Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods
annatar1914 wrote:No problem, it helps more than you know perhaps.
annatar1914 wrote:Yes i've seen several of his videos online, and it appears that he is not of the sort who engages in a false ecumenism, which clergy of different faiths engage in when they begin to believe in none of them, but rather that he sees a definite unfolding of Islam's eschatological dimension-in which the Muslims have an ally for a time at least in the ''Romans'', and is applying it to present and ongoing events.
annatar1914 wrote:The history of heresy as it falls away from the true Catholic Church of the Orthodox faith is such that it can last in an indefinite state attempting to overcome the Faith for a good 50 to 300 years, as with the heresy of Iconoclasm. Then it dies out or becomes something else, with the older assembly hanging on for a little while. So that is what happened with Papism, it started around 800 AD as a tendency or cluster of Western tendencies which fully developed and became clear in 1054 AD. Protestantism started up as the full expression of this really in the 1400's with the Hussites and John Wycliffe, then later Martin Luther and John Calvin in the 1500's. Some 300 years later give or take, from Protestantism grew Mormonism as the theological end state of the Western spiritual culture.
annatar1914 wrote:I'd say, an immoral universe. It was more like the Caucasian standard in my grandfather's time, and it may return somewhat to that type of respectful behavior, but I think it'll take some severe shocks to the system for that to happen.
annatar1914 wrote:Seems that way, that's why I get frustrated at places like PoFo, where I feel like a stranger in a strange land, and so many conversations feel like a mutual incomprehension or aversion even to the idea of absolute truth itself on the part of some.
annatar1914 wrote:Yes it is, which is why I think it is successful to an incredible degree in the Western world where other beliefs struggle to survive. It has a myth and a narrative that appeals to the natural man of the Western world, a narrative that they already tend to believe about themselves and about reality, the historical details alone being a slight hindering to their conversion, in an age in which many people in the West know very little history to begin with.
annatar1914 wrote:Yes, and when you can transpose those ideas into a religion like Mormonism as if they had divine sanction, those principles are seen as literally sacred scriptures. To Mormons, the American Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are Sacred in the same sense they hold the Bible and the Book of Mormon and other documents, as being holy also.
annatar1914 wrote:Thank you, I do believe that it works and is answered in some fashion.
annatar1914 wrote:Very few look at what is truly important in this world.
This will change everything;
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/r ... mb-n896422
As I have said in other places and times, some events are a kind of diversion on some level for other events, while people are busy and distracted they do not see, they do not notice, even if they should.
I have said that the Islamic Republic of Iran would become the new center of World Revolution, with it's Theo-Ideology as an integral part, and that the ''Left'' would convert to that and be absorbed. When it is confirmed (for I believe that they already have them) that Iran has nuclear weapons and the means to send them long distances via missiles, the balance of world power will change in Iran's favor, and the ''Left'' will act and believe accordingly. In fact, Islam universally could turn Twelver Shia almost ''overnight''.
We are very close to it. These countries that have recognized Israel are doing so to indicate where they stand in relation to these upcoming developments; if Israel and the United States do not firmly act, it will be far worse for them in the longer run.
I am happy to hear this. I enjoy these discussions.
Very much so. That he criticised the janissary institution and insisted that Hagia Sophia remain a church suggests that he is a man in possession of some level of empathy and respect for other civilisations, a trait which is so lacking among all peoples in this day and age.
Do you think that the mercantile nature of a lot of these European societies influenced the situation in some way? And perhaps the political culture as well. Perhaps if Europe had not been as scholastic it would not have been possible for it to go astray. If we look at many eastern countries it was not structurally possible to head down such a trajectory as the West has done because there was simply no opportunity to do so. The existence of heavily urbanised mercantile societies in European towns of the late Middle Eages and Early Modern Periods were fertile ground for what would later become the ultra-liberalism we know of today. I truly think that peasant societies were more or less immune to this. And not to romanticise illiteracy but the educated merchant class were the ones who were drawn to a lot of these ideas and internalised them.
Yes, you can still see it in traditional Western families. Even small customs, for example, waiting to eat before you are invited to do so, wearing nicest or best clothes depending on the occasion, formality, eye contact when speaking to people and not interrupting. Honesty, holding doors open for people, being respectful and cautious around women etc.
It's very hard to explain but there are many people in the West who still hold onto these values. In a society like England some people would call this 'posh' but this type of decorum is not related to class and the upper classes are by no means in over abundant supply of it either.
I understand very much what you say about mutual incomprehension but I encounter this in daily life as well.
It also seems to be very much a frontier religion and appeals to frontier or settler societies. It encourages hard work and strong bonds of solidarity between its followers as well as a strict moral framework. Is it true that the Mormons have wanted to make themselves America's national religion?
Mormonism is quite popular in New Zealand.
It is entirely possible that once the West gets tired of the current direction it is heading down a lot of people may turn to Mormonism.
This could be a type of return of the religious dimension that was meant to underpin Western liberalism before it became secularised which is another point in Mormonism's potential favour in the eyes of future Westerners.
I would like to pray more.
Some time ago it appeared that the global influence of Islamism was going to shape world events in a significant way. Perhaps it can still do, however I feel that after 2015 there has been a decline in the global appeal of Islamism, including among Muslim diaspora communities in the West. Certain events, most notably surrounding the Caliphate in the Middle East after its defeat and the atrocities it committed seem to have extinguished the appeal of Islamism globally for now.
Iran's government will have trouble exporting its revolution to Sunni countries. Of course there are Iranian aligned Sunni Islamists but they are not as common. Salafism will make it difficult for Iran to spread their ideology in Sunni countries.
What I think is emerging now with 'wokism' is a type of Neo-Marxism. This will probably influence the near term future of the West more than Islamism will. However, further down the line, that is to say very far down the line, Islamism could again gain a foothold in Western countries, especially if the ultra-leftist current ends up how I suspect it will. Westerners may want moral guidance and see Islam as an option. Is this how you think events could unfold in the distant future as well?
A Shi'a scholar has already written a book addressed to Western audiences where he suggests Shi'a Islam as a possible solution to the West's ideological future.
Conversion to Islam would for Westerners be a major step. It is a distinct possibility that by the end of the 21st century we will witness a lot of conversions to different religions as well as see a return to traditional denominations. This ties in with your theory about Mormonism as well.
There have in the past been leftist Westerners who have been drawn to Islam and converted. To reject the ultra liberalism of a Western lifestyle would be the greatest obstacle to such conversions but as time progresses and the culture becomes more vapid and hollow there could be a turn to spirituality.
I do not think that Imam Mahdi will be a counterfeit. In Islamic eschatology he will not attempt to take the place of Christ and Muslims believe that Christ will return at the end times. The counterfeit(s) will probably attempt to impersonate the Mahdi and I wonder if this could trick a lot of people. I suspect that the counterfeit will try to deceive people by impersonating Prophets and religious figures from all around the world. We could maybe see the performance of false miracles. This Antichrist will probably establish some false satanic religion that the masses of the people will not be able to tell is evil.
I do not think the Antichrist will come from any of the revealed religions, but I do think it is highly likely that it will attempt to impersonate Prophets and religious figures from all confessions as a means of deceiving humanity.
To fight them and win requires a pre-modern mindset, albeit one which differs from their own. It also requires a strategic mindset that gets to the very heart of the theological/ideological core of defeating them by recognizing exactly who and what they are. But not only that, the uncomfortable truths of what we Moderns are through their eyes. I've been consciously or not through this thread preparing myself and perhaps others for looking at this very real crisis honestly. It takes only one aggressor to make a war.
Their new revolutionary matrix out of which they wish to create a new world consists of the criminals, degenerates, the insane, drug addicts and paraphiliacs, lazy but clever underclass lumpenprole drones, heathen infidels who like the ''fake Left'' want to pull down civilization, people cultivating themselves into barbarians, and elite misfits who like Catiline in the final days of the Old Roman Republic cut a sharp Satanic figure amid the flames of a society fighting for it's life.
But I was wrong about this being the ''fake Left'', because there never was much of a ''real Left'', and the Revolution moves ever on, looking ceaselessly for new groups of people somewhere to represent as needing their secular salvation of destruction once they've entirely hollowed out the other groups of people caught up in their wake. This is the real Left, although it isn't Socialism; Socialism is really one of the last things they really want, destruction is really the name of the game for them and once they've carried out one stage of revolution they drop any pretense of promoting Socialism and move on to other stages of Revolution, things like destroying the family and faith in the Christian God above all. The children of the Bolshevik God-Fighters of yesterday became the Oligarchs who overthrew the Soviet Union a short while ago for example, and poured a tidal wave of Liberal Western style filth into Post-Soviet society.
They are the real Left, which is Anarchist and Nihilistic at it's core. An Aberration and deformation of the human spirit. They may even fool themselves that they will create a Utopia out of such crooked timber as they have, but they only want at heart to kill and to destroy and to plunder.
annatar1914 wrote:A few posts ago, I wanted to make it clear at some point that what would generally be called Fascism elsewhere would not get much of a foothold in America, because of America's hyper-individualism. Instead, those most inclined to actual organic ''Fascism'' in America would not be the dress-up morons larping about. No, Capitalism in America has as it's analogue of fascist defenders in the Libertarians, the Objectivists, Right-Wing Anarchists/Anarcho-Capitalists, because this is the way the Western spirit best represented by Americans these days is formed. An exemplary model albeit an outlier of the kind of person(s) i'm talking about are the ''Sovereign Citizen Movement'';
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign ... n_movement
One might say that perhaps this cannot be too concerning; after all, Fascism they say succeeded because it captured (or was given) the organs of the State in the 1920's and 30's, and used those organs to carry out their wills. Therefore, one might believe, that these others are not a significant existential threat to the Nation State or the rule of law formally speaking. I believe that this is not true, and part of the reason is a refusal to accept the Socialist/Communist philosophy concerning Fascism.
Historical Fascism actually involved a privatization of the State and it's functions, a reduction in formal governance and an increase in informal but absolute leadership outside of government channels, and a reliance on personal diktat and personal loyalties. What titles the leadership was granted, such as Hitler as ''Fuehrer'' and Mussolini as 'Duce'', were fig leafs covering their inexact but absolute relation to the State, as above and outside it. Non-Governmental organizations like the SS and the NSDAP seized much authority from the German State, and the Army and Navy declared personal loyalties to the leadership not the head of state as such.
Wellsy wrote:In the classical Marxist View of fascism in which its a reaction of the petty bourgeois, i like this point drawn that if you scratch an Austraian libertarian, you’ll find a fascist.
So while the individualism of the US will give it a particular bent, I’m not yet certain this is enough to exclude them from fascism as it is quite adaptable to particular contexts. And there is already the rhetoric of opposing the “progress” of the US in order to return to the greatness of America. Things aren’t there yet but the ideas and rhetoric is certainly popping up. And the stripping down of the state to a primarily dominating and violent institution whose force is its legitimization seems to be on par with the tendency of Western states. The dismantling of effective governance ie no governance free market will solve it. They will be the expression of a crisis of legitimacy which leads to a reaction that preserves property relations and the like while allowing great expression to the dissatisfaction of many.
Local Localist wrote:I've always found the Marxist critique of fascism limited in scope, though. Sure, it gives me a nice simple model of fascism as being nothing more than a reflex of the bourgeois, and it also offers me a reasoning of this connection between ultra-capitalists and fascists. Ultimately, though, this is just a diagnosis of a disease, rather than any substantial analysis. The regime of Augusto Pinochet is often described as fascist, and that of Hidieki Tojo most certainly *was* fascist, however the economic path of these regimes was extremely distinct, with one embracing quite an extreme form of capitalism, and the other using a highly protectionist 'Japanese right-socialism'. It seems to me that 'anarcho-capitalism' basically establishes the preconditions for feudalism, so why would someone move from advocating something further from feudalism to something closer to feudalism to something further from feudalism again? Sorry if I can't figure out how to structure this paragraph, but I just have reservations about the ability for historical materialism to explain things in their entirety.
Wellsy wrote:I think the historical materialist approach is valuable when not thought in a crudely causal way of base -> superstructure as if it were one to one.
And the point about middle class basis of fascism is indeed no longer a point of analysis itself since its been established as an accepted fact for Marxists. But I think it does remain a useful heuristic in to ones analysis. Although it often feels like people are attempting to identify the attributes universal to every variation of asserted fascist governments rather than follow the causal point. This is where I see the strength of how it arises at a time of crisis of capitalism for extremes to arise and for the malleability of fascist to develop nonemancipatory analysis of capitalism.
Wellsy wrote:In regards to anarchicapitalists and their ideological expression, it seems to simply take extreme ideological principles used in justifying capitalism by classical liberals. They make an absolute of private property and the use of it as one pleases without interference. This to me seems to be a logical consequence of a liberal kind of subject should they not seek to critique capitalism and instead double down on it.
Vaguely seems lile how something which is true within limits is turn into absurdity when made an absolute. They talk about voluntary interactions based on the traditional idea of the market while ignoring the structural basis of exploitation. Freedom is freedom of the market and then freedom for people as an extension of this.
But I’m unclear in my own concept of fuedalism be ause even in the abstract a lord and such had obligations and duties which aren’t even apparent in anarchocapitalists. My property to do what I want, and thus you have to fo what I want on my property without any interference from others on my rights of property. They defend the domination of a capitalist over others on the illusion of some consensus on the sanctity of property rights.
Wellsy wrote:Can you expand on the shift back and forth between away from feudalism, to feudalism and back away from it.
Wellsy wrote:Beyond me rambling, I agree for the need for a real analysis to better make sense of it rather than just talking points about Trump himself.
I’ve also seen a point of how the government and other things are seen as socialist and need to be opposed as these very instruments increasingly undermine the interests of capital so to has to strip the state back. See this in politicians whose entire role is to bend over for capitalists bur destroy the effectiveness of government in any other role. The idea of small government is more no government interference on the freedom of capitalists. Their sense of unfreedom being their obstacles to exploit opportunities to their advantage.
See this even in the Average Americans view of socialism equals big government and government run things. Although in practice it amounts to opposing specifically government run or supported policies and ends.
Local Localist wrote:I broadly agree with everything stated here.
Yes, anarcho-capitalists want to dismantle the state so that everything is private property. If you accept the reality of monopolies, it becomes apparent that these would quickly form new states in which basic rights are not under any form of protection. Your employer becomes your landlord and your governor all at once. In this sense, anarcho-capitalism has the potential to become even worse than feudalism was, if that's possible.
This is the book largely credited with popularising Japanese fascism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokutairo ... _Socialism
Of course, I'm not under the illusion that corporatism is comparable to Marxist-Leninism, in any meaningful sense, but my point was that I don't understand how someone could progress from being a standard-issue neoliberal, to believing in something which I would consider to be a stone's throw away from feudalism proper, to embracing the nationalistic economic preferences of fascists, which tend toward protectionism and nationalisation.
The economic policy of the Trump Administration seems to favour the petite bourgeoisie even more than fully-fledged fascism does. Trade barriers are thrown up to help the middle class compete with foreign labour, all the while Mitch McConnel can still throw your grandfather onto the street when he can't afford healthcare. Truly awful.
Indeed, they seem to want everyone to bend ass over backward for their employers. This continues the point of how many experiences the imposition on businesses to have basic standards of how they treat people as some sort of wrong, to block their freedom to do whatever the hell they want is oppressive. It's a shift from classical liberalism emphasis on you are free to the extent it doesn't harm others and becomes a totally anti-social individualism. There is no obligation to others, only to respect their property.
I like to think that they're so ridiculous that many simply don't take them seriously enough to pose a threat at this point. But then again, sometimes that's a weakness to see only weakness, to which I guess arguing against their ideological illusions has some use for the naive and young who dip their toes into it because they aren't exposed to better ideas.
In regards to the Japanese example, I wonder if it's a bit like with Germany where they were modernizing but like 'reactionary socialists' they were opposed to the ills of capitalism but their analysis didn't make them effectively anti-capitalist, only reformers as they wanted to stabilize it and do away with certain contradictions and conflicts forcefully. How far was Japan in modernizing its economy, what had the population who had undergone fascism experienced? Because think of how even the nations that bought into socialism were backwards countries who were unevenly developed with a section of working class but mass of peasants.
Wonder if there was a similar result in radicalism but the failure of any workers movement results in middle class going with capitalists.
I haven't an answer and could only speculate without really looking at the different examples of fascisms and their trends. But presumably, there must be some disillusionment with neoliberalism and this could be expected with a middle class type when capitalism clearly coalesces around big businesses and squishes out small owners. But presumably, the values of the middle class who don't identify with the working class but the big capitalists and capitalism itself, don't entirely repudiate capitalism but seek to double down on their values. Bit like how I speculated that anarcho-capitalists take certain principles to an extreme so as to be absurd. They don't think of it as close to feudalism, they think it is freedom of the market and such.
But how one would then shift away from that to protectionism and nationalism I'm not sure, I've not witnessed the example in a single person although I see the diversity in right wing types.
And the exact nature of some appeals would have to be queried like how a middle class takes advantage of certain ideals in an opportunistic way. Like with middle east, Islamism seems to me in part an opportunistic approach of the middle class to push themselves up but press the social mobility of others down. Think of how many on here even, they experience themselves as threatened by others 'getting more of the pie' and this is an affront to them and thus they opposed what they see is wrong of social equality in the abstract.
Indeed, Trump isn't a fascist despite all that is problematic about him. Which is why he is characterized as a populist, he doesn't step far enough in the direction of what has historically been identified as the qualities of fascism.
annatar1914 wrote:@Wellsy , I was intrigued by your comments on Anarcho-Capitalism (and it makes me wish @Victoribus Spolia still posted too);
In this sort of system, I think it's implicit that the ''lessers'' of life will be rightfully exploited by these privateers, in their thinking anyway. So Class will definitely still exist (and racism and eugenicism), but somehow the State will not...
I admit my post is quite speculative and VS woyld've been useful in testing such speculations somewhat.
Indeed, I don't much like him myself but the terrible things people associate with him aren't somehow entirely new to the US. Maybe some still attach themselves to the benevolent intentions of the US government and see him as simply as an exception of such benevolence.
People aren't even true believers in capitalism or the political system anymore, their reason for voting is in spite of the other, not truly for a person. A bit like how even many liberals today are too reflexive to crudely believe that capitalism is without massive problems, their defence always comes from the demonization of alternatives.
A lot of people are stuck in a hopelessness in which they are resigned to their 'fate'.
I despise hopelessness to an irrational degree, might as well just kill ones self to exist perpetually in such a state.
annatar1914 wrote:The core of Modernity is Paganism, or a term which came out of use long ago; ''Gentilism''. And in essence everything is pretty much as it has always been. But man craves the appearances of worshiping the One True God, as much as he craves indulging in his disordered passions. Some have only become more sophisticated in his Paganism.
Offer a false alternative to Modernity, and many will follow it as a means of ''following'' the God they otherwise would wish to avoid in their lives. Give them a set of rules easily followed by almost anybody, and most congenial to natural man. Most anyway, since there is always something inside some that rebels against following the herd into barbarism.
This is why I cannot be a reactionary, because I know where and into what the reactionaries will eventually fall into.
God by definition Is self-existent, self-subsisten[…]
The Electoral College's perceived flaws come down […]
You can't vaccine for stupid.
Isn't this a recipe for IRL idiocracy or some sor[…]