I Reject, I Affirm. ''Raising the Black Flag'' in an Age of Devilry. - Page 41 - 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.
#15155329
@Potemkin , @Political Interest, @Verv , and my other friends here;

With a New Year comes the end of older things and the beginning of the new, and a display of that which is eternally true along with what is transient.

In keeping with the spirit of these sentiments, I'll be creating a new thread to express my ideas, ideas more in keeping with a thread in the ''spirituality'' sub-forum than this one perhaps. It starts with;

''Breaking the Cycle; the Eschaton as Liberation''

#15155333

Thank you all for your contributions.
#15156374
annatar1914 wrote:@Potemkin , @Political Interest, @Verv , and my other friends here;

With a New Year comes the end of older things and the beginning of the new, and a display of that which is eternally true along with what is transient.

In keeping with the spirit of these sentiments, I'll be creating a new thread to express my ideas, ideas more in keeping with a thread in the ''spirituality'' sub-forum than this one perhaps. It starts with;

''Breaking the Cycle; the Eschaton as Liberation''

#15155333

Thank you all for your contributions.


@Verv , @Political Interest , and @Potemkin

Back to this thread, my friends. I have my reasons, and this larger and encompassing theme is the most important of all.

Primarily because of an insight I gained long ago; ''For he who is not against us is on our side'', whether they realize it or not.

When you consider the great gulf which exists in human thinking now, it comes down almost to pre-1492 and largely Monotheistic, and post-1492 and increasingly Non-Monotheistic. In time, Polytheism will return to a large degree, because already gross superstition is rife in Modern society, stupidity and the literal inability to think logically...
#15156589
There is a certain subset of people that I admit to finding 'admirable' in a certain way, even though they are evil people. Joseph de Maistre, reactionary and devout Christian though he was, believed that as well as he always wished against his King's orders to someday meet and have a long discussion with Napoleon. Never happened, the Lord knows best. Blaise Pascal said of some rare evil people that;


''Evil is easy, and has infinite forms; good is almost unique. But a certain kind of evil is as difficult to find as what we call good; and often on this account such particular evil gets passed off as good. An extraordinary greatness of soul is needed in order to attain to it as well as to good.''


And when these people operate, even experienced worldlings like myself are surprised by the ''long cons'' they manage to pull off, for a while. They're not ordinary scumbags, and the tragedy is that they could be Saints if they applied that same ruthless energy and determination and ascetic industriousness they possess to their spiritual salvation. But they get turned off I guess by the seemingly smallness and everyday pedestrian banality, the simplicity, of the journey towards God, and of their fellow pilgrims along the way.

Nonetheless, God still uses them for His purposes and not necessarily their own.
#15156627
Annatar, please excuse the late response. I've included a response to one of your posts from earlier back that I had written a response to but accidentally deleted.

annatar1914 wrote:Yes, past couple weeks have been good, and quite hopeful in a spiritual sense; a ''ferment''. I have been through a couple days of relative torpor and sluggishness but I think it came from worldly distractions I'm afraid. But, awareness of the problem is a good ways towards resolving it.


I'm glad to hear it has improved. I hope you are still feeling better now.

annatar1914 wrote:I think so too. God has given us gifted physicians and scientists, that come out in times of medical crisis. Plus, this plague has political roots that will not last, for God is not mocked. Of that, I'll discuss further below.


Thank God we have modern science.

annatar1914 wrote:''How do we know what we know?'', indeed. It does seem built on positivism and empiricism, that itself proceeded from a Medieval scholasticism that did not satisfy more dis-satisfied minds in the West. I think it is the product of intellectual preening and collective groupthink.


It is very much group think. Most thinking people do not come up with such ideas, a lot of them are merely adopted to conform to the orthodoxy of the consensus within academic circles. Normal people don't come up with these post-modern ideas but then the intelligentsia don't seem to give them much thought either. They are often contrived and based on rather tenuous thinking, a lot of it assumption and gross generalisation.

annatar1914 wrote:Sure, and I think, perhaps counter-intuitively, that he best free time is that that is less forced and structured, to where it becomes a form of work in itself for so many people.


Free time that allows a person to truly contemplate and actually think.

annatar1914 wrote:And when people abandon their ''duty'' of being mere consumers of goods and services, the whole thing will grind to a halt from that movement away, if it doesn't come from some other reason.


Which makes me wonder if some level of consumerism is needed if only to keep the gears of the economy moving.

annatar1914 wrote:No offense to people on PoFo necessarily, but I see it a lot here as elsewhere too. It's like two alien species trying to communicate; ''Copernican'' and ''Pre-Copernican'', but of that I'll speak later.


I am certainly guilty of this as well.

annatar1914 wrote:There are, and I'm probably at fault for speaking in these generalities, although I do it for ease of introducing and recalling concepts to my own mind as much as anyone else's.


Don't worry, I knew you were not making generalisations.

annatar1914 wrote:I feel that way myself, although it may be the case where we do not give ourselves enough credit. I think second hand opinions are fine if they happen to be the right ones. And I do not mean that in a facetious way either really, because otherwise we'd be forced to constantly apply a corrosive skepticism to all things.


Every thinker is inspired by ideas other than their own.

annatar1914 wrote:I agree. He, and by extension they, are painted in such dualistic terms rhetorically that it reveals the vile arrogance of those who hate them, whatever their real flaws it does not rise to demonizing them.


Unfortunately Trump's supporters were merely written off instead of properly engaged with. They were too large a section of the American public to simply ignore, which made the entire affair very dangerous for America's stability.

annatar1914 wrote:You've hit the mark here I think, and to deny these facts you plainly state is both arrogant and exceedingly foolish. Liberalism is the lasting and final fruit of the ''Enlightenment'' and the modern era we live in, it's assumptions are almost universal, but something is lost in the humanity of it's partisans I believe. And this contributes to the personal and social pathologies of this era in particular above others.


Thank you. There are massive weaknesses appearing in the centrist liberal system of the mainstream political parties. Unless they address them we will have severe problems down the line. Biden's administration will be unlikely to solve them as they are much bigger than any one administration can deal with.

annatar1914 wrote:Yes, and while he's a more interesting thinker than many people realize, these discussions eventually lead into some rather dangerous territory-which I think is the reason why they are promoted.


They also do not seem to provide much of a solution except to explore new age mysticism combined with political quietism. Although political quietism is perhaps one option. At least it would allow us to disengage from a process through which we lose our morality and hurt our conscience.

annatar1914 wrote:Yes, and I'm glad you mention the Jinn, because I see a definite connection between them and the ''Nephilim'' or the ''Giants'' of the Bible. It seems that Monotheists will be better prepared psychologically should the issue ever arise.


It will be possible to integrate such phenomena into our world view and framework of understanding.

Monotheists will be better able to cope than agnostics and atheists because the latter two will not be able to deal with something so other worldly and won't have any supporting paradigms to do so.

annatar1914 wrote:Which is why it is so interesting what ''they'' will have to say, should ''they'' ever appear.


Interesting as much as terrifying.

annatar1914 wrote:Difficult in one sense I agree, but as the situation unravels as I believe it will, reaction to these events will also provide opportunities.


Very many new opportunities. But probably extremely narrow ones as well.

annatar1914 wrote:Will be exploited, and are exploited.


Indeed.

annatar1914 wrote:As successful as the Russian effort has been, I hate to say it but I think distractions elsewhere will lead to the situation in Syria and elsewhere eventually being right back where we were with it before the Russian intervention.


Especially if the Russians leave. It would only take a new wave of that ideology in ten fifteen years time to re-activate those groups.

Even with the Russians there there is no guarantee of victory, I hate to say it. We only have to remember Afghanistan in the 1980s.

annatar1914 wrote:Exactly so, you have stated the problem very clearly and to the point.


Thank you. If ISIS ever did get to a position where they could properly threaten the West it would be a massive existential conflict. Material motivations alone could not motivate the people to resist them adequately.

annatar1914 wrote:If not sooner, because I honestly do not think some of these Middle Eastern nations in existence now will be so for very much longer.


A lot of these countries do not have long established traditions of nationhood. Ideas about uniting the region have always been very popular, if not Pan-Arabism then Pan-Islamism. However, it is unlikely the Arabs would accept Turkish or Iranian rule.

annatar1914 wrote:It may even help with spiritual clarification, a kind of quietism and withdrawal from the world. Perhaps not so much a ''withdrawal''even, so much as a conscious waiting for the right moments to arrive and to prepare for them. The basic bedrock foundation to hold on to when all else is questionable at times comes from Scripture, to believe that ''God exists and is a Rewarder to those who believe in Him''.

One knows God exists, and if we seek Him, we shall find Him, even if we might be wrong about Him in some way during our journey to find Him;





Thank you for what you have written here. We must continue to be sincere and always work to correct our internal state. We must work to be good in thought, action and word.

Thank you for sharing the recordings.

annatar1914 wrote:For the most part this is so, yet Civilization itself is grinding down, almost as if there is a kind of homeostatic mechanism that works to restore balance when there is none.


Would you say this is true of civilisation globally or only in the West?

annatar1914 wrote:I'm not sure that they were so when they were a Latin city-state during the times of the Kings of Rome and the Early Republic before the Punic Wars, but as they came more and more into contact with the Hellenic East, the more they became Civilized.


Which would suggest in some sense that Roman civilisation was not equivalent to Hellenic civilisation, even though there tends to be an association between them in Western classical thinking.

annatar1914 wrote:I also want to thank you, for you have helped me. I have rejected the Modernism entirely, thanks to you and others too, such as Verv and Potemkin, but you primarily. Even politically, I will no longer speak of things in the Modernist categories.


I am glad to have been of service, my friend. I hope my modest contributions were useful. I certainly must also thank you for your insight and the many ideas you've put forward here, they've helped me to develop my own understanding of the world. Potemkin, Verv, Wellsy and you are all very well read and I've found all of what you've all written every interesting. I think you've all contributed far more than me. It was wonderful to be able to have a polite and calm discussion.

annatar1914 wrote:I want to talk about ''corruption'' and ''corrupt officials'' and ''populism'' too.

As I stated earlier, ''corruption'' so called is an informal and personal response on the part of an official (s) in government, to help out either themselves or others by means of favors or procedural changes legal or not, or harm others for that matter. It is strictly speaking not legal or necessarily right to engage in this ''corruption'', but reflects the inability of formal government to address concerns.

''Populism'' is a movement of the people or a significant portion of them to take over (or back) their country from entrenched elites perceived to not be acting in their interests, but rather their own instead, writing the laws to favor themselves. This is not necessarily true, by the way. It could be that in significant ways, it is the people have also strayed and drifted into unruly and wicked rebellion against morality. Populism in itself is no more to be welcomed than Elitism is.

When there is a real dichotomy between what is lawful and permissible and what is right and good, a state of widespread corruption, society is in disharmony and breaks down into simpler and more governable units until a balance is reached or full order is restored.


It's all merely symptomatic of the fact that the system is no longer doing its job and slowly collapsing. We are living through the stagnation period of the West, a lot like the stagnation period of the Soviet Union under Brezhnev. We're only at the beginning of this road but it will have an end and that will not be wonderful. That is of course unless the political centre manage to implement the necessary reforms and retrieve the situation, but that is unlikely to happen because it would be too uncomfortable for them and is in many ways not structurally possible.

annatar1914 wrote:It has been said that Homer's Illiad and the Odyssey are the foundational writings of Western Civilization, and so they are, as the Greeks are the foundation of Western Civilization

But I put against them Virgil's Aeneid, as I place against the Greeks the Romans, who later in conquering Greece were slowly conquered by them, the Aeneid being the last cultural flowering of the Roman spirit that was so barbarous in the minds of Greeks like Polybius. I wrote;

And by ''Freedom'' I mean true freedom, not the false freedom of Prometheus or Lucifer, of the will and of pride, but the freedom of those who are united with the spiritual eternal truths and are the vehicles of the Will of Heaven. Virgil's Aeneas is pious, reverent to the gods and dutiful to his people and family above all, honorable and amiable to friends and courageous against foes.

In contrast, Homer's Odysseus is fiendishly clever, and Achilles is fiendishly willful . But they are more congenial to natural man and thus get better press than others.

It is interesting to me that when Aeneas arrives in Italy and seeks the hand of Lavinia which causes a war between the fugitive Trojans and Latins against Turnus and his Italian allies, Turnus his foe is basically another ''Achilles'' that Aeneas triumphs against.


Knowledge of the Greek world and Classics is a huge gap in my education. I must read more before I can comment on this with any authority but your analysis will be very interesting after I have read on these subjects.

annatar1914 wrote:Our ideals are our destiny. One's heroes are exemplars and role models to emulate.


Do you think our heroes influence us subconsciously? What leads us to choose certain heroes over others?

annatar1914 wrote:Emphasis in bold is mine. I thought of William Gibson and the Cyberpunk genre, Philip K. Dick and all the others who saw this, the libertarian and Objectivist philosophers and really the universal trend of Western civilization for hundreds of years.

Anarcho-Capitalism as it truly is, Neo-Feudalism... Because this is where this will end up, and Western national governments on down to the local level will only govern in a formal and nominal sense, with no real power to speak of. It will be the corporations that will seize power in order to manage the decline of civilization itself. Techno-Fascism, and the privatization of government functions including the disbursement of universal basic income (for isn't that what the COVID stimulus checks are, a test run for UBI payments?).

It will be a real irony if Socialism were to help preserve genuine liberty and what it traditionally means to be a family and a human being, preserve normal human society and traditional government and nation-states, would it not?

After all, look at recent events....We are in an Age now between Scylla and Charybdis, between the private soulless Western Corporations and the bands of ISIS and similar forces.


It's an extremely worrying development. More and more power to corporations and the loss of central control. People talk of an Orwellian future and there is no reason to underrate their concerns but it is possible that as you say it will be a type of corporate power. It could get to the point that central government persists but that it exists to protect these fiefdoms. Corporate rule would be abysmal, the worst type of totalitarianism.

Was it not Mussolini who said that Fascism was the merger of state and corporate power? Yes, then in this case it would be its own type of fascism, although of a more localised form and not through loyalty to a particular country.

Liberal democracy exists on the premise of freedom of the individual and autonomy, but under these conditions there would be no more freedom of the individual. In that case socialism would most certainly be a better alternative. Corporate rule would be slavery.

annatar1914 wrote:With a New Year comes the end of older things and the beginning of the new, and a display of that which is eternally true along with what is transient.

In keeping with the spirit of these sentiments, I'll be creating a new thread to express my ideas, ideas more in keeping with a thread in the ''spirituality'' sub-forum than this one perhaps. It starts with;

''Breaking the Cycle; the Eschaton as Liberation''

#15155333

Thank you all for your contributions.


It's been a great discussion here and I've learnt a tremendous amount. Thank you, Annatar.

I'll look forward to your new thread.

annatar1914 wrote:Back to this thread, my friends. I have my reasons, and this larger and encompassing theme is the most important of all.

Primarily because of an insight I gained long ago; ''For he who is not against us is on our side'', whether they realize it or not.

When you consider the great gulf which exists in human thinking now, it comes down almost to pre-1492 and largely Monotheistic, and post-1492 and increasingly Non-Monotheistic. In time, Polytheism will return to a large degree, because already gross superstition is rife in Modern society, stupidity and the literal inability to think logically...


There is an observable growing interest in non-monotheistic belief systems.

annatar1914 wrote:There is a certain subset of people that I admit to finding 'admirable' in a certain way, even though they are evil people. Joseph de Maistre, reactionary and devout Christian though he was, believed that as well as he always wished against his King's orders to someday meet and have a long discussion with Napoleon. Never happened, the Lord knows best. Blaise Pascal said of some rare evil people that;


''Evil is easy, and has infinite forms; good is almost unique. But a certain kind of evil is as difficult to find as what we call good; and often on this account such particular evil gets passed off as good. An extraordinary greatness of soul is needed in order to attain to it as well as to good.''


And when these people operate, even experienced worldlings like myself are surprised by the ''long cons'' they manage to pull off, for a while. They're not ordinary scumbags, and the tragedy is that they could be Saints if they applied that same ruthless energy and determination and ascetic industriousness they possess to their spiritual salvation. But they get turned off I guess by the seemingly smallness and everyday pedestrian banality, the simplicity, of the journey towards God, and of their fellow pilgrims along the way.

Nonetheless, God still uses them for His purposes and not necessarily their own.


Funnily enough this subject is one I've been thinking of a lot in recent weeks. There are people who use philosophy and religion for their own purposes, they infiltrate them, especially religion. A lot of pseudo intellectuals, including published ones, do this. Very famous people who I will perhaps not name here but perhaps I should. The misuse of religion is tremendous. It's the reason why I don't like to politicise religion or use it to push forward a certain ideological position.
#15156695
Annatar, please excuse the late response. I've included a response to one of your posts from earlier back that I had written a response to but accidentally deleted.


No problem, @Political Interest , I answer best I can when I'm able, myself. You said, regarding my mood and well being;


I'm glad to hear it has improved. I hope you are still feeling better now.


Yes, I think part of it was the strain of looking after family during this time. Speaking of which, the pandemic;


Thank God we have modern science.


Indeed. I'm reminded of what Scripture says about physicians and medical science, like in Sirach 38:1-8;
Honor the physician with the honor due him, according to your need of him,
for the Lord created him;
for healing comes from the Most High,
and he will receive a gift from the king.
The skill of the physician lifts up his head,
and in the presence of great men he is admired.
The Lord created medicines from the earth,
and a sensible man will not despise them.
Was not water made sweet with a tree
in order that His power might be known?
And He gave skill to men
that He might be glorified in his marvelous works.
By them He heals and takes away pain;
the pharmacist makes of them a compound.
His works will never be finished;
and from Him health is upon the face of the earth.


On the modern torpor of intellect;

It is very much group think. Most thinking people do not come up with such ideas, a lot of them are merely adopted to conform to the orthodoxy of the consensus within academic circles. Normal people don't come up with these post-modern ideas but then the intelligentsia don't seem to give them much thought either. They are often contrived and based on rather tenuous thinking, a lot of it assumption and gross generalisation.


True, and kind of frightening in a way.


Free time that allows a person to truly contemplate and actually think.


I agree, I guess I should consider myself lucky and be thankful for the extra free time i've had lately.

On the process of capitalist consumption;

Which makes me wonder if some level of consumerism is needed if only to keep the gears of the economy moving.


It relates in my opinion to the crisis of capitalist overproduction and profit seeking. Capitalists cut wages and so workers cannot buy products there is no demand for, so Capitalists cut back and lay people off, further aggravating the situation.

Consideration of the political crisis in America (and thus the West);


Unfortunately Trump's supporters were merely written off instead of properly engaged with. They were too large a section of the American public to simply ignore, which made the entire affair very dangerous for America's stability.


I tend to agree, I'd like to see it engaged with and become a positive development, but we'll see.



Thank you. There are massive weaknesses appearing in the centrist liberal system of the mainstream political parties. Unless they address them we will have severe problems down the line. Biden's administration will be unlikely to solve them as they are much bigger than any one administration can deal with.


Indeed, this probably goes to the beginning of the American revolution.


They also do not seem to provide much of a solution except to explore new age mysticism combined with political quietism. Although political quietism is perhaps one option. At least it would allow us to disengage from a process through which we lose our morality and hurt our conscience.


I'm thinking about that option myself. It's a situation which is bound to change because it is unsustainable, and maybe then afterwards can men of good will change the system after it's all crashed.

On the UFO/Alien/''Ancient Astronaut'' Phenomena;


It will be possible to integrate such phenomena into our world view and framework of understanding.

Monotheists will be better able to cope than agnostics and atheists because the latter two will not be able to deal with something so other worldly and won't have any supporting paradigms to do so.



Interesting as much as terrifying.


It could be the final crisis, which we Monotheists shall overcome. On ISIS and long term Middle East prospects;


Especially if the Russians leave. It would only take a new wave of that ideology in ten fifteen years time to re-activate those groups.

Even with the Russians there there is no guarantee of victory, I hate to say it. We only have to remember Afghanistan in the 1980s.



Thank you. If ISIS ever did get to a position where they could properly threaten the West it would be a massive existential conflict. Material motivations alone could not motivate the people to resist them adequately.


Yes, we're going to have to be realistic in our expectations in a way that few Moderns would understand. This probably involves a kind of waiting game, patiently in expectation of social collective spiritual regeneration.


A lot of these countries do not have long established traditions of nationhood. Ideas about uniting the region have always been very popular, if not Pan-Arabism then Pan-Islamism. However, it is unlikely the Arabs would accept Turkish or Iranian rule.


It seems Pan-Islamism then, by default. On the more spiritual task of personal inner regneration;


Thank you for what you have written here. We must continue to be sincere and always work to correct our internal state. We must work to be good in thought, action and word.

Thank you for sharing the recordings.


No problem, thank you for your appreciation.

On my theory about the ''grinding down'' of Civilization, until some inner or external ''homeostatic mechanism'' restores some balance;


Would you say this is true of civilisation globally or only in the West?


I'd say that it's true of civilization always and everywhere. With one caveat; balance can historically be restored, unless we are further along in the later days, in which case God Himself shall intervene.

On my ideas concerning the Romans not initially being Hellenized and part of the Classical civilization;


Which would suggest in some sense that Roman civilisation was not equivalent to Hellenic civilisation, even though there tends to be an association between them in Western classical thinking.


At one time I don't think the two were originally equivalent. But I think Rome was conquered from within by Hellenism more completely than anything a Hellenistic conqueror could ever do to them after a military struggle.


I am glad to have been of service, my friend. I hope my modest contributions were useful. I certainly must also thank you for your insight and the many ideas you've put forward here, they've helped me to develop my own understanding of the world. Potemkin, Verv, Wellsy and you are all very well read and I've found all of what you've all written every interesting. I think you've all contributed far more than me. It was wonderful to be able to have a polite and calm discussion.


Well sir, you are modest too. I'm making a conscious effort to have consideration for my fellow man, and make a positive difference, but without surrendering my beliefs and principles.


It's all merely symptomatic of the fact that the system is no longer doing its job and slowly collapsing. We are living through the stagnation period of the West, a lot like the stagnation period of the Soviet Union under Brezhnev. We're only at the beginning of this road but it will have an end and that will not be wonderful. That is of course unless the political centre manage to implement the necessary reforms and retrieve the situation, but that is unlikely to happen because it would be too uncomfortable for them and is in many ways not structurally possible.


All the more because the System is not designed to promote leadership or accountability, or promote and reward hypothetical true leaders


Knowledge of the Greek world and Classics is a huge gap in my education. I must read more before I can comment on this with any authority but your analysis will be very interesting after I have read on these subjects.


No problem, I'd love to hear a counter to some points I made.



Do you think our heroes influence us subconsciously? What leads us to choose certain heroes over others?


Hard to say, but I think some archetypes are not universally admired but promoted by our guardian angels to help us individually, to be more like the people we should emulate rather than the anti-value bearers pushed on us by the forces of darkness.

On the creeping takeover of the Corporations and the privatization of governmental power;


It's an extremely worrying development. More and more power to corporations and the loss of central control. People talk of an Orwellian future and there is no reason to underrate their concerns but it is possible that as you say it will be a type of corporate power. It could get to the point that central government persists but that it exists to protect these fiefdoms. Corporate rule would be abysmal, the worst type of totalitarianism.

Was it not Mussolini who said that Fascism was the merger of state and corporate power? Yes, then in this case it would be its own type of fascism, although of a more localised form and not through loyalty to a particular country.

Liberal democracy exists on the premise of freedom of the individual and autonomy, but under these conditions there would be no more freedom of the individual. In that case socialism would most certainly be a better alternative. Corporate rule would be slavery.


It would be slavery, and I think that it should be fought against like all wickedness.


It's been a great discussion here and I've learnt a tremendous amount. Thank you, Annatar.

I'll look forward to your new thread.


I kind of nixed that after all, lol...


There is an observable growing interest in non-monotheistic belief systems.


I've noted it as well. Polytheism is definitely the default setting for natural mankind, in my opinion.


On the special kind of extraordinary people who happen to be evil;


Funnily enough this subject is one I've been thinking of a lot in recent weeks. There are people who use philosophy and religion for their own purposes, they infiltrate them, especially religion. A lot of pseudo intellectuals, including published ones, do this. Very famous people who I will perhaps not name here but perhaps I should. The misuse of religion is tremendous. It's the reason why I don't like to politicise religion or use it to push forward a certain ideological position.


It happens I think when naturally gifted men in spiritual life are not content with the rewards God gives them in this life and so they usurp glory that is of a worldly sort to content themselves with; ''winning the whole world but losing their soul''.
#15157401
@Verv , @Political Interest , and @Potemkin ;

Friends, I have talked much of Revolution and Reaction in these pages, but of actual on-the-ground Revolution in the concrete very little. It's time that I rectified that. The following is the ''Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen'' of the 1st French Republic;


Preamble

The representatives of the French People, formed into a National Assembly, considering ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt of the rights of man to be the only causes of public misfortunes and the corruption of Governments, have resolved to set forth, in a solemn Declaration, the natural, unalienable and sacred rights of man, to the end that this Declaration, constantly present to all members of the body politic, may remind them unceasingly of their rights and their duties; to the end that the acts of the legislative power and those of the executive power, since they may be continually compared with the aim of every political institution, may thereby be the more respected; to the end that the demands of the citizens, founded henceforth on simple and incontestable principles, may always be directed toward the maintenance of the Constitution and the happiness of all.

In consequence whereof, the National Assembly recognizes and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Article first

Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on considerations of the common good.

Article 2

The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are Liberty, Property, Safety and Resistance to Oppression.

Article 3

The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it.

Article 4

Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law.

Article 5

The Law has the right to forbid only those actions that are injurious to society. Nothing that is not forbidden by Law may be hindered, and no one may be compelled to do what the Law does not ordain.

Article 6

The Law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to take part, personally or through their representatives, in its making. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.

Article 7

No man may be accused, arrested or detained except in the cases determined by the Law, and following the procedure that it has prescribed. Those who solicit, expedite, carry out, or cause to be carried out arbitrary orders must be punished; but any citizen summoned or apprehended by virtue of the Law, must give instant obedience; resistance makes him guilty.

Article 8

The Law must prescribe only the punishments that are strictly and evidently necessary; and no one may be punished except by virtue of a Law drawn up and promulgated before the offense is committed, and legally applied.

Article 9

As every man is presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty, if it should be considered necessary to arrest him, any undue harshness that is not required to secure his person must be severely curbed by Law.

Article 10

No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.

Article 11

The free communication of ideas and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. Any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law.

Article 12

To guarantee the Rights of Man and of the Citizen a public force is necessary; this force is therefore established for the benefit of all, and not for the particular use of those to whom it is entrusted.

Article 13

For the maintenance of the public force, and for administrative expenses, a general tax is indispensable; it must be equally distributed among all citizens, in proportion to their ability to pay.

Article 14

All citizens have the right to ascertain, by themselves, or through their representatives, the need for a public tax, to consent to it freely, to watch over its use, and to determine its proportion, basis, collection and duration.

Article 15

Society has the right to ask a public official for an accounting of his administration.

Article 16

Any society in which no provision is made for guaranteeing rights or for the separation of powers, has no Constitution.

Article 17

Since the right to Property is inviolable and sacred, no one may be deprived thereof, unless public necessity, legally ascertained, obviously requires it, and just and prior indemnity has been paid.





This then is the Revolution in essence which Reaction fulminated against for quite some time. Examine it's preamble and 17 articles, and you will find few in the Western world who would disagree with anything written there.

But what does it actually say? It is a ''Bed of Procrustes'', is it not? Lafayette and Abbe Sieyes and Thomas Jefferson wrote a most interesting document, capable of fitting any form of government from Monarchy to Democratic Republic. Look carefully.

To reject anything and everything about it would appear to make any foe of it the enemy of all mankind, would it not?
#15157431
annatar1914 wrote:@Verv , @Political Interest , and @Potemkin ;

Friends, I have talked much of Revolution and Reaction in these pages, but of actual on-the-ground Revolution in the concrete very little. It's time that I rectified that. The following is the ''Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen'' of the 1st French Republic;





This then is the Revolution in essence which Reaction fulminated against for quite some time. Examine it's preamble and 17 articles, and you will find few in the Western world who would disagree with anything written there.

But what does it actually say? It is a ''Bed of Procrustes'', is it not? Lafayette and Abbe Sieyes and Thomas Jefferson wrote a most interesting document, capable of fitting any form of government from Monarchy to Democratic Republic. Look carefully.

To reject anything and everything about it would appear to make any foe of it the enemy of all mankind, would it not?

The French revolutionaries themselves were very much of that opinion. They identified their beliefs with the best interest of the French people, and in fact universalised those political beliefs so that to oppose them was to oppose humanity itself. This is why they hounded their real or supposed enemies so mercilessly. To show mercy to them would itself have been a betrayal of humanity, or so they thought. Our current ruling elite are, of course, the heirs of the American and French Revolutions, and tend to share their habits of thought....
#15157456
Potemkin wrote:The French revolutionaries themselves were very much of that opinion. They identified their beliefs with the best interest of the French people, and in fact universalised those political beliefs so that to oppose them was to oppose humanity itself. This is why they hounded their real or supposed enemies so mercilessly. To show mercy to them would itself have been a betrayal of humanity, or so they thought. Our current ruling elite are, of course, the heirs of the American and French Revolutions, and tend to share their habits of thought....


@Potemkin , my friend, thanks for your reply!

This has the implication in my opinion, of the politicizing of all of every aspect of human existence. Even the enemy of this Revolution would necessarily be forced to defend every single aspect of human existence from someone out there who would make of it a political matter, no matter how trivial. This was not a feature of the existence of most of humanity throughout history.

However, one of the things that I find to be interesting about the Russian Revolution, is that in it's practical effects, it had liberated (despite it's great evils attendant upon it!) the peoples to be more of what they always have been in their essence, and no more or no less despite any efforts of some of the Revolutionaries to try to totally remake human nature itself.

It may well be the case in my opinion that the true revolutionary scientists among the original Bolsheviks rescued both the Revolution and Russia precisely because those of their comrades who had so terribly misidentified their implacable will and anarcho-nihilist psychological state of being with the common good had been eliminated.

Even more curious then is that the Russian Revolution had reached a certain level and maintained it down to an era roughly from 1941 to 1991, whereas it appears that the Franco-American Western Revolution is still ongoing, attempting to upend as i've said, every aspect of human existence. I think part of the reason for this is the roiling chaos nature of Capitalism itself.

Are Socialists to some degree actually ''reactionaries'' in some manner then, the true ''Left'' being more congenial to traditional human existence and contra the politicization of life?
#15157461
Even more curious then is that the Russian Revolution had reached a certain level and maintained it down to an era roughly from 1941 to 1991, whereas it appears that the Franco-American Western Revolution is still ongoing, attempting to upend as i've said, every aspect of human existence. I think part of the reason for this is the roiling chaos nature of Capitalism itself.

I think it's mainly due to what Marx called "the chaos of capitalist production", or what Condoleeza Rice called (in a somewhat different context) "creative destruction". The material basis of capitalist society is constantly being destroyed (in crises, recessions &c) and constantly being reformed again, and this chaos of production is reflected in a chaotic social and cultural superstructure, which is undergoing a state of "permanent revolution". How could it be otherwise? After all, as Marx asserted, how we live determines how we think. As Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto, "The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part." And they are still playing that revolutionary part.

Are Socialists to some degree actually ''reactionaries'' in some manner then, the true ''Left'' being more congenial to traditional human existence and contra the politicization of life?

Essentially, yes. As I have stated before, the word "revolution" implies a re-turn to something which existed in the past but is now only implicit in our current way of life. After all, the American and French Revolutions were inspired by the Roman Republic, a political institution which had ceased to exist almost two millennia previous to those events. Revolution is, in fact a radical return to the past, a return to the root of things (the word 'radical' actually means root - referring to a departure from or a return to the root of something). And this is certainly true in the case of Marxism - after all, Marx predicted a return (in a sublated, higher form) of human society to a form of "primitive communism". What could be more tradition than that?
#15157498
@Potemkin , concerning the chaos at the heart of capitalist modern life that I'm discussing, the truly revolutionary nature of the Franco-American Revolutions, you said;

I think it's mainly due to what Marx called "the chaos of capitalist production", or what Condoleeza Rice called (in a somewhat different context) "creative destruction". The material basis of capitalist society is constantly being destroyed (in crises, recessions &c) and constantly being reformed again, and this chaos of production is reflected in a chaotic social and cultural superstructure, which is undergoing a state of "permanent revolution". How could it be otherwise? After all, as Marx asserted, how we live determines how we think. As Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto, "The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part." And they are still playing that revolutionary part.


I think that it is the fate of most people at least to a degree, to think as they live, with 'their god as their belly', so to speak. This is true on both material and spiritual levels; that they never quite get to a spiritual level, where ''man does not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God'. But, bread is necessary; for God has said in the Lord's Prayer; ''give us this day our daily bread...''

But aside from this, you're right, the bourgeoisie do play a revolutionary part to this day, and it's hard to see where they would not, even in the process of class warfare against the laborers of the world.

So it's even more ironical given this ''bourgeoisie revolution'', my question about the integral traditionalism of genuine leftists, of socialists, to which you replied;

Essentially, yes. As I have stated before, the word "revolution" implies a re-turn to something which existed in the past but is now only implicit in our current way of life. After all, the American and French Revolutions were inspired by the Roman Republic, a political institution which had ceased to exist almost two millennia previous to those events. Revolution is, in fact a radical return to the past, a return to the root of things (the word 'radical' actually means root - referring to a departure from or a return to the root of something). And this is certainly true in the case of Marxism - after all, Marx predicted a return (in a sublated, higher form) of human society to a form of "primitive communism". What could be more tradition than that?


As Pascal once wrote;

''The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs.''


And yet, given his background, this is itself a bourgeoisie sentiment, truthful as it appears, since he says elsewhere that ''equality of goods is no doubt just'', therefore not recognizing that the ''great'' can re-establish earlier custom that had been overthrown before. And does he not say elsewhere that;

'' Justice and Might must be brought together, so that whatever is Just may be Mighty, and whatever is has Might may be Just.''



So it would at first appear on the bald face of it, looking at it in pure power concepts, that Revolutions exist precisely that the naturally great may profit by the mutual ruin of both incindiary ideologues who can overthrow a weak regime and the ruin of an ossified elite incapable of either competent rule or of voluntarily yielding rule to others.

But looking at the ongoing revolution of the Bourgeoisie, they're going to get to the point where they'll all but abolish true integral humanity in any traditional form, and go utterly beyond what it means to be human at all, so that their godlike rule can never be challenged or overthrown, and in essence a post-human species can feed off of and then entirely discard the human species, exterminating us like insects, like vermin.
#15157522
As Pascal once wrote

That was one smart dude. :up:

But looking at the ongoing revolution of the Bourgeoisie, they're going to get to the point where they'll all but abolish true integral humanity in any traditional form, and go utterly beyond what it means to be human at all, so that their godlike rule can never be challenged or overthrown, and in essence a post-human species can feed off of and then entirely discard the human species, exterminating us like insects, like vermin.

Some of them clearly have this fantasy, and the development of modern science may give them the means to make it into a reality. The bourgeoisie, after all, is defined by its hatred of and antagonism towards the proletariat, who are still, as they have always been, the majority of the population. Their position in the mode of production makes their hatred of the working class inevitable, and their revolutionary role makes them promethean destroyers of traditional values.
#15157526
@Potemkin , you remarked on Blaise Pascal;

That was one smart dude. :up:


Yes, I believe that he was one of the most profoundest minds, and hearts, to have ever been. But his role in the Port Royal/Jansenist affair kept his work under a cloud for a while after his death.

On the transhumanist/superhuman dreams of the Bourgeoisie;

Some of them clearly have this fantasy, and the development of modern science may give them the means to make it into a reality. The bourgeoisie, after all, is defined by its hatred of and antagonism towards the proletariat, who are still, as they have always been, the majority of the population. Their position in the mode of production makes their hatred of the working class inevitable, and their revolutionary role makes them promethean destroyers of traditional values.


Consider the very conscious-of-Socialism and pro-Bourgeoisie fantasies of Ayn Rand, like ''Atlas Shrugged''; where her hero John Galt arranges for the separation of the brilliant capitalists from the parasitic mooching lower class failures by the end of the book, with the clear implication of a collapse of society until their ideology prevails...And similar stories from similar ideologies.

An Aristocrat may well have sometimes been enlightened by higher values and faith to identify with and have a sense of 'noble obligation' towards commoners, and many were not exactly wealthy either, but the Bourgeoisie does not. It's either for fear of losing what they have and returning back to the relative poverty they or their forbears came from, and/or also an almost religious and ascetic devotion to their monied lifestyle, with displays of Thorsten Veblen's ''Conspicuous Consumption'' or of the Liberals ''Social Justice'' and ''Philanthropy'' and ''Compassion''.

I think we're looking at an eventual attempt to transcend and displace regular humanity and create an biological and spiritual ''speciation event'', the mutation dream of various right-wing and ''new age'' mystics and Nazis and Fascists and Eugenicists galore everywhere from Alexis Carrell to Julius Evola and many more besides. The ''Superman'', a race of demigods and heroes from their point of view. From a Monotheistic perspective, a return of the Giants of Old.
#15157528
annatar1914 wrote:Yes, I believe that he was one of the most profoundest minds, and hearts, to have ever been. But his role in the Port Royal/Jansenist affair kept his work under a cloud for a while after his death.

Indeed, and we still do not fully understand just what a genius he truly was. We have "moved on" from him prematurely.

On the transhumanist/superhuman dreams of the Bourgeoisie;

[...]

Consider the very conscious-of-Socialism and pro-Bourgeoisie fantasies of Ayn Rand, like ''Atlas Shrugged''; where her hero John Galt arranges for the separation of the brilliant capitalists from the parasitic mooching lower class failures by the end of the book, with the clear implication of a collapse of society until their ideology prevails...And similar stories from similar ideologies.

An Aristocrat may well have sometimes been enlightened by higher values and faith to identify with and have a sense of 'noble obligation' towards commoners, and many were not exactly wealthy either, but the Bourgeoisie does not. It's either for fear of losing what they have and returning back to the relative poverty they or their forbears came from, and/or also an almost religious and ascetic devotion to their monied lifestyle, with displays of Thorsten Veblen's ''Conspicuous Consumption'' or of the Liberals ''Social Justice'' and ''Philanthropy'' and ''Compassion''.

I think we're looking at an eventual attempt to transcend and displace regular humanity and create an biological and spiritual ''speciation event'', the mutation dream of various right-wing and ''new age'' mystics and Nazis and Fascists and Eugenicists galore everywhere from Alexis Carrell to Julius Evola and many more besides. The ''Superman'', a race of demigods and heroes from their point of view. From a Monotheistic perspective, a return of the Giants of Old.

Precisely. I am reminded here of Dante's Giants in Canto XXXI of the Inferno, who are in one of the deepest circles of Hell, the prelude to Dante's encounter with Satan, the embodiment of overweening pride and hatred of God. One of the Giants is Nimrod, who can utter only nonsense syllables, as a symbol of his utter alienation from human community and the bonds of human sympathy and understanding. This is the logical end-point of the bourgeoisie's social and moral trajectory. They think they will become gods among men, but they are gravely mistaken....
#15157529
annatar1914 wrote:Consider the very conscious-of-Socialism and pro-Bourgeoisie fantasies of Ayn Rand, like ''Atlas Shrugged''; where her hero John Galt arranges for the separation of the brilliant capitalists from the parasitic mooching lower class failures by the end of the book, with the clear implication of a collapse of society until their ideology prevails...And similar stories from similar ideologies.

An Aristocrat may well have sometimes been enlightened by higher values and faith to identify with and have a sense of 'noble obligation' towards commoners, and many were not exactly wealthy either, but the Bourgeoisie does not. It's either for fear of losing what they have and returning back to the relative poverty they or their forbears came from, and/or also an almost religious and ascetic devotion to their monied lifestyle, with displays of Thorsten Veblen's ''Conspicuous Consumption'' or of the Liberals ''Social Justice'' and ''Philanthropy'' and ''Compassion''.

I think we're looking at an eventual attempt to transcend and displace regular humanity and create an biological and spiritual ''speciation event'', the mutation dream of various right-wing and ''new age'' mystics and Nazis and Fascists and Eugenicists galore everywhere from Alexis Carrell to Julius Evola and many more besides. The ''Superman'', a race of demigods and heroes from their point of view. From a Monotheistic perspective, a return of the Giants of Old.



Wow, this is 10/10. I had never thought in this direction before -- concerning how the bourgeoisie does not possess the noblesse oblige of the classic aristocrats, and it will lead to alienation, and then speciation event...

But this is ultimately what transhumanism is: the ultimate alienation from humanity.

Man are Christ-bearers -- our humanity confers upon us a great likeness to God, and to alter this likeness is to alienate ourselves not just from our fellow men and our own personhood, but it alienates us doubly from God.

We will be pushed towards nu-speciation by a demonic impulse, and it will wrap itself in the argument that it is freeing us from disease & disability.

Our great grandchildren are going to have one hell of a fight on their hands if we don't find a way to gain lots of influence over the next half-century of policy-making.


Interesting to bring up the Evolan / Futurist fashy guys. I think they are the least of our worries because I think that they cannot actually embody the opposition. They are going to pitter out because they try to fight the system head on while building their castle on sand.

Potemkin wrote:Precisely. I am reminded here of Dante's Giants in Canto XXXI of the Inferno, who are in one of the deepest circles of Hell, the prelude to Dante's encounter with Satan, the embodiment of overweening pride and hatred of God. One of the Giants is Nimrod, who can utter only nonsense syllables, as a symbol of his utter alienation from human community and the bonds of human sympathy and understanding. This is the logical end-point of the bourgeoisie's social and moral trajectory. They think they will become gods among men, but they are gravely mistaken....


Very poetically stated.

My thought on this is that, as they push towards transhumanism, there'll be an imperceptible line when the human in the machine dies, and nobody will know quite when it is crossed, for the soul will have departed, but the machine will just be intelligent enough to argue that it's still there.
#15157532
Verv wrote:Wow, this is 10/10. I had never thought in this direction before -- concerning how the bourgeoisie does not possess the noblesse oblige of the classic aristocrats, and it will lead to alienation, and then speciation event...

But this is ultimately what transhumanism is: the ultimate alienation from humanity.

Man are Christ-bearers -- our humanity confers upon us a great likeness to God, and to alter this likeness is to alienate ourselves not just from our fellow men and our own personhood, but it alienates us doubly from God.

We will be pushed towards nu-speciation by a demonic impulse, and it will wrap itself in the argument that it is freeing us from disease & disability.

Our great grandchildren are going to have one hell of a fight on their hands if we don't find a way to gain lots of influence over the next half-century of policy-making.


Interesting to bring up the Evolan / Futurist fashy guys. I think they are the least of our worries because I think that they cannot actually embody the opposition. They are going to pitter out because they try to fight the system head on while building their castle on sand.

[...]

Very poetically stated.

My thought on this is that, as they push towards transhumanism, there'll be an imperceptible line when the human in the machine dies, and nobody will know quite when it is crossed, for the soul will have departed, but the machine will just be intelligent enough to argue that it's still there.

Indeed. The fundamental problem is that the bourgeoisie are materialists, just as much as communists are, but they are mechanical materialists. They don't believe there is a ghost in the machine. For them, human beings are not Christ-bearers, nor do they have souls, nor are they ends in themselves. They regard them as profit-generating machines. This is why they scorn the "useless eaters" who do not or cannot turn a profit, and would not hesitate to enslave or even exterminate them all. For them, man exists for profit, not profit for man. They will deface and destroy the human image, which is the image of God.
#15157617
Right on -- I try to relieve as many conservatives as possible from their Capitalism. I try to do this by saying it is fine to believe that these principles match up with the most efficient way for an economy to run, or to even say that there are certain rights to property that are inalienable... But someone who is an ideological Capitalist will literally create the circumstances in which people will be half-starved & homeless, and the assumption will be that they deserve it because they didn't serve mammon.

I also think that the right wing would be in a much better place today, not complaining about deplatforming, doxxing, and being destroyed financially if they didn't worship Capitalism & created laws to protect people from corporations & to protect labor.

98% of right wingers in 1995 never thought of it... But, holy cow, now that we have a taste of being denied services & getting fired over literal politics, it sounds like paradise to not be able to be turned away from a company or get fired because your opinion is unpopular and frequently shat upon by elites.

Fiscal super-conservatives like Sen. Cruz are now woke to this.
#15157619
@Verv , @Potemkin , and @Political Interest ;

Thank you gentlemen, I've been blessed with reading some excellent comments and insights, such that I'm hard pressed to offer a reply...

But what you have said embodies the essence of what I have been in protest about for quite some time, the triumph of Egoism in modern times, the apotheosis of a new kind of human being that is promised to be beyond and above his forebears as an Ape is from an Insect.


''Ye shall be as gods..."


And yet these people are in fact reduced to beasts in their attempts at stealing godhood. It's not an Olympian height from which I view them, but from a colossal abyss. Nietzsche might say that's my resentiment in play, but I simply disagree with that poor loveless man.
#15157622
@Potemkin , on appreciation of Blaise Pascal, you wrote;


Indeed, and we still do not fully understand just what a genius he truly was. We have "moved on" from him prematurely.


Some still hold grudges.

On my comments regarding the Bourgeoisie, transhumanism, and the ''return of the giants of old'', you said;

Precisely. I am reminded here of Dante's Giants in Canto XXXI of the Inferno, who are in one of the deepest circles of Hell, the prelude to Dante's encounter with Satan, the embodiment of overweening pride and hatred of God. One of the Giants is Nimrod, who can utter only nonsense syllables, as a symbol of his utter alienation from human community and the bonds of human sympathy and understanding. This is the logical end-point of the bourgeoisie's social and moral trajectory. They think they will become gods among men, but they are gravely mistaken....


Man is Between the gods or angels, and the beasts who do not have rational souls. ''The Beast'' of the Book of Apocalypse does not have the human rational soul which is the image and likeness of Almighty God, and so he and his followers do not have, or they lose, their humanity. As you say;

''utter alienation from human community and the bonds of human sympathy and understanding'', uttering ''nonsense syllables'' instead of human speech. Look at our ''culture'' now already, our manner of expressing ourselves... It's Egoism to the point of Solipsism, Narcissism to the point of Autism.

Somewhere in there I also sense another critique on my part, involving discussion of Civilization and Barbarism...

Nimrod's followers build ''a city and a tower'' lest they be scattered across the Earth, civilization, with one ruler ruling all of mankind, one speech, one common albeit distorted effort towards a common goal. Capital has no boundaries
#15157803
Just as a note... I oppose transhumanism greatly, mostly because it's just so easy to avoid.

It wouldn't be difficult to equip men with exoskeleton suits enabling them to perform all manner of advanced labor; we have computers with access to the internet and various archives in our pockets as we speak, and with just improved interfacing with these machines via advancing the speed with which we can input information (making a smartphone able to be ty ped on with the speed of a computer), we would basically be at the pinnacle of what is necessary.

Neurologically interfacing with the computer/internet is unnecessary, and brings with it countless social (and likely mental) ills.

But they will do it.
#15157816
Verv wrote:Just as a note... I oppose transhumanism greatly, mostly because it's just so easy to avoid.

It wouldn't be difficult to equip men with exoskeleton suits enabling them to perform all manner of advanced labor; we have computers with access to the internet and various archives in our pockets as we speak, and with just improved interfacing with these machines via advancing the speed with which we can input information (making a smartphone able to be ty ped on with the speed of a computer), we would basically be at the pinnacle of what is necessary.

Neurologically interfacing with the computer/internet is unnecessary, and brings with it countless social (and likely mental) ills.

But they will do it.


@Verv ,

As you said, easily avoidable, but they will do it. Just because something can be done, does not mean that it should be. After Hubris comes Nemesis.
  • 1
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42

Darwin didn't write anything about vaccines or re[…]

@wat0n 1. I have given examples of financial […]

...China is building a parallel global order, and[…]

I was drunk when I wrote that. But even now tha[…]