I Reject, I Affirm. ''Raising the Black Flag'' in an Age of Devilry. - Page 34 - 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.
#15134996
@Verv ;

This is probably the best written thing I have seen on PoFo in 2020.


Thank you Verv, I tried to put a lot of thought into it, been wrestling with some basic concepts lately and it seemed time to change the language of that thinking.

This is a good revisiting of the idea of the noble savage from a Christian perspective, and it definitely falls in line with how various intellectuals in Christendom also perceive worldly Kingdoms.


After all, after he murdered his brother, Cain settled down contra his plea to God about being a ''fugitive and a wanderer upon the Earth'', and built a city named after his son. A settled man unlike his herdsman brother St. Abel. It also calls to mind what St. Paul wrote about the Saints in the Letter to the Hebrews;

'' And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning;[e] they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground...''


The City is not our friend. We only tolerate it at best.


Adding the barbarian idea to this is truly splendid, because it particularly speaks to Westerners today who feel that they are out of touch with their own nation and society.


Yes, they don't lose what they are, they only gain if they fully embrace true Christianity.

One might even imagine that the great popularity of TV series like Vikings or even Game of Thrones is this growing desire of modern men in this particular age to turn their back on modernity.


Ironic given the technology by which they even watch such shows, but yes it's a definite phenomenon.

The big issue, of course, is that the bulk of these people do not understand this in the context of Christianity, but only in a simple rejection of a system that they instinctively know to be wrong.


It's an issue but also an opportunity, one that i'm going to give more thought to.
#15134997
Rancid wrote:Reading through this thread makes me feel ashamed of myself.


@Rancid , no need to be ashamed brother, I am actually ashamed by this thread because I have not been a better person for all this reflection I've written about.
#15136003
Are people like Biden and Trump in American politics a reversion to Barbarism or are they products of Civilization?

Consider that one is a politician entirely dependent on the public trough and the cash nexus between Washington and Wall Street. The other deals in real estate, which is dependent on so many artificial constructs of law and property that ultimately are dependent on that same nexus between government and big business. Neither deals in reality, both deal in lies and subterfuge as part of their natures, not concrete truths and facts. Both are wealthy cosmopolitans.

A rancher from Oregon or a tire assembly worker from Ohio or farmer from New Mexico is more honest, more just, and no doubt a better judge of things than these types. A Combat infantryman officer in the Marine Corps, an Outlaw Biker, a street thug from Cleveland, a Church-going family from Texas, knows and understands more about how to conduct things and how things should be conducted than all the Elites and their pretzel logic and situation ethics put together.
#15136402
Let's look further upon some of the spiritual and cultural distinctions between barbarism and civilization.

Carl Schmidt once wrote; ''Sovereign is he who decides the exception''. And this is true of many political ideologies out there. In the Soviet Union, the Party was above the State, and beyond it's machinery, for example.

Civilization doesn't allow for emergencies, for exceptions, for anything to be beyond it's regular almost mechanical workings of debate and discussion by deliberative bodies drawing upon established precedents of bureaucratic form and function, both in government and in society as a whole. Organization and technique to the point of rote ritual. To, as Carl Schmidt said; ''delay the decision'' if at all possible. Elegant as a Medieval clock or Armillary Sphere, and just as human...It rests on imagination, and opinion, a mental construct which crumbles almost as soon as people begin to think too much about it. Institutionalized cowardice, and organized anarchy.

Barbarism knows that when it comes down to it, in the vital life of a people, deliberation and debate come to an end by the promptings of the leadership, all rally behind that decision whether you want to call it Autocracy or Democratic Centralism or something else, and action takes place. It rests upon Force, as do all things in this world, with the proviso that Right is Might, and that victory belongs ultimately to the brave and the good in heart.
#15136643
annatar1914 wrote:Let's look further upon some of the spiritual and cultural distinctions between barbarism and civilization.

Carl Schmidt once wrote; ''Sovereign is he who decides the exception''. And this is true of many political ideologies out there. In the Soviet Union, the Party was above the State, and beyond it's machinery, for example.

Civilization doesn't allow for emergencies, for exceptions, for anything to be beyond it's regular almost mechanical workings of debate and discussion by deliberative bodies drawing upon established precedents of bureaucratic form and function, both in government and in society as a whole. Organization and technique to the point of rote ritual. To, as Carl Schmidt said; ''delay the decision'' if at all possible. Elegant as a Medieval clock or Armillary Sphere, and just as human...It rests on imagination, and opinion, a mental construct which crumbles almost as soon as people begin to think too much about it. Institutionalized cowardice, and organized anarchy.

Barbarism knows that when it comes down to it, in the vital life of a people, deliberation and debate come to an end by the promptings of the leadership, all rally behind that decision whether you want to call it Autocracy or Democratic Centralism or something else, and action takes place. It rests upon Force, as do all things in this world, with the proviso that Right is Might, and that victory belongs ultimately to the brave and the good in heart.


Earlier today I was reading some article by alleged ''Conservative'' Jonah Goldberg, and in it he came up with some nonsense of other about a distinction between ''government'' and the ''state'', which he accused pretty much everyone outside his universe of thinking is some ''mystical'' concept, presumably therefore a fantasy. And it threw what I'd said earlier here in some stark relief...

For who are the ''mystics'' here, Mr. Goldberg? The ''rationalists'' so-called who came up with this, well, ''Rube Goldberg'' contraption of complex checks and balances called a 'Constitution'? What after all is the alleged purpose? Mr. James Madison or Thomas Jefferson might say in order to hold down the power of the government, to restrain the State so that individual freedom could flourish without the threat of Tyranny over our lives. Man is held to be naturally good, and his institutions are what make him bad. Change the institutions and man is liberated to do what he wills, and he'll will rightly...

That's civilization, civilization gone stark raving mad. Earlier peoples, more ''primitive'' peoples, they know that people aren't naturally good, which is why they're often justifiably wary of strangers for one thing. So what's the connection between the belief that people are naturally good with Schmidt's critique of liberal democracy? If people are naturally good by the estimation of these ''rational mystics'', it's not a greater leap in logic to assume that if you get people talking long enough, they'll settle everything amicably. Peace and prosperity give them that illusion easily. Contradictions and antagonisms they believe, can always be solved by discussion...

So what then of Mr. Jonah Goldberg's ''Government/State'' distinction? He's right, there is one these days. In civilization the organic unity of rulers and ruled in one State, like the pre-modern unity through sacred affiliations, does not exist even on paper. We have mere Government; a kind of machine rationally devised, a complicated Gordian Knot begging for an Alexander to just cut right through it. If nobody can easily decide exceptions on their own in a government position, then there's no real accountability for actions or failures to act. That's also why the endless attempts by some officials and their allies in and out of government to organize some conspiracy or intrigue to act outside the laws and official rules to get certain things done or prevent certain things from getting done. That's why we have so many sociopaths and even psychopaths in government today, pathological liars.
#15136725
Gaslighting people into a new illusion of reality is a thing;



“No, I suppose that other world must be all dream.”

“Yes. It is all a dream,” said the Witch, always thrumming.

“Yes, all a dream,” said Jill.

“There never was such a world,” said the Witch.

“No,” said Jill and Scrubb, “never was such a world.”

“There never was any world but mine,” said the Witch.

“There never was any world but yours,” said they.

Puddleglum was still fighting hard. “I don’t know rightly what you all mean by a world,” he said, talking like a man who hasn’t enough air. “But you can play that fiddle till your fingers drop off, and still you won’t make me forget Narnia, and the whole Overworld too. We’ll never see it again, I shouldn’t wonder. You may have blotted it out and turned it dark like this, for all I know. Nothing more likely. But I know I was there once. I’ve seen the sky full of stars. I’ve seen the sun coming up out of the sea of a morning and sinking behind the mountains at night. And I’ve seen him up in the midday sky when I couldn’t look at him for brightness.”

Puddleglum’s words had a very rousing effect. The other three all breathed again and looked on one another like people newly awaked.

“Why, there it is!” cried the Prince. “Of course! The blessing of Aslan upon this honest Marshwiggle. We have all been dreaming, these last few minutes. How could we have forgotten it? Or course we’ve all seen the sun.”

–The Silver Chair, C.S. Lewis


The first thing they tell you is that your world doesn't exist. And if you are recalcitrant about it and persist in your belief, you will be told that you are in the anti-social minority and anyone of any standing is against you. They will say that black is white, that up is down and that right is wrong and wrong is what is right.

But it's just an evil spell, Magick.
#15136983
One of the virtues of being a traditionalist in 2020 AD in America, is that one can be something of an politically independent ''Libertarian'' in practice if not ideologically. People like me have a ''live and let live'' attitude that doesn't worship political liberty with a capital ''L'' as an end unto itself, but out of prudential common sense in this day and age uses it for simple peace and security.

History suggests that such zones of freedom are hard to maintain. But that's the modern age, isn't it?

Am I still a ''Statist'', then? Sure. Recall that I used a distinction others have made between the ''State'', and ''Government''? I believe in the State as previously discussed, but hold little adulation for modern government. I kind of lost sight of this what with my earlier attacks on the near-anarchistic American political spectrum. Modern government, that of Civilization, tends to defuse apportionment of both credit and blame (for actions or failures to act) in the organs of political control, while in other more Barbaric societies where control was and is still more clearly held vertically, blame or credit is rather clear.

Freedom and the Common Good... Always hard to reconcile, but one has to if one has a realistic look at human nature unrestrained, and holds to Christian charity as well.
#15137164
The veneer of Christianity over the Paganism of the West lies very thin. And nowhere is this seen more than in the West's idolatry of public figures...

In 2016 many of the most religious and culturally conservative segment of America's population voted for Donald Trump, who does not seem to hold sincerely to any religion, who is arrogant, proud, immoral, crooked, avaricious and a profound liar and cheat. And they did this because they were extremely scared of the repulsive Hillary Clinton, who is pretty much the same as Trump on all counts. In 2020, they have to a significant degree maintained their idolatry of the man, and he has gained even more followers as he-at least apparently-has lost the election. A product of the class of oligarchical private wealth that squats atop the social pyramid.

And who is against him? Joe Biden, a regular normal American politician, venal and disgusting in his own right, without fixed principles. But he is indeed normal, he doesn't think that he is a god, not like President Trump and not even a match in egoism with President Obama. He wants a good legacy, so he'll work with others. Civilized, a product of the political class that administers the land at the behest of the oligarchical private wealth, in return for a considerable share of the riches.

So who will win? Surprised I still ask that? Isn't the election over? No it is not. Biden is not a fighter, not really. Trump is if nothing else, a fighter. If he doesn't give up, he still has a surprisingly excellent chance of winning. And what a moment that would be. So Trump's supporters should be careful what they wish for, they might still just get it.
#15137997
annatar1914 wrote:Well as you mentioned earlier, you believe that there are entire societies that are pretty much the world's ''Bourgeoisie'', and I'm not disagreeing entirely. I can settle on a broader definition of a member of the ''Proletariat'' being someone who is entirely dependent on the private or public use of their labor, on their employment, in order to provide for their existence.

The Bourgeoisie then would be those who are entirely free and independent of that necessity of employment, having private ownership of sufficient Capital to do so, and would be the ultimate employers of everyone else. We would then be talking about very few people in a given society actually, but it is their values and leadership that give direction to the rest of society.


I agree with this definition.

annatar1914 wrote:Yes, to tie in to the conversation about the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie, the Barbarian type brought into Civilization is usually, but not always, among the Proletariat. They cannot survive without selling their labor, labor in some fashion, although the effort sometimes pushes them to the lower margins, or as strange outliers (like a religious sect that sells homemade products to a larger market), or into criminality.


Interestingly enough I have also encountered barbarian types among the middle and upper middle classes. Their roots were barbarian but they somehow have amassed enough wealth to change their social class. They do not lose their roots, however, and remain different to the rest of the bourgeoisie.

annatar1914 wrote:Historically, many times Barbarians who settle and even conquer civilized lands take to the worst most decadent and degenerate behavior of that societies' previous ruling classes and out-do them in wretched excess.

Not all though; i've seen Mongol herders in Mongolia who live much as their ancestors did, descendants of those who did not settle in China to rule and be absorbed by the Chinese after Ghengis Khan conquered them.

But yes, this closeness to nature, to reality, is a sign of that particular human type's survival in the midst of Hyper-Civilization.


This is a good example of barbarians adopting civilisation:

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

In this case however, I do not think they adopted the worst elements.
#15138014
@Political Interest , continuing our discussion on Barbarism and Civilization, you said about certain reversions to type that;


Interestingly enough I have also encountered barbarian types among the middle and upper middle classes. Their roots were barbarian but they somehow have amassed enough wealth to change their social class. They do not lose their roots, however, and remain different to the rest of the bourgeoisie.


Yes, I believe that they do remain different, partly by networking with men of similar type and status, and with having family and friends and retainers/followers who are also of the Barbarian archetype themselves. I've seen numerous examples of these people in the Southwestern and Midwestern United States, and in the Russian Federation/Eastern Europe. I am assured by Middle Eastern friends that they are common in the MENA region of the world also.

Note that for now I'm leaving aside questions of Good and Evil in characterizing these types of people. I do believe however that their sins are of a more human and understandable flawed nature than the insane and anti-human sins of an overly civilized society, influenced mightily by demonism.


This is a good example of barbarians adopting civilisation:

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

In this case however, I do not think they adopted the worst elements.


From what i've read of them in the past, I agree that they basically did not.
#15138048
annatar1914 wrote:Nothing seems superficially more rational in our Civilization than voting, but in reality nothing is in truth less rational and prone to superstition, more prone to the influence of oligarchy and the rule of those with wealth and personal power. Even if it appears to not be a question of good versus evil, it actually still is, with so-called ''rationalism'' and ''democracy'' coming out on the side of darkness in fact.


In many cases it is not a real choice. None of the parties disagree on any important issues, there is generally a centrist consensus. Any discussion that could provoke public interest or bring about real change, any real existential political questions are never up for discussion.

annatar1914 wrote:One says by one's vote in at least a formal sense that; ''I accept the outcome of the vote, regardless of whether my candidate wins or loses, and decisions can be made by the same means for particular issue put up for a vote''. If that perception fails, then other means are used to try to seat a ruler or enforce a particular political position. Also therefore is the implicit understanding that all the questions in life can potentially be subject to resolution by means of a vote.


The referendums and votes are also in many cases binary. There are a good many citizens who do not even want to make the choices put to them in these types of referendums. The public is not always very well equipped to make important decisions.

annatar1914 wrote:The Barbarism of a true Monarchy is preferable.


A monarchy whose hands are not tied by politicking and manipulation.

annatar1914 wrote:And yet...

If true power resided with the people, with the proper spiritual development, the self-governance of a truly democratic and socialistic society would be ideal insofar as anything can be in this fallen sinful world.


This is very much the point indeed. The real issue is not the type of government but what the people themselves believe in. Any form of government could be optimal depending on the people.

Wellsy wrote:What do you think might be a bridge between a person of faith and an atheist?

There used to be discussions framed between a believer and non-believers but I think I struggle with the sense of the world truly religious people have as I have no concept of it. I am largely untouched by religion despite living in a world shapes by it's influence.
I would listen to inmates express their faith in things but we both knew that I wasn't a believer. It was once even the source of great conflict in a romantic interest who was a Christian while I couldn't pretend to believe. Is it simply an essential opposition? It seems to require more than toe dipping but a dive into the deep of a religious way of living to help one grasp the concepts. As concepts don't just come through the mind or observation but experiencing. In the way some speak of spiritual experiences yet there is no means of conveying it in a way that really shares it's understanding.

I am simply alien to a sense of things coloured by a religious outlook and despite some cracks I open kindness doubt it'll ever be me without a radical change of self.


But you are a spiritual person aren't you? You are not a materialist from my reading of your posts. What then stops you going further into religion?

Rancid wrote:Reading through this thread makes me feel ashamed of myself.


Oh, but why?

But I feel ashamed of myself every day.

annatar1914 wrote:Are people like Biden and Trump in American politics a reversion to Barbarism or are they products of Civilization?

Consider that one is a politician entirely dependent on the public trough and the cash nexus between Washington and Wall Street. The other deals in real estate, which is dependent on so many artificial constructs of law and property that ultimately are dependent on that same nexus between government and big business. Neither deals in reality, both deal in lies and subterfuge as part of their natures, not concrete truths and facts. Both are wealthy cosmopolitans.

A rancher from Oregon or a tire assembly worker from Ohio or farmer from New Mexico is more honest, more just, and no doubt a better judge of things than these types. A Combat infantryman officer in the Marine Corps, an Outlaw Biker, a street thug from Cleveland, a Church-going family from Texas, knows and understands more about how to conduct things and how things should be conducted than all the Elites and their pretzel logic and situation ethics put together.


Both leaders are capitalists. They have fully bought into American capitalism and the notion of running the rat race.

annatar1914 wrote:That's civilization, civilization gone stark raving mad. Earlier peoples, more ''primitive'' peoples, they know that people aren't naturally good, which is why they're often justifiably wary of strangers for one thing. So what's the connection between the belief that people are naturally good with Schmidt's critique of liberal democracy? If people are naturally good by the estimation of these ''rational mystics'', it's not a greater leap in logic to assume that if you get people talking long enough, they'll settle everything amicably. Peace and prosperity give them that illusion easily. Contradictions and antagonisms they believe, can always be solved by discussion...

So what then of Mr. Jonah Goldberg's ''Government/State'' distinction? He's right, there is one these days. In civilization the organic unity of rulers and ruled in one State, like the pre-modern unity through sacred affiliations, does not exist even on paper. We have mere Government; a kind of machine rationally devised, a complicated Gordian Knot begging for an Alexander to just cut right through it. If nobody can easily decide exceptions on their own in a government position, then there's no real accountability for actions or failures to act. That's also why the endless attempts by some officials and their allies in and out of government to organize some conspiracy or intrigue to act outside the laws and official rules to get certain things done or prevent certain things from getting done. That's why we have so many sociopaths and even psychopaths in government today, pathological liars.


There appears to be a fundamental naivety about these types of extreme liberals. Gradually over time it has become apparent to me that people in general are exceedingly naive.

The liberals believe in their dogma without question. Even when reality comes knocking on their door they still bury their heads in the sand.

It is dogma, but yet dogma informed by lack of experience. The pandemic and the refusal to take active state measures against it is a perfect case in point. The resistance to it was rooted largely in dogmatic liberalism.

annatar1914 wrote:One of the virtues of being a traditionalist in 2020 AD in America, is that one can be something of an politically independent ''Libertarian'' in practice if not ideologically. People like me have a ''live and let live'' attitude that doesn't worship political liberty with a capital ''L'' as an end unto itself, but out of prudential common sense in this day and age uses it for simple peace and security.

History suggests that such zones of freedom are hard to maintain. But that's the modern age, isn't it?

Am I still a ''Statist'', then? Sure. Recall that I used a distinction others have made between the ''State'', and ''Government''? I believe in the State as previously discussed, but hold little adulation for modern government. I kind of lost sight of this what with my earlier attacks on the near-anarchistic American political spectrum. Modern government, that of Civilization, tends to defuse apportionment of both credit and blame (for actions or failures to act) in the organs of political control, while in other more Barbaric societies where control was and is still more clearly held vertically, blame or credit is rather clear.

Freedom and the Common Good... Always hard to reconcile, but one has to if one has a realistic look at human nature unrestrained, and holds to Christian charity as well.


It depends largely on what we think of as freedom. If the government does not interfere in your personal life then can you actually say you are oppressed by tyranny?

To be a statist is not to be an advocate of tyranny or totalitarianism.

annatar1914 wrote:Yes, I believe that they do remain different, partly by networking with men of similar type and status, and with having family and friends and retainers/followers who are also of the Barbarian archetype themselves. I've seen numerous examples of these people in the Southwestern and Midwestern United States, and in the Russian Federation/Eastern Europe. I am assured by Middle Eastern friends that they are common in the MENA region of the world also.


Sadly or not so sadly I cannot be confident that I am among their ranks.

annatar1914 wrote:Note that for now I'm leaving aside questions of Good and Evil in characterizing these types of people. I do believe however that their sins are of a more human and understandable flawed nature than the insane and anti-human sins of an overly civilized society, influenced mightily by demonism.


And this is a very interesting discussion as well, because through all of this discussion we never made out that they were without sin.
#15138052
Political Interest wrote:But you are a spiritual person aren't you? You are not a materialist from my reading of your posts. What then stops you going further into religion?

I’m not sure, and it is true I’m not very materialistic in the consumerist sense and am pretty happy with what I already have which is exceptional really. I suspect there are a few obstacles. First being how to dive into it, it seems to be a serious study and there are thinkers who have caught my attention though I haven’t given them enough attention. It seems that there is a great deal of history, debate and complex ideas to try and venture into. Added that I think many religious persons I am near don’t appeal to me as they seem more culturally religious in a way that makes me wary that they haven’t got what I might be after in dipping my toe in and possibly diving in. I don’t have much time to even read some of the Marxist texts I am very motivated to read at the moment with trying to be a family man of late and pursue a career in teaching XD so at currently I’m just floating on. It’ll probably always be something around me but something I’ll dive into personally as I think its a deeply private matter even if one participates in a community of believers.
#15138065
Wellsy wrote:I’m not sure, and it is true I’m not very materialistic in the consumerist sense and am pretty happy with what I already have which is exceptional really. I suspect there are a few obstacles. First being how to dive into it, it seems to be a serious study and there are thinkers who have caught my attention though I haven’t given them enough attention. It seems that there is a great deal of history, debate and complex ideas to try and venture into. Added that I think many religious persons I am near don’t appeal to me as they seem more culturally religious in a way that makes me wary that they haven’t got what I might be after in dipping my toe in and possibly diving in. I don’t have much time to even read some of the Marxist texts I am very motivated to read at the moment with trying to be a family man of late and pursue a career in teaching XD so at currently I’m just floating on. It’ll probably always be something around me but something I’ll dive into personally as I think its a deeply private matter even if one participates in a community of believers.


I understand you completely.

It is possibe to be religious in one's own private way, as you suggest. If you practice a religion you will eventually assimilate it into your own cultural practice by virtue of simply being part of your own culture.

It is very complex, yes. It is also so sacred as to not be treated as a mere intellectual interest, if you understand what I mean. But a subject as important as one's religious life could never be treated in any other way.
#15138081
Hello, @Political Interest my friend! You stated concerning the fecklessness of modern representative democracy that;

In many cases it is not a real choice. None of the parties disagree on any important issues, there is generally a centrist consensus. Any discussion that could provoke public interest or bring about real change, any real existential political questions are never up for discussion.


Yes, they table such possible discussions, put it off to someone else's responsibility, so that all are irresponsible, and culpable precisely when and where they strive to be non-culpable. It is the acme of collective cowardice.


The referendums and votes are also in many cases binary. There are a good many citizens who do not even want to make the choices put to them in these types of referendums. The public is not always very well equipped to make important decisions.


Indeed, there is the assumption though that the public must be by nature somehow able to make important decisions.


With my exasperated comment about Monarchy being preferable, you said;


A monarchy whose hands are not tied by politicking and manipulation.


Yes, a genuine Autocrat in the Old Russian sense, at least theoretically having sovereign authority by divine sanction over all his lands, but perhaps also like the Novgorod Republic where under such a prince there was an assembly of the people that also governed, and could replace the prince in an emergency, and elect another one for life. A two-poled State that could mutually support and check the other


On my concerns about civic virtue in the people;


This is very much the point indeed. The real issue is not the type of government but what the people themselves believe in. Any form of government could be optimal depending on the people.


Yes, when they change the government changes with them.



About Trump and Biden being paragons of Hyper-Civilized Capitalist society;


Both leaders are capitalists. They have fully bought into American capitalism and the notion of running the rat race.


They have, and while Trump is an absolute Pagan, his followers attracted by his message and promises in 2016 have potential.


There appears to be a fundamental naivety about these types of extreme liberals. Gradually over time it has become apparent to me that people in general are exceedingly naive.


They are, until they are not. And then they become a real danger to the Elites, a physical danger.


The liberals believe in their dogma without question. Even when reality comes knocking on their door they still bury their heads in the sand.


Unfortunately that's what I've seen.

It is dogma, but yet dogma informed by lack of experience. The pandemic and the refusal to take active state measures against it is a perfect case in point. The resistance to it was rooted largely in dogmatic liberalism.


When you look at the artificiality and insane level of complexity in modern civilization, running it must seem like being a plate-spinner or juggler at times. So it runs itself, where nobody really knows.


It depends largely on what we think of as freedom. If the government does not interfere in your personal life then can you actually say you are oppressed by tyranny?


One cannot truly be oppressed by tyranny in that case.

To be a statist is not to be an advocate of tyranny or totalitarianism.


Only with a Libertarian or Anarchist mindset are they confounded together.

On membership in the ''Barbarian'' club;


Sadly or not so sadly I cannot be confident that I am among their ranks.


I'm not sure that it matters in a sense. Everybody has a place and a purpose in this world.

On the non-discussion about good and evil when discussing these human typologies and archetypal metaphors;


And this is a very interesting discussion as well, because through all of this discussion we never made out that they were without sin.


I thing the real overlap would come with discussion of the similarities and differences between honor and shame, and sin and guilt.

I think increasing levels of Civilization do away with honor and shame, with sin and guilt, at around the same time and for the same reasons.
#15138681
annatar1914 wrote:Yes, they table such possible discussions, put it off to someone else's responsibility, so that all are irresponsible, and culpable precisely when and where they strive to be non-culpable. It is the acme of collective cowardice.


Added to this there is the manipulation of craven media and journalists, of left and right persuasions, along with pundits who unfortunately influence public opinion in the wrong direction.

annatar1914 wrote:Indeed, there is the assumption though that the public must be by nature somehow able to make important decisions.


Decisions that are entirely formulated by the political class, in most ironic fashion.

annatar1914 wrote:Yes, a genuine Autocrat in the Old Russian sense, at least theoretically having sovereign authority by divine sanction over all his lands, but perhaps also like the Novgorod Republic where under such a prince there was an assembly of the people that also governed, and could replace the prince in an emergency, and elect another one for life. A two-poled State that could mutually support and check the other


Most certainly. A monarchy that has the ability to act but is advised and helped by a state council.

annatar1914 wrote:They have, and while Trump is an absolute Pagan, his followers attracted by his message and promises in 2016 have potential.


Those same people could be rallied to a genuinely good and suitable political programme. They are at least a section of the population who want change and are not afraid to defy convention.

annatar1914 wrote:They are, until they are not. And then they become a real danger to the Elites, a physical danger.


Indeed.

annatar1914 wrote:When you look at the artificiality and insane level of complexity in modern civilization, running it must seem like being a plate-spinner or juggler at times. So it runs itself, where nobody really knows.


Hence why so much of it seems ad hoc and made up on the spot. There's no forward planning or proper consideration of possible eventualities.

annatar1914 wrote:Only with a Libertarian or Anarchist mindset are they confounded together.


It's probably also a cultural issue. Most people in this part of the world don't have any historical experience of non parliamentary governance and where they do it was always a terrible and horrendous experience, i.e. Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Vichy France etc.

annatar1914 wrote:I'm not sure that it matters in a sense. Everybody has a place and a purpose in this world.


That's a very good and nice way of viewing the world. Everyone has their place, no one is excluded. This is the type of world we should strive for!

annatar1914 wrote:I thing the real overlap would come with discussion of the similarities and differences between honor and shame, and sin and guilt.

I think increasing levels of Civilization do away with honor and shame, with sin and guilt, at around the same time and for the same reasons.


The failure to take account of notions such as sin, guilt, shame and honour is making the West miserable.

There is so much that could be said on this topic.

To feel guilt, to sin and regret, to have shame and want to preserve one's honour, and the honour of others is part of the human condition. When we forget all of these we forget an important part of what it means to be human.
#15138717
@Political Interest , finding ourselves in general agreement on these matters of democracy and monarchy, I wanted to turn to the problem with the following concepts the modern West is having; Sin, guilt, shame and honour. You replied about that that;


The failure to take account of notions such as sin, guilt, shame and honour is making the West miserable.

There is so much that could be said on this topic.


Yes indeed, and you're right about the misery. I note that the West's cold and secularized ''ethics'' and legalism have abstracted personal duty and responsibility almost into non-existence.

To feel guilt, to sin and regret, to have shame and want to preserve one's honour, and the honour of others is part of the human condition. When we forget all of these we forget an important part of what it means to be human.


And this I think is what is at the core of ''Barbarism'' versus ''Civilization'', one upholds while another denigrates and whittles away at them.

I'll illustrate with a story my grandfather told me from his time in the US Army during the Korean conflict. Stationed near his unit were a group of Turkish engineers who usually kept to themselves. At that time there were a lot of thefts engaged in by Korean civilians against US military personnel, who tried to stop it by the usual police measures in a wartime setting, to no avail. Upon arrival of the Turkish unit, US officers expected trouble. But there wasn't any trouble after the first night, for outside the Turkish camp was the impaled head of a thief who had been caught and beheaded the night before. No further attempts to steal were made thereafter and no further action was taken by anyone concerning the matter. My grandfather understood without necessarily approving, some of his fellow US soldiers did not approve at all and were quite appalled in fact.

Barbarism. Perhaps an extreme example of honour being settled in a personal way outside the civilized ethical and moral rules and boundaries, and rather alien to modern civilized mankind. Who however will applaud the drone strikes against individuals by remote control, butchering people like sheep from long distances...
#15139171
annatar1914 wrote:Yes indeed, and you're right about the misery. I note that the West's cold and secularized ''ethics'' and legalism have abstracted personal duty and responsibility almost into non-existence.


Some people are deceived into thinking that freedom from duty and responsibility will liberate people, in fact it will just take any colour out of their lives and make them into an exercise in consumerism.

If individuals would rediscover these concepts their lives would be much richer. If society embraced these concepts as a collective it would be absolutely beautiful.

Each society is the product of the values and ideals that the people within it hold. Our current societies merely reflect that which the people value and which guides their lives.

annatar1914 wrote:And this I think is what is at the core of ''Barbarism'' versus ''Civilization'', one upholds while another denigrates and whittles away at them.


Is that because the former preserves passionarity as a function of being somewhat primitive and tied to the land while the latter loses this as a result of softness and disconnection from natural living?

annatar1914 wrote:I'll illustrate with a story my grandfather told me from his time in the US Army during the Korean conflict. Stationed near his unit were a group of Turkish engineers who usually kept to themselves. At that time there were a lot of thefts engaged in by Korean civilians against US military personnel, who tried to stop it by the usual police measures in a wartime setting, to no avail. Upon arrival of the Turkish unit, US officers expected trouble. But there wasn't any trouble after the first night, for outside the Turkish camp was the impaled head of a thief who had been caught and beheaded the night before. No further attempts to steal were made thereafter and no further action was taken by anyone concerning the matter. My grandfather understood without necessarily approving, some of his fellow US soldiers did not approve at all and were quite appalled in fact.


That's an amazing story. Funnily enough the Koreans till this day apparently adore the Turks and considered them extremely brave and fierce allies against communism. The first Koreans to convert to Islam in the modern era were apparently converted by Turkish soldiers.

annatar1914 wrote:Barbarism. Perhaps an extreme example of honour being settled in a personal way outside the civilized ethical and moral rules and boundaries, and rather alien to modern civilized mankind. Who however will applaud the drone strikes against individuals by remote control, butchering people like sheep from long distances...


Honour settled in a personal way and outside the acceptable realms of civilisation, but certainly in way that is unambiguous and clear, irrespective of what one thinks of it.

The drone strikes, their very existence is an exercise of moral ambiguity. Certain people do not seem to grasp the irony of employing such 'civilised' methods of warfare.
#15139185
The drone strikes, their very existence is an exercise of moral ambiguity. Certain people do not seem to grasp the irony of employing such 'civilised' methods of warfare.

I remember reading about a Byzantine princess who was outraged by the Franks' use of the crossbow. She regarded it as a coward's weapon, and the fact that the Franks favoured its use convinced her of the essential barbarism of the Frankish people. Drone strikes are merely the latest development of the West's cowardly approach to warfare - cowardly in the sense that it is an alienated and alienating weapon. The victim is not a living, breathing individual whom one must grapple with directly at the risk of one's own life, but is merely an anonymous target caught in the crosshairs. This desire to put distance between oneself and one's enemies as one kills them is characteristic of the West; and this distance is not merely spatial but is moral and spiritual as well. It is, at its root, a fundamental rejection of reality itself. War must become merely a video game; life itself must become merely a video game. This fear of both life and death, this fear of reality, is a moral sickness.
#15139190
Potemkin wrote:I remember reading about a Byzantine princess who was outraged by the Franks' use of the crossbow. She regarded it as a coward's weapon, and the fact that the Franks favoured its use convinced her of the essential barbarism of the Frankish people. Drone strikes are merely the latest development of the West's cowardly approach to warfare - cowardly in the sense that it is an alienated and alienating weapon. The victim is not a living, breathing individual whom one must grapple with directly at the risk of one's own life, but is merely an anonymous target caught in the crosshairs. This desire to put distance between oneself and one's enemies as one kills them is characteristic of the West; and this distance is not merely spatial but is moral and spiritual as well. It is, at its root, a fundamental rejection of reality itself. War must become merely a video game; life itself must become merely a video game. This fear of both life and of death, this fear of reality, is a moral sickness.


There is today a definite fear of reality, but was it always so?

For example, Europeans have always demonstrated tremendous bravery in World Wars. We cannot deny the bravery of British and French soldiers in the trenches or of the bravery of German soldiers.

I've never understood how Europeans could be so brave in the World Wars and yet now there is today this fear of reality and this sort of virtuality that is developing.
  • 1
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35

@Oxymoron Since you have no argument about im[…]

@ckaihatsu It's not "bitchin" if […]

Election 2020

Question is how many people are falling for it a[…]

You prefer something more *elitist*, then? What w[…]