I Reject, I Affirm. ''Raising the Black Flag'' in an Age of Devilry. - Page 26 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

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

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#15110826
@Political Interest ;

Perhaps in the former Soviet Union we could find these types of traditionalists and traditional people. I am not an expert because I've never lived or visited there but it seems that the FSU countries are modern societies in the majority, with a few exceptions in the Caucasus and Central Asia perhaps. Of course there are Cossacks and Old Believers as well. But would it be correct to conclude that the vast majority of the peoples of the FSU are living within modernity now days?


I wonder myself actually. It seems to me that there was a modification of western style modernity even during the Soviet Union period, and that the post-Soviet period Russia now will especially be rejecting the West and embracing the living aspects of the past. As much as i've seen Westernization on a superficial level, I have seen profound differences too.

Maybe we could find such traditional people in Afghanistan, India or Pakistan. The Islamic world still retains many traditional ways of living but certainly the Orthodox world does as well.


Oh without a doubt. And I don't think that it's a coincidence that the significant resistance to the West comes from these lands you've mentioned. I've called them ''Magian'' after Oswald Spengler's ideas on the subject, but ''Monotheist'' also seems to fit too. The West is functionally if not formally Polytheistic these days, but I'm thinking about writing on discussing the possibility that they are Polytheistic on a formal level theologically and have been for some time.

Maybe Germany and France were traditional still in the 1900s.

Honestly speaking, I could not survive in a traditional world. The expectations would be too great on me. I try to be traditional but it is very hard.


I don't think that an incorporation of today's technology to some degree in one's life is necessarily anti-traditional, as long as what tools one uses are practical and are an organic development with what proceeded it. It's like the Cowboys I see every now and then to use an illustration, using horses when it's practical and likewise using trucks and trailers in their work when it's more useful. I don't think they're being untrue to what they are in their essence, and what they always have been.

See that's the key in my opinion, there's change that enables one to maintain a full human existence as one's forebears did more or less, and then there's change that uproots and atomizes the individual.
#15110830
See that's the key in my opinion, there's change that enables one to maintain a full human existence as one's forebears did more or less, and then there's change that uproots and atomizes the individual.

And this is precisely what Marx referred to as "alienation", which he regarded as an inevitable and necessary consequence of the rise of industrial capitalism. He further believed (given the fact that putting the historical process into reverse is neither possible nor desirable) that only the sublation of capitalism into socialism - a higher form of social and economic organisation - can heal that alienation. As Goethe said, the historical process is not a cycle, it is a spiral - ever circling back to its starting point, yet ever ascending....
#15110839
Potemkin wrote:And this is precisely what Marx referred to as "alienation", which he regarded as an inevitable and necessary consequence of the rise of industrial capitalism. He further believed (given the fact that putting the historical process into reverse is neither possible nor desirable) that only the sublation of capitalism into socialism - a higher form of social and economic organisation - can heal that alienation. As Goethe said, the historical process is not a cycle, it is a spiral - ever circling back to its starting point, yet ever ascending....


@Potemkin , I've a couple of questions on your post, the first being; do you believe that Capitalism is a universal socio-economic system which all cultures must necessarily go through, or is it a time and culture-conditioned system which is entirely a product of Western culture ? (even if other cultures wind up uneasily adopting it?)

The second is akin to the first; do you believe that Socialism is a universal socio-economic system applicable to all who have gone through the phase of Capitalism? Or is it something that all can adopt to their own cultural conditions at the moment?

And I want also to add that it would be something of an irony, a society being able to preserve it's traditional essence, it's national and cultural identity, by the adoption of Socialism...
#15110874
annatar1914 wrote:I'm skeptical of the idea that one can be a genuine traditionalist-considering the type of humanity i've mentioned previously, living a whole way of life much as their forefathers but not hostile to changes for the better in contact with larger society- and a Fascism that actively tries to bring about a new society based on certain concepts which are frankly anti-human.


Agreed.

annatar1914 wrote:Evola was Fascist. Guenon was too much the idiosyncratic scholar to be easily categorized. Don't get me wrong, I read Spengler, have read Werner Sombart, Arnim Mohler, Ernst Junger, many others in that ''Conservative Revolutionary'' vein of thinking. I believe that they influenced Fascism a great deal, but there are at least a couple of those i've listed at least that were disappointed by the movements they helped spawn. That's common by the way with political intellectuals, that disappointment, btw.

Life is both acting from basic ideals, and being shaped by the results upon contact and modification with reality. I don't think that most ''reactionaries'' are living an integral way of life in this modern age; it's possible that they cannot. However, this is not the case necessarily with people living a more traditional way of life; hard to call an Ethiopian farmer from the highlands of his homeland in 2020 a ''reactionary'', whereas a guy like me who is more ''waiting'' to be proven right in my political and socio-economic beliefs, could be considered so. More on that later...


But is that farmer necessarily a traditionalist, either? Living an agrarian lifestyle and adhering to an interpretation of the teachings of the Tewahedo Church does not inherently mean that an individual is opposed to the forces of modernity.

annatar1914 wrote:Depends on the time and circumstances I think. A American in 2020 who is looking for a imposition of Monarchy upon the people of North America would probably be illogical in pursuit of political power, unless they were somehow able to make that happen by virtue of already being at the top of the Elite.


So this action is not inherently futile? These civilisational cycles cannot be set in stone, then, if the imposition of a monarchy on a 'degenerate' society is thought to be able to reverse or redirect its social trends.
#15110916
@Local Localist , when I used the example of a Ethiopian highland farmer, faithful to the Tewahedo church, as the kind of person I mean as a real ''traditionalist'', you stated;


But is that farmer necessarily a traditionalist, either? Living an agrarian lifestyle and adhering to an interpretation of the teachings of the Tewahedo Church does not inherently mean that an individual is opposed to the forces of modernity.


I would say that it does, insofar as ''Modernity'' is an cluster of Western worldviews and not necessarily an advance in technologies. It's not a rejection of the toothbrush and internal combustion engine, but a rejection of Western anti-values and cultural assumptions.

When discussing ''reactionaries'' and the futility of that type, I used the illustration of an American who is a Monarchist, unlikely to ever come to power over an American republic unless possibly they happened to be already in the Elites (and presumably, with followers and allies), you asked;


So this action is not inherently futile?


From a reactionary, yes. But from a traditionalist, embedded in a collective way of life and representative of trends favoring any changes back towards a more traditional existence, I think it's likely.


These civilizational cycles cannot be set in stone, then, if the imposition of a monarchy on a 'degenerate' society is thought to be able to reverse or redirect its social trends.


In this fallen world, nothing we do is set in stone, but the cycle itself teaches us that. Even a ''return'' to principles established in a previous age to our own is not ''going back'' like in a time machine to that previous age, and I think even most reactionaries that are lucid understand that.

The key for me is this (and the reason this thread is in ''spirituality'' and not another sub-forum); it really isn't about the politics, or a worldview that is entirely focused on this world and this life, but is informed by my faith and the best response a society can have towards the common good of all as a reflection of that faith. It's about social love, without being utopian and with seeing people as they are not as one might have them be.

This is why I should have been clearer even to myself after I started this thread, that a rejection of Modernity and of the Modern Age isn't really about taking up a political position and voting in local or national elections, opining on contemporary geopolitics.

Because in my opinion we are well past the end of what would be considered the Modern Age already, which began in 1492 AD and ended in 1991 AD. It's dead, it's just that many people haven't awakened to that yet. Taking up a political position in the Modern sense, voting in elections and all that, is a social and cultural response, not so much a practical one. A rejection of that is the time-honored and well, traditional, response to Modernity. Living, fighting if need be, praying, raising a family. Voting is the social theater which psychologically binds the voters to the outcome no matter the result, when in a sense that outcome has already been decided more or less well before the actual voting.
#15111015
annatar1914 wrote:I would say that [a farmer in the Ethiopian highlands is a traditionalist], insofar as ''Modernity'' is an cluster of Western worldviews and not necessarily an advance in technologies. It's not a rejection of the toothbrush and internal combustion engine, but a rejection of Western anti-values and cultural assumptions.


But perhaps he hasn't necessarily rejected such assumptions, but more that it hasn't come time for him to embrace them yet. Most would acknowledge that there was a utility to feudalism once, and that that 'once' is different in different parts of the world. Industrialisation is a process, after all. In a similar vein, my explanation for why particular 'anti-values and cultural assumptions' developed first in the West is that a culmination of factors beginning in the Renaissance allowed them to socially progress faster than anywhere else. Agriculture did not develop everywhere at once, and yet almost everywhere uses agriculture.

annatar1914 wrote:When discussing ''reactionaries'' and the futility of that type, I used the illustration of an American who is a Monarchist, unlikely to ever come to power over an American republic unless possibly they happened to be already in the Elites (and presumably, with followers and allies), you asked [whether or not imposing a monarchy would be futile].

From a reactionary, yes. But from a traditionalist, embedded in a collective way of life and representative of trends favoring any changes back towards a more traditional existence, I think it's likely.

In this fallen world, nothing we do is set in stone, but the cycle itself teaches us that. Even a ''return'' to principles established in a previous age to our own is not ''going back'' like in a time machine to that previous age, and I think even most reactionaries that are lucid understand that.

The key for me is this (and the reason this thread is in ''spirituality'' and not another sub-forum); it really isn't about the politics, or a worldview that is entirely focused on this world and this life, but is informed by my faith and the best response a society can have towards the common good of all as a reflection of that faith. It's about social love, without being utopian and with seeing people as they are not as one might have them be.

This is why I should have been clearer even to myself after I started this thread, that a rejection of Modernity and of the Modern Age isn't really about taking up a political position and voting in local or national elections, opining on contemporary geopolitics.

Because in my opinion we are well past the end of what would be considered the Modern Age already, which began in 1492 AD and ended in 1991 AD. It's dead, it's just that many people haven't awakened to that yet. Taking up a political position in the Modern sense, voting in elections and all that, is a social and cultural response, not so much a practical one. A rejection of that is the time-honored and well, traditional, response to Modernity. Living, fighting if need be, praying, raising a family. Voting is the social theater which psychologically binds the voters to the outcome no matter the result, when in a sense that outcome has already been decided more or less well before the actual voting.


I think I'm meant to take from that one would impose a monarchy because it is morally right, rather than because it is practical. Fair enough, I suppose. Out of curiosity, then, if you don't mind, what exactly happened in 1991, what trends mark the current phase of the cycle you speak of, and is this cycle only applied to the Western world?
#15111099
@Local Localist , you retorted that;

But perhaps he hasn't necessarily rejected such assumptions, but more that it hasn't come time for him to embrace them yet.


Cultures don't live in a self-contained bubble entirely, but they do respond to influences from other cultures in ways that make those influences all their own. This is almost never an embrace of the meaning of the influence of the other culture as that culture internalizes it, but a reaction of sorts, a response that modifies the outside culture's influence.

Most would acknowledge that there was a utility to feudalism once, and that that 'once' is different in different parts of the world. Industrialisation is a process, after all.


It could be argued that Industrialization is a process that only has meaning within the context of the Western culture, that the process would and will be changed by cultures who adopt Industrialization but without Western characteristics.



In a similar vein, my explanation for why particular 'anti-values and cultural assumptions' developed first in the West is that a culmination of factors beginning in the Renaissance allowed them to socially progress faster than anywhere else.


Coming from within the Western civilization, it is easy to make the assumption of ''progress'' that makes sense-sort of, in a limited way-within the bounds of that civilization and no other.


Agriculture did not develop everywhere at once, and yet almost everywhere uses agriculture.


There are universals involved, yes, but again it is always modified in ways that make sense within certain worldviews at certain times. That's not to say that I don't believe in universals, in absolutes, in fact I have a definite stake in seeing one particular civilization win out over another... And really, so does everyone else.


I think I'm meant to take from that one would impose a monarchy because it is morally right, rather than because it is practical. Fair enough, I suppose. Out of curiosity, then, if you don't mind, what exactly happened in 1991, what trends mark the current phase of the cycle you speak of, and is this cycle only applied to the Western world?


If Monarchies were to return, and i'm not certain that they will, it would be because it's conformity with human nature, or not.

I date the end of the Modern age to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the First Gulf War in 1991. Everything after has been not the ''End of History'' but rather it's full return after that point.
#15111103
I date the end of the Modern age to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the First Gulf War in 1991. Everything after has been not the ''End of History'' but rather it's full return after that point.

Glad to see that someone else noticed that too. Far from the collapse of the Soviet Union being the 'End of History', as Fukuyama (and others) trumpeted at the time, it was in fact the resumption of history after being put in the deep freeze for almost half a century during the Cold War (which was well-named in more ways than one). Both sides during the Cold War had a vested interest in the status quo, a vested interest in seeing that nothing ever fundamentally changed. Both sides, in effect, tried to halt the historical process throughout their confrontation during the Cold War. They didn't succeed, of course, but they both made a damn good attempt. But after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the historical process resumed its normal pace with a vengeance. Fukuyama was not just wrong, he was dead wrong. Lol.
#15111110
Potemkin wrote:Glad to see that someone else noticed that too. Far from the collapse of the Soviet Union being the 'End of History', as Fukuyama (and others) trumpeted at the time, it was in fact the resumption of history after being put in the deep freeze for almost half a century during the Cold War (which was well-named in more ways than one). Both sides during the Cold War had a vested interest in the status quo, a vested interest in seeing that nothing ever fundamentally changed. Both sides, in effect, tried to halt the historical process throughout their confrontation during the Cold War. They didn't succeed, of course, but they both made a damn good attempt. But after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the historical process resumed its normal pace with a vengeance. Fukuyama was not just wrong, he was dead wrong. Lol.


The reason why he and others got it so wrong is probably a discussion in itself.

For now I'll content myself with the observation that once again it is the Western self-referential mindset that was simply giddy with triumphalism with the destruction of the USSR and the crushing and looting of Russia, the Warsaw Pact countries being absorbed into NATO/EU, the destruction of Yugoslavia, and last but not least, Saddam Hussein's premature geopolitical revisionism that led Iraq to conquer Kuwait temporarily.
#15111487
annatar1914 wrote:The reason why he and others got it so wrong is probably a discussion in itself.

For now I'll content myself with the observation that once again it is the Western self-referential mindset that was simply giddy with triumphalism with the destruction of the USSR and the crushing and looting of Russia, the Warsaw Pact countries being absorbed into NATO/EU, the destruction of Yugoslavia, and last but not least, Saddam Hussein's premature geopolitical revisionism that led Iraq to conquer Kuwait temporarily.


I look at the situation now-just watched today's explosion in Beirut-and I know in my heart that History has returned (not that it could ever truly leave at this or any point of mankind's existence, but man's hubris in thinking so) with a vengeance. Take the Middle East for example, ISIS alone managing to destroy the frontiers of Syria and Iraq for a time, punching a hole in the world's consensus reality that Sykes-Picot was basically eternal. Turkey will not hold to the treaty of Lausanne, and so forth. Much uncertainty in the world, good thing there's much more that we can't see or understand.

What I do understand is that Israel is in an existential war for it's survival now, and much we think we see is related to that war, vis-a-vis Islamic revival and so forth.
#15112203
annatar1914 wrote:I look at the situation now-just watched today's explosion in Beirut-and I know in my heart that History has returned (not that it could ever truly leave at this or any point of mankind's existence, but man's hubris in thinking so) with a vengeance. Take the Middle East for example, ISIS alone managing to destroy the frontiers of Syria and Iraq for a time, punching a hole in the world's consensus reality that Sykes-Picot was basically eternal. Turkey will not hold to the treaty of Lausanne, and so forth. Much uncertainty in the world, good thing there's much more that we can't see or understand.

What I do understand is that Israel is in an existential war for it's survival now, and much we think we see is related to that war, vis-a-vis Islamic revival and so forth.


Reflecting on recent events that i've previously mentioned, it only makes sense from outside a Magian/Monotheist paradigm, a cluster of related worldviews that are increasingly under attack.

(Before I get too ahead of myself, I'm not suggesting a kind of Magian/Monotheist ''alliance'' of some sort by the way, because of these attacks, that would be impossible)

No, what I'm detecting is a kind of warfare that indicates a very real hatred for Monotheism in general, disguised as a hatred for Islam, as if Islam were the real face of the whole Magian/Monotheistic cultural and spiritual grouping. But the war against Islam is covertly the war against the Jews, and the true Christians also.

For the war is the war between Pagan and Godly, Polytheism and Monotheism, Image and Idol, Athens and Jerusalem, materialism versus the spiritual. For those on one side it might be more a spiritual and philosophical warfare, but the reality is still on the ground, in perceived physical reality. And that's where we usually perceive it, dimly. And why ''dimly?'' Because it shouldn't have to take a Moslem Qutb or a Shariati to remind a Monotheist in the West that we should hate the same things they did in many cases, even if our response would differ perhaps because of our creed. Some reasons for this attitude in the past of seeing the real or at least more serious enemies might be illustrative;

Tsar Ivan Grozny refused the Papal Nuncio's offers and refused an alliance to war against the Moslem Turks, even while taking Moslem Kazan

Some East Romans said; ''better the Turban than the Tiara'' before Constantinople fell in 1453 AD, and after too. Among those that didn't and fled to the more congenial West were persons like Gemisthos Plethon and the like, a Polytheist;

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

From his ''Nomoi'', we learn;

Plethon's own summary of the Nómoi also survived, amongst manuscripts held by his former student Bessarion. This summary, titled Summary of the Doctrines of Zoroaster and Plato, affirms the existence of a pantheon of gods, with Zeus as supreme sovereign, containing within himself all being in an undivided state; his eldest child, motherless, is Poseidon, who created the heavens and rules all below, ordaining order in the universe. Zeus' other children include an array of "supercelestial" gods, the Olympians and Tartareans, all motherless. Of these Hera is third in command after Poseidon, creatress and ruler of indestructible matter, and the mother by Zeus of the heavenly gods, demi-gods and spirits. The Olympians rule immortal life in the heavens, the Tartareans mortal life below, their leader Kronos ruling over mortality altogether. The eldest of the heavenly gods is Helios, master of the heavens here and source of all mortal life on earth. The gods are responsible for much good and no evil, and guide all life towards divine order. Plethon describes the creation of the universe as being perfect and outside of time, so that the universe remains eternal, without beginning or end. The soul of man, like the gods is immortal and essentially good, and is reincarnated in successive mortal bodies for eternity at the direction of the gods.[14]


An actual Pagan, at the very root of the Western ''Renaissance''.
#15112454
annatar1914 wrote:The reason why he and others got it so wrong is probably a discussion in itself.

For now I'll content myself with the observation that once again it is the Western self-referential mindset that was simply giddy with triumphalism with the destruction of the USSR and the crushing and looting of Russia, the Warsaw Pact countries being absorbed into NATO/EU, the destruction of Yugoslavia, and last but not least, Saddam Hussein's premature geopolitical revisionism that led Iraq to conquer Kuwait temporarily.


So why did they get it so wrong? I know hindsight is 20/20, but anyone with wisdom should have seen that perhaps Liberal Democracy and Neo-Liberal Capitalism didn't ''triumph'' as a superior system in 1989-1991, and it should have been as clear then as it is in 2020.

Well, it's bullshit, these pronunciations of the ''end of history''. It's as simple as that. Somebody had to write the panegyric of the system to cover the uglier and messier details, and so it was written and spoken of.

What it could have been though, is the beginning of the end of recognizable modern political ideologies altogether. If modern Socialism and Communism failed, if Fascism failed, and Liberal democratic Capitalism has failed, what lies beyond?

Whatever works and is in accordance with lived reality. And for a clue as to what that is, we might have to look back in order to look forwards.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
Election 2020

If the government fucks up Social Security, we ca[…]

Red States vs. Blue States

There aren't red states and blue states. This is b[…]

Fair enough. I was going for the renegade. It sa[…]

So it seems Trump did not learn anything after get[…]