That's rich coming from you, though you are probably among the least repellent of pofo's commies. You can dish it out but you can't take it in turn just like the rest though.


You must have a reading comprehension level of close to zero at times, when the very name of this thread mentions a rejection of Communism and a return to traditionalism, a nod to efforts by people like myself to take in and contemplate the meaning of modernity, traditionalism, communism, etc... from a Christian perspective that is true to Christian teaching but also heeds the signs of the times.

But from what you indicated earlier, that's probably ''nothing important''. So it goes back to why you're here to begin with unless it's like at the beginning when you were simply shitting on the thread altogether.

I think I will at that since there is nothing of substance to your conversation.


Yes, you probably should, somewhere someone must have patience with you and you should find them.


You were the one that used the word "shameless".


Again, reading comprehension. ''Guilt'' and ''shame'' overlap, but non-Christian societies are heavily involved traditional with concepts of shame and honor that serve to regulate conduct in society, as all societies do to a degree.


Void of content, no comment.


You are the one who throws a tantrum at any disagreement.


Yes, that's what i'm known for on PoFo :lol: :roll:


If people are rude to me, I'll be rude back, why not? I am not a Christian, there is only so much respect for your beliefs you can expect frankly, but I have a lot more respect for your beliefs (even the absurd ones) than you have for the beliefs of others.


Frankly, I have more respect for people than their beliefs sometimes, especially when their ''beliefs'' constitute more of an online persona and live action role play than reality.


I don't know what VNN is, though I have heard of Stormfront but that is by-the-by because what you have done here is reveal that your holier-than-thou charade is just that, a charade. You know 100% for a fact that I am not a nazi nor in any sense a sympathiser but you slander me with it just the same.


I never claim a ''holier than thou'' attitude, quite the contrary, but I know what I know. And what I do know is that you have been pushing a covert racialist and eugenicist agenda on PoFo from day one, but haven't the honesty of some of my other Far Right Wing friends who are overt in these matters, here and elsewhere. Imagine that, getting along with and being friends even with ''extremists'' as well as normies...


That's completely trashy behaviour, scummy is what it is. Like it or not you are immoral filth in my eyes for that unless you are too proud for an apology.


I'm pretty sure i'm ''immoral filth'', but God isn't done with me so there's hope. As for an apology you'll get none. I stand by what I say and you read into what I did say honestly.


Do you deny the holocaust as well? Any other infamies you would like to cover up?


Ah, the classic case of the man who cies out in pain as he strikes people, lol. I don't deny the Fascistic mass murders at all, in fact I am rather one who wants them to be remembered. Like the infamies of the likeness of your avatar, General Augusto Pinochet.

But all this and more has been done with you, by myself and others across the political spectrum, this rebuttal of what you say followed by their regurgitation some other time and place. So I say we just ignore one another, and we'll both be better for it.
#14949813
annatar1914 wrote:You must have a reading comprehension level of close to zero at times, when the very name of this thread mentions a rejection of Communism and a return to traditionalism, a nod to efforts by people like myself to take in and contemplate the meaning of modernity, traditionalism, communism, etc... from a Christian perspective that is true to Christian teaching but also heeds the signs of the times.

I doubt very much the sincerity of your recantation, so far it looks at best very superficial as your comments on Solzhenitsyn and Pinochet show. Beneath your flimsy disguise you are still on their side, the side of Satan.

annatar1914 wrote:I never claim a ''holier than thou'' attitude, quite the contrary, but I know what I know. And what I do know is that you have been pushing a covert racialist and eugenicist agenda on PoFo from day one, but haven't the honesty of some of my other Far Right Wing friends who are overt in these matters, here and elsewhere. Imagine that, getting along with and being friends even with ''extremists'' as well as normies...

I'm pretty sure i'm ''immoral filth'', but God isn't done with me so there's hope. As for an apology you'll get none. I stand by what I say and you read into what I did say honestly.

I have done no such thing, this is just a baseless slander. Also it is flatly hilarious hypocrisy that you can claim to have "Far Right Friends" in the very post you falsely accusing me of fascism. You stand by a lie and I am sure you know it is too.

Given you are lying about me in the same way the other commies do there is even less reason to believe you have sincerely recanted your communism.

#14949854
I doubt very much the sincerity of your recantation, so far it looks at best very superficial as your comments on Solzhenitsyn and Pinochet show.


So... A non-communist has to like Solzhenitsyn and Pinochet :excited:

Talk about ''superficial''. Besides, what I reject most emphatically about modern Communism is what you have no problem with, it's attitude towards Christianity...


Beneath your flimsy disguise you are still on their side, the side of Satan.


Ridiculous. A person who does not believe in the Christian concept of God or Satan, says i'm on Satan's side?

Talk about ''sincerity''.


I have done no such thing, this is just a baseless slander.


Deny that you are a Eugenicist or Racialist, it would be easy to do, wouldn't it? But you are, so you can't bring yourself to do it.



Also it is flatly hilarious hypocrisy that you can claim to have "Far Right Friends" in the very post you falsely accusing me of fascism. You stand by a lie and I am sure you know it is too.


Sure, being that I began as ''Far Right'' and continue to have friends who still are, even Fascists, involved in the global discussion to fight Imperialism in Syria and elsewhere. And, my own views are still quite ''Rightist'' to doctrinaire Marxist-Leninists. Never heard of the ''Red-Brown Alliance'' and the convergence of beliefs with ideologies like Dugin's Eurasianism, have you? You're a bit behind the times.

So, I did not ''accuse'' you of Fascism, I simply know that you are, and for reasons of your own are being coy about it.

Given you are lying about me in the same way the other commies do there is even less reason to believe you have sincerely recanted your communism.


There's nothing to ''recant'', I've been having a discussion, both internally with myself and externally with others, about my ideological beliefs. I am pretty much an odd man out if I remain a Monarchist and a Socialist, a materialist Theist, but I have historical examples to guide me in each case and friends willing to talk about the issues that are of concern to me.
#14949968
annatar1914 wrote:So... A non-communist has to like Solzhenitsyn and Pinochet :excited:

Talk about ''superficial''. Besides, what I reject most emphatically about modern Communism is what you have no problem with, it's attitude towards Christianity...

Communists attitude towards Christianity is murderous, same as its attitude to Buddhism, Judaism and every other -ism and even everyone without an -ism, just people. I do have a problem with this, far more than you do.

annatar1914 wrote:Ridiculous. A person who does not believe in the Christian concept of God or Satan, says I'm on Satan's side?

Talk about ''sincerity''.

I believe there are malevolent non-human entities plotting against humanity and there are benevolent non-human entities which have a common enemy with us in those malevolent entities. In my religion we call the malevolent ones Jötunn and benevolent ones Aesir. Christians conceive them differently but still you see in Christianity the same basic pattern, there are malevolent ones and benevolent ones, but you call the malevolent ones devils and the benevolent ones the trinity and the hosts of angels. In respect to Christianity I used Christian terminology and for making myself understood to someone who is only familiar with the Christian terminology. To use my terminology you are creature of the Jötunn, the ones who bring chaos.

annatar1914 wrote:Deny that you are a Eugenicist or Racialist, it would be easy to do, wouldn't it? But you are, so you can't bring yourself to do it.

I deny being a racialist, I am not any kind of collectivist but a liar will ignore what I say, just like all the lying commies do.

Eugenics is different thing completely, it is just taking stewardship over human genetics. Just by choosing not to sleep with people unlucky enough to have some bad genes you are being a eugenicist. Your conflation of eugenics with racially motivated collectivist genocide is deliberately dishonest. Dishonesty is emerging as the pattern with you, your defining personality trait, another thing you have in common with communists.

annatar1914 wrote:Sure, being that I began as ''Far Right'' and continue to have friends who still are, even Fascists, involved in the global discussion to fight Imperialism in Syria and elsewhere. And, my own views are still quite ''Rightist'' to doctrinaire Marxist-Leninists. Never heard of the ''Red-Brown Alliance'' and the convergence of beliefs with ideologies like Dugin's Eurasianism, have you? You're a bit behind the times.

So, I did not ''accuse'' you of Fascism, I simply know that you are, and for reasons of your own are being coy about it.

You know nothing but then what else to expect for a satanist pretending to be Christian?

annatar1914 wrote:There's nothing to ''recant'', I've been having a discussion, both internally with myself and externally with others, about my ideological beliefs. I am pretty much an odd man out if I remain a Monarchist and a Socialist, a materialist Theist, but I have historical examples to guide me in each case and friends willing to talk about the issues that are of concern to me.

We all have to choose a side, until you recant you are choosing to remain with the malevolent ones, the satanists to use Christian terminology.
#14950014
starman2003 wrote:European neo-fascism derives its support from opposition to immigration. That may be causing fascist movements to revive, but I don't think they'll ultimately win based on that.


I think that a large portion of European populations could vote for them on this basis, perhaps even a majority if demographic conditions allowed for it. But by the time it is possible for Europeans to embrace neo-fascism there will already be a significant number of non-whites who would prevent such an option. Therefore I think this increases the chances of some type of civil war situation in the 2060s or 2070s.

starman2003 wrote:Generally, I'd say the problem is not knowing what to do, but a lack of power to do it. We live on an age in which real solutions are unpopular. That makes democracy obsolete.


The failure of the political classes in European countries to address these problems will result in systemic collapse like that of the Weimar Republic or the fall of the Soviet Union and the revolutions of '89 in Eastern Europe. By the 2050s it will be a barefly functioning centre that fewer people are voting for. Eventually the result will be takeover by Islamists, Neo-Fascists or communists which will likely include a civil war to determine which force will come to prominence.

annatar1914 wrote:Ah, I think that there is no need to apologize, and in your case at least some slight lag time gives you the advantage of your measured and well thought out responses. In the olden days, we often felt we could do this, growing up in 1970's America.


Thank you for understanding, Annatar. Again this response comes late.

annatar1914 wrote:Perhaps youth is a factor as well. As time goes on I learn how little I have actually learned, and quite a few times i've had to ''un-learn'' things too. I'm more comfortable with being wrong, or not knowing to begin with, about having all the answers.


I would also imagine that some level of self-doubt is necessary. Self-doubt is I think a sign of intellectual caution.

annatar1914 wrote:Good point, and i'm afraid too that the age of the illusion of ''mass democracy'' only encourages the worst to rise to the top. One ''has'' to lie to everybody, because one cannot possibly satisfy every special interest/Sub-Set of politically active citizens, and one ''has'' to cheat and take bribes and perform morally questionable acts in order to remain in office. The only people comfortable with doing that are, well, evil.


It is difficult for me to understand career politicains who are only interested in glamour, money and power. If they wanted to be rich and famous they could go into business. I've never understood being in government just for the sake of it, especially if you can't enact any of your ideas or actually campaign and then implement what you campaigned on.

annatar1914 wrote:I perfectly agree with that. Certainly, one cannot build or maintain a society that is better without the blessings of Heaven.


It's fascinating that everywhere where they actively persecuted religion, notably in the communist countries, there was a resurgence when liberalism emerged from the 1990s onwards. In the Slavic world people became interested in Christianity again. There was an Islamic revival in the former communist countries of Central Asia and in the North Caucasus. In China there has been a large increase in the number of Christians.

In the West we did not have this type of persecution, people just lost interest in organised religion. I can't understand why when we can practice any religion we want to there is such little interest in it among the general population. It is not as if we are going to be arrested or denounced for being religious.

But perhaps it is more sublte than this? In the West it was not necessary to use harsh methods of repression to put down religious activity but cultural pressure and assimilation into post-modernity has meant that the conformity of the masses is more thorough than even the most Stalinist workers republic.

annatar1914 wrote:I feel that way too. I know that I make errors in judgement, but generally speaking i'm more content with doing so if they are honest errors that I can identify and correct. Again, I'm willing to bear with my imperfections to a degree without despairing of changing for the better.


I often despair when I chance upon new information that upsets my world view. I have actually had sleepless nights because of it. In the end I have to realise that this is just part of living in the world, internal peace of mind and absolute conviction of one's world view is very difficult to achieve. Again there needs to be some measure of faith and hope.

annatar1914 wrote:Yes. I must admit though that it at least seems interesting to speculate on these matters without harm being done.


If we didn't speculate I don't think we would have any type of interest in any intellectual activity, we probably wouldn't even be on PoFo.

annatar1914 wrote:Amen and Amen, my friend!


Amen!

annatar1914 wrote:It seems this way more and more in the modern world, which however is quite unsustainable. It will be interesting to see how all this changes once a sort of ''critical mass'' is reached.


What we will notice is that Europe will start to have a conflict within itself between religious and secular citizens. Religious citizens will mostly be Muslims. But eventually I think most Europeans will eventually lose the choice of being liberal. Being liberal and post-modern will not be a sustainable future, I think in large part because of demography. Contrary to 2000s vintage type opinions most Muslims are not going to just adopt the hedonism and hyper-individualism of Western post-modernity just because they live in the middle of it. There will be a fundamental difference of opinion between Muslim citizens and secular ones over issues like gender relations, sexual freedoms and even the question of democracy itself.


annatar1914 wrote:I suspect that it is the former rather than the latter. My own personal experience with ''Atheism'' suggests to me that there are different sorts. One is Atheist for example, because they hate God for some reason, an Anti-theist. Another genuinely doesn't believe, perhaps out of some sort of modernist faith in the new religion of ''Scientism''. Yet another might say they believe in God, but live as if they do not believe.


There is some level of indifference as well, I would imagine. I suspect that a large amount of people are just not interested in religion.

annatar1914 wrote:That could be the case. I wonder though if this is even possible to do in the longer term even in this life?


I think all of our lives are a choice between following the Lord God and not following Him.

annatar1914 wrote:Yes, that's a good thing. I believe that there will be some really good conversations coming up here.


I am sure there will be. And I would hope to be part of them if only I would respond sooner!

annatar1914 wrote:I believe that it is a good thing that our little band is doing here. You, Political Interest, Potemkin, others, we are actually the serious sort of people, and we have a responsibility to discuss the serious issues.


Agreed, we definitely have such a responsiblity.

I think the observations offered in this thread are very honest and insightful.

annatar1914 wrote:Yes, and it is we ''canaries in the coalmine'' today that can sense it, perhaps from being more ''extreme'' ourselves than regular people because we've devoted some time and effort into figuring things out.


Very much so. And it is somewhat of an irony that people with our political backgrounds are the ones warning about extremism and contiuned bifurcation of the political extremes.

annatar1914 wrote:Historically speaking, I am a pessimist. It's probably my pessimism more than any actual facts and figures that disinclined me to continuing as a ''Christian Communist'', but looking at the coming age of decline and barbarism, how can I not stand with persons who want a better more just society, one that appears to be Socialist?

If one saw that life was increasingly going to become more bleak and brutal in many ways, on the other hand, and yet more vital and real for all that, one would have to embrace one's time then as well wouldn't we? There comes a time when you have to come to terms with the limitations of one's time, make peace with reality as much as one morally and spiritually can.

Of course, one could then retort that one should do what's right no matter the circumstances, even if failure seems to be the end result... I'll have to consider that as well.


I see nothing wrong with trying to make a better world. Marx's error was not in trying to improve material conditions but his belief in class struggle and his anti-religious stance. I dare say we can even have the trappings of socialism without its excesses.

annatar1914 wrote:I hold to that original opinion of mine for now, reasons of which I'll expand on later, but I will note as very interesting that you too have noticed that trend of appropriation. Look too at the ''Left'' and it's history in the same way and you might find a similar process.


It could be that syncretic politics will be the trend of the future. Perhaps these new syncretic ideologies will be the basis of radicalism in the latter 21st century? I have noticed that Anarcho-Capitalism which has been mentioned is a very strong current in a lot of these far right groups emerging, especially in the US. It may be because I have more of a European centric perspective that I did not notice it, but certainly in North America there appears to be such a development.

annatar1914 wrote:With my caveat about the term ''Totalitarian'', I absolutely agree. I think that there will be a Fascistic role, with Anarcho-Capitalists playing the parts paralleled by the Anarchists in the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars in relation to the Communists.


Do you think they will play a sort of role between the Neo-Fascists and Neo-Communists?

What role do you think Islamists will play in all this?
#14950074
@Political Interest

Hello Political Interest my friend!


Thank you for understanding, Annatar. Again this response comes late.


You're welcome and no worries; anytime you post you give food for thought.



I would also imagine that some level of self-doubt is necessary. Self-doubt is I think a sign of intellectual caution.


Too much doubt of self induces paralysis I suppose, lol, but that doesn't seem to be a problem with you; pretty well balanced.



It is difficult for me to understand career politicains who are only interested in glamour, money and power. If they wanted to be rich and famous they could go into business. I've never understood being in government just for the sake of it, especially if you can't enact any of your ideas or actually campaign and then implement what you campaigned on.


Hirelings of others I suppose, who go into politics already cognizant of the fact and are okay with it as long as they get their benefits. Ultimately it's the mystery of iniquity at work, a puzzle.



It's fascinating that everywhere where they actively persecuted religion, notably in the communist countries, there was a resurgence when liberalism emerged from the 1990s onwards. In the Slavic world people became interested in Christianity again. There was an Islamic revival in the former communist countries of Central Asia and in the North Caucasus. In China there has been a large increase in the number of Christians.


It is fascinating indeed, I think that it can't be persecution alone that produces these effects, but it helps to be tested in the fire to show your love and devotion as you understand it.

In the West we did not have this type of persecution, people just lost interest in organised religion. I can't understand why when we can practice any religion we want to there is such little interest in it among the general population. It is not as if we are going to be arrested or denounced for being religious.

But perhaps it is more sublte than this? In the West it was not necessary to use harsh methods of repression to put down religious activity but cultural pressure and assimilation into post-modernity has meant that the conformity of the masses is more thorough than even the most Stalinist workers republic.


I agree, because not least for the reason that Modernity creates a worldview that can easily spread and be amplified at a moment's notice. Even if one were not to hold to my own traditional Christian views on Cosmology, Biology, etc..., One could agree, I think, that there is more in common between your average ''Liberal'' and ''Conservative'' because they are both taught Copernicanism, Darwinism, Einstein, and so forth. Both are largely secular and share more common assumptions about the world and reality than either realizes, the ''Conservative'' being stalled out on an earlier stage of modern thinking.



I often despair when I chance upon new information that upsets my world view. I have actually had sleepless nights because of it. In the end I have to realise that this is just part of living in the world, internal peace of mind and absolute conviction of one's world view is very difficult to achieve. Again there needs to be some measure of faith and hope.


I have had less and less of those trust issues myself about being wrong or right. I'm more certain now, but if I'm wrong I have hope that it won't be held too harshly against me, every idle word.



If we didn't speculate I don't think we would have any type of interest in any intellectual activity, we probably wouldn't even be on PoFo.


Indeed, that's a fact! Lol :D



What we will notice is that Europe will start to have a conflict within itself between religious and secular citizens. Religious citizens will mostly be Muslims. But eventually I think most Europeans will eventually lose the choice of being liberal. Being liberal and post-modern will not be a sustainable future, I think in large part because of demography. Contrary to 2000s vintage type opinions most Muslims are not going to just adopt the hedonism and hyper-individualism of Western post-modernity just because they live in the middle of it. There will be a fundamental difference of opinion between Muslim citizens and secular ones over issues like gender relations, sexual freedoms and even the question of democracy itself.


My mental map of the future of Europe has this look about it; Islam being dominant over all of Europe to the Elbe and the Danube rivers, with Britain Islamic, and Wales, Scotland and Ireland non-Islamic. The Iberian, Italian, and Balkans Peninsulas under the control of the followers of Muhammad, basically all the former Roman Empire and then some.

There will be Muslims and Christians, but most Secularists will be dead or, having a measure of self-preservation and felicity for this life, will convert to Islam.




There is some level of indifference as well, I would imagine. I suspect that a large amount of people are just not interested in religion.


The Pagan view of life; ''what's in it for me?'' And if they come to believe there's Nobody there to deliver on a bargain, they turn from superstition to atheism. Most Neo-Pagans these days are Atheists or Agnostics who like the trappings of religious belief but cannot abide Monotheism.



I think all of our lives are a choice between following the Lord God and not following Him.


Yes, right up to the end, but God is merciful.



I am sure there will be. And I would hope to be part of them if only I would respond sooner!


Don't worry, everything happens in it's time for a reason.



Agreed, we definitely have such a responsiblity.

I think the observations offered in this thread are very honest and insightful.


Thank you, I'm trying anyway.



Very much so. And it is somewhat of an irony that people with our political backgrounds are the ones warning about extremism and contiuned bifurcation of the political extremes.


A definite irony, lol. Without Monarchs, we tend to teem and crash like waves upon each other, without real purpose what for all our ersatz devotion to political religions.



I see nothing wrong with trying to make a better world. Marx's error was not in trying to improve material conditions but his belief in class struggle and his anti-religious stance. I dare say we can even have the trappings of socialism without its excesses.


It's possible, I'm looking at it still.

It could be that syncretic politics will be the trend of the future. Perhaps these new syncretic ideologies will be the basis of radicalism in the latter 21st century?


If the previous couple centuries are any clue, I'm thinking that these ideologies will be the basis for new radicalism, to a point.



I have noticed that Anarcho-Capitalism which has been mentioned is a very strong current in a lot of these far right groups emerging, especially in the US. It may be because I have more of a European centric perspective that I did not notice it, but certainly in North America there appears to be such a development.


It certainly is of great interest to me, and I do think that this trend of more Anarcho-Capitalism, de facto or otherwise, will continue.



Do you think they will play a sort of role between the Neo-Fascists and Neo-Communists?


I see the emerging Right as being a temporary coalition between the Anarcho-Capitalists and the Neo-Fascists, Neo-Communists will turn elsewhere...

What role do you think Islamists will play in all this?


Islamists are the future of the Right, of Anarcho-Capitalism, and vice versa. Neo-Fascists will die out or turn Left. This is what I will explore next.
#14950097
annatar1914 wrote:Hello Political Interest my friend!

You're welcome and no worries; anytime you post you give food for thought.


Thank you my friend, it is much appreciated.

annatar1914 wrote:Too much doubt of self induces paralysis I suppose, lol, but that doesn't seem to be a problem with you; pretty well balanced.


I try to be balanced but I am a naturally anxious person.

annatar1914 wrote:Hirelings of others I suppose, who go into politics already cognizant of the fact and are okay with it as long as they get their benefits. Ultimately it's the mystery of iniquity at work, a puzzle.


It would appear that the masses are growing tired of these types of politicians. The days when establishment politics was absolute and undisputed seem a very long time ago.

annatar1914 wrote:It is fascinating indeed, I think that it can't be persecution alone that produces these effects, but it helps to be tested in the fire to show your love and devotion as you understand it.


There must be some cultural and spiritual factors which produce higher levels of religious interest in certain parts of the world, especially when we compare them to the West. Having said that it is important not to discount the fact that a lot of people in the former communist countries remain secular or only nominally religious.

annatar1914 wrote:I agree, because not least for the reason that Modernity creates a worldview that can easily spread and be amplified at a moment's notice. Even if one were not to hold to my own traditional Christian views on Cosmology, Biology, etc..., One could agree, I think, that there is more in common between your average ''Liberal'' and ''Conservative'' because they are both taught Copernicanism, Darwinism, Einstein, and so forth. Both are largely secular and share more common assumptions about the world and reality than either realizes, the ''Conservative'' being stalled out on an earlier stage of modern thinking.


From what I can see of America the gap between conservatives and liberals is quite narrow now. The differences seem very superficial. In Britain there is almost no gap at all, both the conservatives and the "liberals' if such a comparison is possible, agree on almost all common points, free markets and social liberalism.

I remember that years ago I asked a question on this forum about why conservatives like free markets when they lead to all of the awful excesses we see in modern societies today. Of course I was much younger and didn't understand it in such terms but that question reflected how unimpressed I was with centre-right convervatives.

annatar1914 wrote:I have had less and less of those trust issues myself about being wrong or right. I'm more certain now, but if I'm wrong I have hope that it won't be held too harshly against me, every idle word.


For me it is not a fear that what I believe may be incorrect but an inability to accept reality in some circumstances.

annatar1914 wrote:My mental map of the future of Europe has this look about it; Islam being dominant over all of Europe to the Elbe and the Danube rivers, with Britain Islamic, and Wales, Scotland and Ireland non-Islamic. The Iberian, Italian, and Balkans Peninsulas under the control of the followers of Muhammad, basically all the former Roman Empire and then some.

There will be Muslims and Christians, but most Secularists will be dead or, having a measure of self-preservation and felicity for this life, will convert to Islam.


Do you believe the demographic shift will be so dramatic as to produce such drastic changes in population composition? And what role do you think the far left will play in all this?

I agree with you about conversion. A lot of the mercantile liberal Westerners will easily convert because they will think the alternative is not worth the effort. Afterall if they stand for nothing then it is easy to embrace the alternative.

annatar1914 wrote:The Pagan view of life; ''what's in it for me?'' And if they come to believe there's Nobody there to deliver on a bargain, they turn from superstition to atheism. Most Neo-Pagans these days are Atheists or Agnostics who like the trappings of religious belief but cannot abide Monotheism.


Well even the old paganism was based on much more substantial ground. A lot of Neo-Pagans today just seem to make up their own religions. It is almost like hipsterism.

annatar1914 wrote:Yes, right up to the end, but God is merciful.


And for that I am grateful.

annatar1914 wrote:Islamists are the future of the Right, of Anarcho-Capitalism, and vice versa. Neo-Fascists will die out or turn Left. This is what I will explore next.


I have some ideas about Islamism and the right which might interest you. I will wait to hear your ideas first, though.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]