I Reject, I Affirm. ''Raising the Black Flag'' in an Age of Devilry. - Page 40 - 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.
#15151848
Recent events and exchanges have forced me to clearly lay out what I am about, as a Christian but in a political sense, politics informed and infused with my beliefs.

Two trends will be in the world until the very End, actualizing and absolutizing in a concrete way the action of God in the world, and also the separation and turning away from Him;

One trend is the maintenance of the State as an Institution, as a Republic provided by God for the common good, creating and maintaining a people, who as St. Augustine says; ''are persons united by common loves''. As an expression of the work of God with men, this State, this Republic, is or gradually will be becoming (with setbacks, fits and false starts, but still going forwards) more democratic and liberty-minded, and by becoming more socialist, more communalist, as well. Again, because a people are united by what they love, or are disunited because they no longer love the same things.

The other trend is towards ''Anarcho-Tyranny'', reflecting the insight that Despotism and Lawlessness are basically the same thing under different aspects. The Criminals, the Savages, the Bandits and Tyrants, Despots and Warlords, all these are and will gradually be united not by love but by what they wish to possess or to destroy, an alliance of Reaction (even if they call it ''Progress'') for what they take to be the Good.

In the spiritual realm that is actualized in the physical reality, is what energizes the physical reality, two trends will keep developing as they have for some time;

One trend is the falling away from the actual religion of God throughout history, paradoxically together with the development of the means by which this true religion of God is protected and nurtured, even if a majority of citizens are not exactly of that religion anymore. That however is not to say that under those favorable circumstances, a revival could not happen, because it very well could.

United to this spiritual trend of the general and universal falling away, is the development and political and social triumph of the one penultimate false religion, animated by a resemblance to the true one, but in origin far from the true one and always against it. Under it's rule, disguised or otherwise, might is right, wealth is a blessing from ''God'', and the private and the personal good will selfishly win out over the common good-despite violent protestations to the contrary. This is because over time it will be universal in extent if not universal control.
#15152332
@Potemkin , @Verv , and @Political Interest ;

US troops have been in Syria illegally against international law since President Trump ordered them into Syria at the beginning of his term, and nothing has changed since Biden took office, nor is likely to. Russian forces are in Syria legally, invited by the internationally recognized Syrian government to help them in their struggle against the Islamofascist forces there. Likewise, Iranian forces are in Syria legally for the same reason, to prevent the victory of the Sunni Jihadist enemy. Turkish troops are there on sovereign Syrian territory as well illegally, against international law. Russia is in Syria for one reason only, which is why they don't respond to Israeli attacks on Iranian and Syrian military forces, and why they don't tangle with Turkish and American forces for the most part. That reason is to keep Syria in existence, and prevent it falling to Jihadist forces...

But let's face it; ISIS basically destroyed Syria and Iraq, those nations no longer truly exist as modern nation-state entities, and if American and Russian forces weren't involved in Syria and Iraq, ISIS or a similar future force would rapidly take over both countries as it appeared they would do just a few short years ago. But, just as a few years ago, each foe of ISIS hates and fears the other more than they do ISIS, and so it has the operational strategic space which enables ''it'' to continue to exist, searching for means to achieve a successful breakthrough as they did with their first campaign. They punched a hole, metaphorically speaking, in modern reality that has only partly been patched up, and later assaults will likely succeed in the future, from this same group or an iteration of the same.

But since this post is in my thread in the spirituality section, one might be justified in asking me why it is here and not elsewhere, this discussion about this matter.

The reason is because we don't have the natural capacity within ourselves to end this war and defeat permanently this enemy, not a single force on Earth, or combination of forces on Earth, with all the technology and worldly might they might have regardless. The Enemy;



''...Esteems iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood...''


(from Book of Job, chapter 41)

And so the coming days will be full of peril, especially for those whose hope is in mere politics, hope in the world. There is a war going on whether we want to be part of it or not, whether we pick a side or not in a formal sense, we contribute to one's side's victory anyway. Our Lord said;


''...The strong man armed, his goods are secure...''.


But we are not ''strong men'', collectively speaking, and haven't been for quite a while now. So I too therefore by my personal sins and weaknesses have brought what is happening and what will happen still upon us. Each of us is responsible for all our other brothers and sisters, and what we do effects everyone else in the entire world, like the movement of a spider's web strand, or ripples in a pond. Some of us more than others of course.

The first thing that must be done to solve a problem is to admit that there is indeed a problem. And to ask questions, even hard ones. So my question I seek to answer is this; what can be done, what must be done, to mitigate if possible the judgements to come? And this; what spiritual weakness is the Enemy drawing upon that is bringing upon us the judgements we are facing now?
#15152986
@noemon , @Verv , and @Political Interest ;

I have over my lifetime, been wrong about many things. I know in my heart that I am weak and my shortcomings often only harden hearts against the very things that I believe, when I try to explain them with the baggage of my worldly political beliefs, often contradictory. So now I must sometimes show the spiritual core;



And so my beliefs are still contradictory, as I try to reconcile my worldly beliefs and efforts with my spiritual ones, my modern with my pre-modern. My Christian with my Non-Christian. Which is all to say that to be true to my stated Faith as outlined at the beginning of this thread, I can't true speak in the modern categories using the language of the narrative of modernism; I have to speak of things as I truly see them as being.

As I've said before, we are under a spell, some more than others perhaps. Christ save!
#15153484
@Potemkin ;

Guess I'm not the only one who has the thoughts that I do;



Image

Recent events have really shaken a lot of people, Bourgeoisie (Who DO have a class consiousness!) and Proletariat alike.
#15153611
Language really does effect perception, this should be obvious to most, although it's usually perceived as something negative and projected onto the other guy and his beliefs.

But in the world of today, the whole medium of expression makes even the most ardent of traditionalists half in the modernist camp as long as the categories of that expression are arranged the way that they are. Why? Because in the Western world, the reiteration of the Classical Greco-Roman world, we are all but forced to speak as they do.

For example, Classical writers like Polybius and Aristotle among others take ''Aristocracy, Monarchy, and Democracy'' to be the good expressions of political rule since they are taken to represent the ''common good''. ''Oligarchy, Tyranny, and Ochlocracy (Mob Rule)'' are believed to be the expressions of rule for selfish and evil interest by contrast. The Classical Greek mind and the Western mind which was tutored by it cannot think of government outside of these forms or their alleged ''perversions'' of those forms, or some combination thereof.

When I searched for something to give intellectual shape to the inadequacy of traditionalists when using these classical forms, at least Christian traditionalists, the only political thinker who seemed to be even aware of the problem was Orestes Brownson, the little known American political and religious writer of the 1800's. His concern was ''Barbarism'', and the role or task of the American system of government in doing away with the remnants of ''Barbarism'' in civilization. He defined Barbarism as being the personal or private rule of those in society who do so because of advantages of birth or wealth. Brownson however (with the Greeks) did not mean Barbarism as something that relates to a people's culture or technological development, but as a political term.

What I am suggesting however is that Civilization as a whole can only think of the forms of government within the triad of Monarch/Aristocracy/Democracy, while Barbarism being personal and charismatic defies all of this triadic categorization. The closest thing to Barbarism in modern Civilized politics today in fact is the phenomena of what is called ''Corruption'', the actions of political officials to personally bend or void the rules of civilized government in favor of or against something or someone. The ultimate kind of civilized act in politics on the other hand leaves out the personal or private element altogether, for example as with the use of a formal declaration of war or some formal agreement internationally or whatever in order to engage in military action against another party.
#15153755
annatar1914 wrote:Language really does effect perception, this should be obvious to most, although it's usually perceived as something negative and projected onto the other guy and his beliefs.

But in the world of today, the whole medium of expression makes even the most ardent of traditionalists half in the modernist camp as long as the categories of that expression are arranged the way that they are. Why? Because in the Western world, the reiteration of the Classical Greco-Roman world, we are all but forced to speak as they do.

For example, Classical writers like Polybius and Aristotle among others take ''Aristocracy, Monarchy, and Democracy'' to be the good expressions of political rule since they are taken to represent the ''common good''. ''Oligarchy, Tyranny, and Ochlocracy (Mob Rule)'' are believed to be the expressions of rule for selfish and evil interest by contrast. The Classical Greek mind and the Western mind which was tutored by it cannot think of government outside of these forms or their alleged ''perversions'' of those forms, or some combination thereof.

When I searched for something to give intellectual shape to the inadequacy of traditionalists when using these classical forms, at least Christian traditionalists, the only political thinker who seemed to be even aware of the problem was Orestes Brownson, the little known American political and religious writer of the 1800's. His concern was ''Barbarism'', and the role or task of the American system of government in doing away with the remnants of ''Barbarism'' in civilization. He defined Barbarism as being the personal or private rule of those in society who do so because of advantages of birth or wealth. Brownson however (with the Greeks) did not mean Barbarism as something that relates to a people's culture or technological development, but as a political term.

What I am suggesting however is that Civilization as a whole can only think of the forms of government within the triad of Monarch/Aristocracy/Democracy, while Barbarism being personal and charismatic defies all of this triadic categorization. The closest thing to Barbarism in modern Civilized politics today in fact is the phenomena of what is called ''Corruption'', the actions of political officials to personally bend or void the rules of civilized government in favor of or against something or someone. The ultimate kind of civilized act in politics on the other hand leaves out the personal or private element altogether, for example as with the use of a formal declaration of war or some formal agreement internationally or whatever in order to engage in military action against another party.


@Potemkin , @Verv , @Political Interest and others;

This next post is a kind of ''bookend'' to this previous one, in that it deals with the concept of ''sacred spaces'' in Civilization and in Barbarism.

In ancient Greece, the ''sacred space'' was the Agora, likewise in both parallel and contrast the Romans had their Forum.( My contention regarding both Greeks and Romans is that the Romans were Barbarians from the Greek perspective, becoming increasingly Hellenized as time went on. This process in fact goes somewhat towards explaining Rome's downfall, in my opinion). But back to those sacred spaces...

I shall relate a story from Polybius;

Roman soldiers, 300 in number, had at one point seized the Greek city of Rhegium in Italy against orders. The men were taken back to Rome to the Forum;

''When these prisoners were sent to Rome, the Consuls had them all marched into the Forum and there, according to the Roman custom, they were first scourged and then beheaded, wanting through this punishment to recover, as far as possible, their reputation for good faith with their allies...''



The judgement of Sacred Honor, carried out in the Sacred Place
...

Something that would NEVER be done in ancient Greece in the Agora (which was the civic, political, and religious heart of the Greek city), and certainly not with scourging and decapitation. The Greeks preferred non-bloody means of capital punishment, such as poisoning, strangulation, and so forth.

The Roman Forum was also the heart of Roman life in the same civic, religious, and political sense. But to the Greeks like Polybius, they were Barbarians; violent, overly pious to the point of superstition regarding the gods, and so on. However, in a way that made them worse than any other Barbarian in Greek eyes, because the Romans went about their bloody business in a coldly calculating and rational manner all the same. As Spengler remarks, brutal and clannish.

So the Sacred Space of Civilization is a place of civic peace, regarded as holy and nonviolent, rational and ordered. Extended into space, the rights and the duties of the territorial grounds of the State do not begin and end at the origin, the City-State, but can be copied and made universal, until the whole world is ''Cosmopolis'' .

While the Sacred Space of Barbarism is a place of bloodshed and thus propitiation of the Holy to which the City of the Barbarians (if they have a City, that is) belongs (with Rome, her very boundaries marked by the god Terminus), calling to mind mysteries which the human mind cannot nor should not fathom. But at the same time, very matter-of-fact and worldly wise.


Moscow, burned down by the Russians after Napoleon enters the city.



the surrender of Paris


So Civilized men and Barbarian men have different ideas on the City and the State, and it's literal extension in space and time, based on their concept of the Sacred and how and where it interacts with mankind.

Civilized mankind's Sacred Spaces are so they believe because of the enlightened deliberations of peaceful and rational men there make it so, they believe.

Barbarian mankind's Sacred Spaces are so they believe because of the marking out of the boundaries of those holy precincts by the gods and their designated representatives.
#15153913
So I asserted from the previous post on ''Sacred Spaces'' that;

...Civilized men and Barbarian men have different ideas on the City and the State, and it's literal extension in space and time, based on their concept of the Sacred and how and where it interacts with mankind.

Civilized mankind's Sacred Spaces are so they believe because of the enlightened deliberations of peaceful and rational men there make it so, they believe.

Barbarian mankind's Sacred Spaces are so they believe because of the marking out of the boundaries of those holy precincts by the gods and their designated representatives...


And that from the post before that on civilized versus barbarian government;


What I am suggesting however is that Civilization as a whole can only think of the forms of government within the triad of Monarch/Aristocracy/Democracy, while Barbarism being personal and charismatic defies all of this triadic categorization. The closest thing to Barbarism in modern Civilized politics today in fact is the phenomena of what is called ''Corruption'', the actions of political officials to personally bend or void the rules of civilized government in favor of or against something or someone. The ultimate kind of civilized act in politics on the other hand leaves out the personal or private element altogether, for example as with the use of a formal declaration of war or some formal agreement internationally or whatever in order to engage in military action against another party.


So what can I then infer when reflecting on these thoughts?

Firstly in the world of today,that we are in a time of increasing Barbarism and a decline in the Hyper-Civilization of today. of increasing personal efforts on behalf of personal interests in politics on the part of public officials to enrich oneself and others at public expense, to bend or ignore the civilized rules in favor of or against others, to violate the rules of deliberative discourse in favor of violence, even to the point of attacks in places sacred to the civic religion and national mythology. Rent-a-Mobs and private armies. Proscriptions of enemies and confiscations of their goods are soon to follow if the trends continue and don't stabilize.

Second, is a reflection on Barbarism that barbarians perceive authority as either coming from the God(s), or being withdrawn from rulers by the God(s). Recall the ''Sword of Atilla'' story? Power is not seen as something innate but it is seen as something natural, and if one is effected by it it is either a punishment for the wicked or a refinement for the righteous, even if the rulers are wicked themselves, they are heaping coals on their own heads if they rule unjustly.
#15153997
annatar1914 wrote:There is a teleological and perhaps even eschatological dimension to Modernity that I am going to examine, and to do so I will take a look at the spiritual and religious aspects of belief in what is commonly called ''extraterrestrial life'' and the ''UFO Phenomenon/Ancient Astronauts belief''. What I intend to write and discuss will not really touch upon what I personally believe very much at first I think, but what others might believe and why, and the consequences of these beliefs. Blaise Pascal once wrote;


''The eternal silence of these infinite spaces fills me with horror''


He was talking about the philosophical 'problem' of infinite divisibility and infinite extension in space, once the previous Cosmology prior to his time was gradually jettisoned.

An infinitude of worlds in an endless and eternal universe, filled with beings more or less like man as being rational souls in a body, no matter how strange that body may seem to us.

And after the Copernican revolution in Cosmology and physics, and the unfolding of it's consequences, came the Darwinian revolution in Biology, and God was decisively banished intellectually from the Universe He was no longer being seen as having made (and Evolution applied to the Universe made the possibility of Ancient Godlike Extraterrestrial civilizations ''Certain"). Should He try to ''return'', He will only be seen as a very powerful Extraterrestrial in a vast Universe full of beings perhaps potentially more powerful and wiser than Him, and therefore will no doubt be resisted...

Decades of science fiction and fantasy writing and film and television have only served to cement these notions into the popular mind. With good Aliens who want to help us. And bad Aliens who want to destroy or enslave us.

And so if the UFO Phenomena is ''real'', as in something controlled by non-human beings, we are primed to respond by our education in Modernity to act or not act in certain ways, with regards to that phenomenon.

And what does this all mean in the context of traditional thought, including religion (specifically Monotheism/Revealed Religions)?

Discuss...


If aliens make contact with us it will change the entire conversation about reality and life. There have already been mystical and spiritual discussions about aliens by the likes of David Icke and other writers.

There have been attempts to find a link between aliens and revealed religion, for example finding examples of aliens in the Bible or identifying aliens as the jinn of Islamic tradition.

Some have said that aliens created religions or that a counterfeit Christ could be appear in tandem with their appearance.

Discussions of UFOs often exist in tandem with new age religious beliefs.

annatar1914 wrote:US troops have been in Syria illegally against international law since President Trump ordered them into Syria at the beginning of his term, and nothing has changed since Biden took office, nor is likely to. Russian forces are in Syria legally, invited by the internationally recognized Syrian government to help them in their struggle against the Islamofascist forces there. Likewise, Iranian forces are in Syria legally for the same reason, to prevent the victory of the Sunni Jihadist enemy. Turkish troops are there on sovereign Syrian territory as well illegally, against international law. Russia is in Syria for one reason only, which is why they don't respond to Israeli attacks on Iranian and Syrian military forces, and why they don't tangle with Turkish and American forces for the most part. That reason is to keep Syria in existence, and prevent it falling to Jihadist forces...

But let's face it; ISIS basically destroyed Syria and Iraq, those nations no longer truly exist as modern nation-state entities, and if American and Russian forces weren't involved in Syria and Iraq, ISIS or a similar future force would rapidly take over both countries as it appeared they would do just a few short years ago. But, just as a few years ago, each foe of ISIS hates and fears the other more than they do ISIS, and so it has the operational strategic space which enables ''it'' to continue to exist, searching for means to achieve a successful breakthrough as they did with their first campaign. They punched a hole, metaphorically speaking, in modern reality that has only partly been patched up, and later assaults will likely succeed in the future, from this same group or an iteration of the same.

But since this post is in my thread in the spirituality section, one might be justified in asking me why it is here and not elsewhere, this discussion about this matter.

The reason is because we don't have the natural capacity within ourselves to end this war and defeat permanently this enemy, not a single force on Earth, or combination of forces on Earth, with all the technology and worldly might they might have regardless. The Enemy;



''...Esteems iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood...''


(from Book of Job, chapter 41)

And so the coming days will be full of peril, especially for those whose hope is in mere politics, hope in the world. There is a war going on whether we want to be part of it or not, whether we pick a side or not in a formal sense, we contribute to one's side's victory anyway. Our Lord said;


''...The strong man armed, his goods are secure...''.


But we are not ''strong men'', collectively speaking, and haven't been for quite a while now. So I too therefore by my personal sins and weaknesses have brought what is happening and what will happen still upon us. Each of us is responsible for all our other brothers and sisters, and what we do effects everyone else in the entire world, like the movement of a spider's web strand, or ripples in a pond. Some of us more than others of course.

The first thing that must be done to solve a problem is to admit that there is indeed a problem. And to ask questions, even hard ones. So my question I seek to answer is this; what can be done, what must be done, to mitigate if possible the judgements to come? And this; what spiritual weakness is the Enemy drawing upon that is bringing upon us the judgements we are facing now?


There is no way to mitigate the judgements except to repent and be as good as possible. On the level of spirituality it is very difficult, because that is all the will of the Lord. We as individuals could attempt to organise religious revival but that would be very difficult.

The enemy of which you speak (ISIS) will look for any contradictions in Western society, or any inadequacies. Their propaganda is based on the inadequacy of the West. They posit themselves as an alternative to Western civilisation, especially Western civilisation as the leading civilisation of the 21st century. If it was the Chinese they would be targeting the Chinese, and they may well do one day, but for now they target Europe and America based on their apparent weaknesses. What are these? Well, we have discussed them often and we know them very well but unlike these extremists we do not seek the West's destruction. Racism, immorality, decadence, lack of values and materialism, economic problems, all of these will be exploited for propaganda.

Naturally they will as you have alluded to also attempt to play divide and conquer. So long as the Russians, Europeans, Iranians, Chinese are squabbling amongst themselves it prevents the formation of a real united front. Like COVID-19 the threat of ISIS was underestimated and if Damascus had fallen, which it likely would have without Russian help, the West would probably have responded with inept and ineffective leadership until the point where they could pose a very serious threat indeed.

Fundamentally it is not possible to fight such a foe with materialism or promises of freedom. No, there must be a much more sentimental and spiritual dimension to fight such fanatics. Thankfully they are not yet large enough to pose a threat, but if they did it would require real willingness to fight, on a level not seen since WWII. The West as it stands today does not possess the values or spiritual resoluteness to fight ISIS in a real way. You are talking about fighting about an organisation and political ideology whose members have the fighting zeal of Japanese kamikazes against post-moderns who would not be willing to go to war full stop.

Thankfully it would seem that the majority of the world's Muslims were shocked by ISIS and it has scared them away from embracing such ideologies. They may come back one day, but for now it looks as though they are dormant. Dormant is however not the same as eradicated and they still could gain traction without too much difficulty. We might see this resurgence in the early 2030s.

annatar1914 wrote:I have over my lifetime, been wrong about many things. I know in my heart that I am weak and my shortcomings often only harden hearts against the very things that I believe, when I try to explain them with the baggage of my worldly political beliefs, often contradictory. So now I must sometimes show the spiritual core;



And so my beliefs are still contradictory, as I try to reconcile my worldly beliefs and efforts with my spiritual ones, my modern with my pre-modern. My Christian with my Non-Christian. Which is all to say that to be true to my stated Faith as outlined at the beginning of this thread, I can't true speak in the modern categories using the language of the narrative of modernism; I have to speak of things as I truly see them as being.

As I've said before, we are under a spell, some more than others perhaps. Christ save!


I've been having this struggle over the last year or so and it is really tearing me apart. I don't know what to do.

It is very difficult to be sincere but yet I would hate that my faith not be true. I fear that my religion is merely a decoration for me.

Some have recommended political quietism and withdrawal from the world.

annatar1914 wrote:Language really does effect perception, this should be obvious to most, although it's usually perceived as something negative and projected onto the other guy and his beliefs.

But in the world of today, the whole medium of expression makes even the most ardent of traditionalists half in the modernist camp as long as the categories of that expression are arranged the way that they are. Why? Because in the Western world, the reiteration of the Classical Greco-Roman world, we are all but forced to speak as they do.

For example, Classical writers like Polybius and Aristotle among others take ''Aristocracy, Monarchy, and Democracy'' to be the good expressions of political rule since they are taken to represent the ''common good''. ''Oligarchy, Tyranny, and Ochlocracy (Mob Rule)'' are believed to be the expressions of rule for selfish and evil interest by contrast. The Classical Greek mind and the Western mind which was tutored by it cannot think of government outside of these forms or their alleged ''perversions'' of those forms, or some combination thereof.

When I searched for something to give intellectual shape to the inadequacy of traditionalists when using these classical forms, at least Christian traditionalists, the only political thinker who seemed to be even aware of the problem was Orestes Brownson, the little known American political and religious writer of the 1800's. His concern was ''Barbarism'', and the role or task of the American system of government in doing away with the remnants of ''Barbarism'' in civilization. He defined Barbarism as being the personal or private rule of those in society who do so because of advantages of birth or wealth. Brownson however (with the Greeks) did not mean Barbarism as something that relates to a people's culture or technological development, but as a political term.

What I am suggesting however is that Civilization as a whole can only think of the forms of government within the triad of Monarch/Aristocracy/Democracy, while Barbarism being personal and charismatic defies all of this triadic categorization. The closest thing to Barbarism in modern Civilized politics today in fact is the phenomena of what is called ''Corruption'', the actions of political officials to personally bend or void the rules of civilized government in favor of or against something or someone. The ultimate kind of civilized act in politics on the other hand leaves out the personal or private element altogether, for example as with the use of a formal declaration of war or some formal agreement internationally or whatever in order to engage in military action against another party.


This is true of all civilisations, East and West.

It seems barbarism, true barbarism as a political form has more or less vanished. Even the nomadic peoples are now subject to a central government, even if they dislike it.

annatar1914 wrote:This next post is a kind of ''bookend'' to this previous one, in that it deals with the concept of ''sacred spaces'' in Civilization and in Barbarism.

In ancient Greece, the ''sacred space'' was the Agora, likewise in both parallel and contrast the Romans had their Forum.( My contention regarding both Greeks and Romans is that the Romans were Barbarians from the Greek perspective, becoming increasingly Hellenized as time went on. This process in fact goes somewhat towards explaining Rome's downfall, in my opinion). But back to those sacred spaces...

I shall relate a story from Polybius;

Roman soldiers, 300 in number, had at one point seized the Greek city of Rhegium in Italy against orders. The men were taken back to Rome to the Forum;




The judgement of Sacred Honor, carried out in the Sacred Place
...

Something that would NEVER be done in ancient Greece in the Agora (which was the civic, political, and religious heart of the Greek city), and certainly not with scourging and decapitation. The Greeks preferred non-bloody means of capital punishment, such as poisoning, strangulation, and so forth.

The Roman Forum was also the heart of Roman life in the same civic, religious, and political sense. But to the Greeks like Polybius, they were Barbarians; violent, overly pious to the point of superstition regarding the gods, and so on. However, in a way that made them worse than any other Barbarian in Greek eyes, because the Romans went about their bloody business in a coldly calculating and rational manner all the same. As Spengler remarks, brutal and clannish.

So the Sacred Space of Civilization is a place of civic peace, regarded as holy and nonviolent, rational and ordered. Extended into space, the rights and the duties of the territorial grounds of the State do not begin and end at the origin, the City-State, but can be copied and made universal, until the whole world is ''Cosmopolis'' .

While the Sacred Space of Barbarism is a place of bloodshed and thus propitiation of the Holy to which the City of the Barbarians (if they have a City, that is) belongs (with Rome, her very boundaries marked by the god Terminus), calling to mind mysteries which the human mind cannot nor should not fathom. But at the same time, very matter-of-fact and worldly wise.


Moscow, burned down by the Russians after Napoleon enters the city.



the surrender of Paris


So Civilized men and Barbarian men have different ideas on the City and the State, and it's literal extension in space and time, based on their concept of the Sacred and how and where it interacts with mankind.

Civilized mankind's Sacred Spaces are so they believe because of the enlightened deliberations of peaceful and rational men there make it so, they believe.

Barbarian mankind's Sacred Spaces are so they believe because of the marking out of the boundaries of those holy precincts by the gods and their designated representatives.


But the Romans were surely also a civilised people by any objection standards, would you not agree?
#15154034
@Political Interest , regarding my thoughts on the implications of Modernity and ''Aliens'', you wrote;

If aliens make contact with us it will change the entire conversation about reality and life. There have already been mystical and spiritual discussions about aliens by the likes of David Icke and other writers.


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.

There have been attempts to find a link between aliens and revealed religion, for example finding examples of aliens in the Bible or identifying aliens as the jinn of Islamic tradition.


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.

Some have said that aliens created religions or that a counterfeit Christ could be appear in tandem with their appearance.

Discussions of UFOs often exist in tandem with new age religious beliefs.


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

On the Eschatological dimension of groups like ISIS;


There is no way to mitigate the judgements except to repent and be as good as possible. On the level of spirituality it is very difficult, because that is all the will of the Lord. We as individuals could attempt to organise religious revival but that would be very difficult.


Difficult in one sense I agree, but as the situation unravels as I believe it will, reaction to these events will also provide opportunities.
The enemy of which you speak (ISIS) will look for any contradictions in Western society, or any inadequacies. Their propaganda is based on the inadequacy of the West. They posit themselves as an alternative to Western civilisation, especially Western civilisation as the leading civilisation of the 21st century. If it was the Chinese they would be targeting the Chinese, and they may well do one day, but for now they target Europe and America based on their apparent weaknesses. What are these? Well, we have discussed them often and we know them very well but unlike these extremists we do not seek the West's destruction. Racism, immorality, decadence, lack of values and materialism, economic problems, all of these will be exploited for propaganda.


Will be exploited, and are exploited.

Naturally they will as you have alluded to also attempt to play divide and conquer. So long as the Russians, Europeans, Iranians, Chinese are squabbling amongst themselves it prevents the formation of a real united front. Like COVID-19 the threat of ISIS was underestimated and if Damascus had fallen, which it likely would have without Russian help, the West would probably have responded with inept and ineffective leadership until the point where they could pose a very serious threat indeed.


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.

Fundamentally it is not possible to fight such a foe with materialism or promises of freedom. No, there must be a much more sentimental and spiritual dimension to fight such fanatics. Thankfully they are not yet large enough to pose a threat, but if they did it would require real willingness to fight, on a level not seen since WWII. The West as it stands today does not possess the values or spiritual resoluteness to fight ISIS in a real way. You are talking about fighting about an organisation and political ideology whose members have the fighting zeal of Japanese kamikazes against post-moderns who would not be willing to go to war full stop.


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

Thankfully it would seem that the majority of the world's Muslims were shocked by ISIS and it has scared them away from embracing such ideologies. They may come back one day, but for now it looks as though they are dormant. Dormant is however not the same as eradicated and they still could gain traction without too much difficulty. We might see this resurgence in the early 2030s.


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.


I've been having this struggle over the last year or so and it is really tearing me apart. I don't know what to do.

It is very difficult to be sincere but yet I would hate that my faith not be true. I fear that my religion is merely a decoration for me.

Some have recommended political quietism and withdrawal from the world.


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;





On the Civilization versus Barbarism dichotomy;

This is true of all civilisations, East and West.

It seems barbarism, true barbarism as a political form has more or less vanished. Even the nomadic peoples are now subject to a central government, even if they dislike it.


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.


But the Romans were surely also a civilised people by any objection standards, would you not agree?


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.

@Political Interest , 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.
#15154206
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.
#15154264
annatar1914 wrote:[usermention=12471]
And so my beliefs are still contradictory, as I try to reconcile my worldly beliefs and efforts with my spiritual ones, my modern with my pre-modern. My Christian with my Non-Christian. Which is all to say that to be true to my stated Faith as outlined at the beginning of this thread, I can't true speak in the modern categories using the language of the narrative of modernism; I have to speak of things as I truly see them as being.

As I've said before, we are under a spell, some more than others perhaps. Christ save!


In order to reconcile my Christianity with my secular beliefs, I have tried to... simply tamp down my secular beliefs.

Just minimizing them in general is best.

Any doctrines which make it difficult to do the work of Christ should be abandoned, because Christ is not theoretical, but something that we can attain on Earth.

This is why we might even want to consider decoupling from the political.

Z Man recently wrote like this on the topic:

"This is one of those changes for which we have no precedent. All of a sudden, we have a significant number of people who look at convectional politics as a joke. Instead of being angry and banging away on social media or sending off an e-mail to the nearest Republican, millions are just detaching from it. Outrage theater can only work if people are engaged in the system. We are in the midst of a great decoupling, where millions detach from the system and attach to independent systems.
...
"Those of us fully decoupled from the system no longer get those neurological responses from the performers in the system. Their outrage and gloating strike us as ridiculous and bit absurd. A goofy old dingbat like Elizabeth Warren barely has comedic value. Watching her is like watching a 1970’s comic in a denim suit telling Nixon jokes. Similarly, Ocasio-Cortez is just a reminder of why you are glad you are no longer on Twitter. Millennial dingbats are a dime-a-dozen.

"What we are seeing is a great decoupling. The shuttering of the social media sites to tens of millions of people breaks the connection. Many have ended up on Gab, connecting to a different social dynamic. Others are heading to other places like Telegram, connecting to boutique communities. Some will no doubt re-attach to Conservative Inc., but there is not much there to offer the person looking for a way to express their unhappiness.

"The political system that has evolved to this point has counted on greater and greater engagement at increasing levels of emotion. What happens when those dials start moving the other way is unknown and unconsidered. When tens of millions shrug and laugh at the pleas from Conservative Inc. or mock the phony rage heads from the chat shows, how does the system respond? Turn up the volume? Send their crazies back out to poke people with sticks like they did last summer?"
#15154265
annatar1914 wrote:''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.


This is a truly awesome definition of populism, thank you for it.
#15154291
Well said @Verv ;

In order to reconcile my Christianity with my secular beliefs, I have tried to... simply tamp down my secular beliefs.

Just minimizing them in general is best.


What I have begun to try to do on a conscious level is try to apply the practical consequences of living in another kind of reality than the more worldly-minded, that is, to be ''in'' the world but not ''of'' the world.

Any doctrines which make it difficult to do the work of Christ should be abandoned, because Christ is not theoretical, but something that we can attain on Earth.

This is why we might even want to consider decoupling from the political.


Indeed, and this is perhaps the more merciful and enlightened thing to do, so as to not be considered as the spiritual wing of a political movement among other reasons. So many people including myself have been ''Christian _______ists'' and the Church has suffered for it.

I'm just an Orthodox Christian. If that means that some politics is off limits to me or that I am to be faithful to certain pre-modern political forms of government as an outgrowth of living Christianity as a the Way of Life, then so be it.

Z Man recently wrote like this on the topic:

"This is one of those changes for which we have no precedent. All of a sudden, we have a significant number of people who look at convectional politics as a joke. Instead of being angry and banging away on social media or sending off an e-mail to the nearest Republican, millions are just detaching from it. Outrage theater can only work if people are engaged in the system. We are in the midst of a great decoupling, where millions detach from the system and attach to independent systems.
...
"Those of us fully decoupled from the system no longer get those neurological responses from the performers in the system. Their outrage and gloating strike us as ridiculous and bit absurd. A goofy old dingbat like Elizabeth Warren barely has comedic value. Watching her is like watching a 1970’s comic in a denim suit telling Nixon jokes. Similarly, Ocasio-Cortez is just a reminder of why you are glad you are no longer on Twitter. Millennial dingbats are a dime-a-dozen.

"What we are seeing is a great decoupling. The shuttering of the social media sites to tens of millions of people breaks the connection. Many have ended up on Gab, connecting to a different social dynamic. Others are heading to other places like Telegram, connecting to boutique communities. Some will no doubt re-attach to Conservative Inc., but there is not much there to offer the person looking for a way to express their unhappiness.

"The political system that has evolved to this point has counted on greater and greater engagement at increasing levels of emotion. What happens when those dials start moving the other way is unknown and unconsidered. When tens of millions shrug and laugh at the pleas from Conservative Inc. or mock the phony rage heads from the chat shows, how does the system respond? Turn up the volume? Send their crazies back out to poke people with sticks like they did last summer?"


What it means in my opinion is Counter-Revolution. Not something that is what Leftists fear, a reactionary mirror image of what revolutionaries have been doing for centuries now, but the literal opposite of Revolution; accepting things as they are, resisting what must be resisted, obeying legitimate commands of rulers in all except commands to sin. And what is and what survives accepted as things that are organic and real, and what fades and falls as artificial and not meant to be.
#15154293
Verv wrote:This is a truly awesome definition of populism, thank you for it.


@Verv ;

You're welcome, and thank you for your support. It should come as no surprise that the time-tested history of populism and mass democracy suggests that it is nothing a thinking person should automatically support without reservations.

One definitely cannot understand people in their essence if one cannot see honestly that the very crowd that hailed Christ Jesus on Palm Sunday shouted for Him to be crucified on Good Friday, wanting Barabbas released instead.

We generally want ''Paul Mua'dib'' as our future Messiah, as sinners that we are, instead of Jesus of Nazareth;

#15154508
I was thinking that one thing Christians have to actively due is to simply seek the minimization of evil, and this was really the basis of what the first Americans also sought when they left the corrupt Anglican Church to try to get full religious liberty. Let's remember, England was a country that had legally repressed Catholics, Quakers, and Puritans, and at the beginning of the 17th century had a King whose homosexuality was not a secret at all, yet was also the head of the C of E.

The experience of monarchy for the first Americans was fleeing a degenerate monarch that persecuted the righteous, and that was also generally incapable.

The second and third generation of Americans witnessed a Republic also basically fall under Cromwell, and were all aware of Plato's ideas about hwo Republics turn into oligarchies or anarchy that quickly becomes another form of tyranny...

The goal, I think, was to create a folkish libertarian republic. By folkish I mean that I believe the principles of religious conservatism & agrarianism were very important to them. By libertarian I only mean that the emphasis would be on the autonomy of individuals who would be capable of standing proudly themselves outside of the state.

While this is not something that I believe was necessarily meant to be applicable to all of the governments throughout the world... It was something that made sense for America at that time, and it may be the only ideas that we can strive to return to and expect any amount of success. By success I do not even mean literally being able to institute this, I only mean that we won't be laughed at by 98% of the population, which is what you'll get if you clownishly proclaim that we need an Orthodox monarch.

Supporting liberty also gives us the advantage of being able to relate ourselves back to most people and have some amount of common ground.

I will also say this: There is a certain popularity for libertarian thought everywhere.

Here in Korea, Libertarainism is not popular, but it is not laughed at or viewed as wrong. It is a respectable position, and has potential for growth. It's also something that can bring left & right to the negotiating table. The better nature of most people wants to have their enemies free and content, not vanquished.

This goes back to raising the black flag...

And let me also suggest that forming a parallel society within a free country could potentially fulfill all of the needs that we have to create a gemeinschaft where otherewise we may feel empty.

Never underestimate the power of small communities of people with the same religion, ethnicity, or artistic inclinations. They can create richer meaning than any state can. Because, after all, what we really want is just a place to be comfortable and share ourselves with others.

This is probably the path of least resistance.

The problem is that Libertarian talking points do not actually stand up for Christian talking points.
#15154530
@Verv , I want to talk to you about your reflections here, because it's clear to me at the very least that I'm having some issues with American politics, as I have all my adult life, and those issues have been coming to a head. You began;

I was thinking that one thing Christians have to actively due is to simply seek the minimization of evil, and this was really the basis of what the first Americans also sought when they left the corrupt Anglican Church to try to get full religious liberty. Let's remember, England was a country that had legally repressed Catholics, Quakers, and Puritans, and at the beginning of the 17th century had a King whose homosexuality was not a secret at all, yet was also the head of the C of E.


On first principles, I think that Christians should pray for righteous leaders, and if they are the commanding element in a society, work towards having those righteous leaders. We should expect this from the highest to the least offices in the land; moral rectitude.

The experience of monarchy for the first Americans was fleeing a degenerate monarch that persecuted the righteous, and that was also generally incapable.


Yes, not the best advertisement for Monarchy, to be sure.

The second and third generation of Americans witnessed a Republic also basically fall under Cromwell, and were all aware of Plato's ideas about hwo Republics turn into oligarchies or anarchy that quickly becomes another form of tyranny...


And with a terrible and depressing regularity.

The goal, I think, was to create a folkish libertarian republic. By folkish I mean that I believe the principles of religious conservatism & agrarianism were very important to them. By libertarian I only mean that the emphasis would be on the autonomy of individuals who would be capable of standing proudly themselves outside of the state.


I began my journeys in political philosophy with basically advocating much the same, became more and more ''Statist'' as a Reactionary Monarchist, remained essentially an Authoritarian in my Leftist phase, and now as my Faith has deepened and as I've experienced more of life in the world, I find myself being tugged back to where I had started, before this brief but pithy comment of yours, lol.

While this is not something that I believe was necessarily meant to be applicable to all of the governments throughout the world... It was something that made sense for America at that time, and it may be the only ideas that we can strive to return to and expect any amount of success. By success I do not even mean literally being able to institute this, I only mean that we won't be laughed at by 98% of the population, which is what you'll get if you clownishly proclaim that we need an Orthodox monarch.


That's the other interesting thing. The official Orthodoxy still seems hung up on the Monarchial era, some perhaps forgetting the same ages also saw the very Russian Orthodox Novgorod Republic, with both a Prince and a Veche... And also without considering the freedom of the Orthodox Christian Cossacks, and definitely ignoring the self governing of the ''Old Believers''.

Supporting liberty also gives us the advantage of being able to relate ourselves back to most people and have some amount of common ground.

I will also say this: There is a certain popularity for libertarian thought everywhere.

Here in Korea, Libertarainism is not popular, but it is not laughed at or viewed as wrong. It is a respectable position, and has potential for growth. It's also something that can bring left & right to the negotiating table. The better nature of most people wants to have their enemies free and content, not vanquished.


Without much power in this world, but still having a mission to spread the true Gospel to all Nations, we are almost forced by default to act and live as ''Libertarians'' as it is, whatever we think of the modern political theory in any case.
This goes back to raising the black flag...

And let me also suggest that forming a parallel society within a free country could potentially fulfill all of the needs that we have to create a gemeinschaft where otherewise we may feel empty.

Never underestimate the power of small communities of people with the same religion, ethnicity, or artistic inclinations. They can create richer meaning than any state can. Because, after all, what we really want is just a place to be comfortable and share ourselves with others.

This is probably the path of least resistance.


Yes, communities that live the full Orthodox Christian life free of outside interference but at the same time welcoming to those who think and seek who are (at least temporarily anyway) outside these communities.

EDIT; I might also add to this discussion of communities that I think is implicit is separation. In America, we are separating. There are multiple Americas, and slowly but surely we are not only physically segregating, but also intellectually, culturally. Attached to this notion is also that of technological decline. I believe Modernity is physically unsustainable, with dwindling energy resources. Slowly also we will be becoming a more agrarian world, and more like the 18th and 19th centuries in our development.

The problem is that Libertarian talking points do not actually stand up for Christian talking points.


This has been the biggest difficulty in my opinion, for me anyway. But again as I grow, I cannot see any other way. The formal philosophical and political Libertarians can be ''right'' without having all the right reasons, and be involved in building something greater than they realize. Much as with America and our Constitutional forms itself.

In the ongoing struggle between ''Progress'' and ''Tradition'', we have to ask ourselves; ''how did we get here''? And humbly seek to differentiate between the ''traditions of men'' and the traditions of God, that which is eternally valid everywhere and at all times. This is, by the way, why I think my evolving thinking regarding ''Hellenism'' and ''Barbarism'' is fruitful. Your own life in Korea is probably also a powerful intellectual and spiritual/cultural catalyst, is it not, for these very same reasons? Westernization and Modernity, with their Hellenistic roots, probably only have a superficial veneer over the culture...
#15154811
Not a huge fan of Edmund Burke, but something he wrote stuck with me, and I'm going to riff a little bit off of this quote for at least this post if not more;

''The rebels to God perfectly abhor the Author of their being. They hate Him “with all their heart, with all their mind, with all their soul, and with all their strength.” He never presents himself to their thoughts but to menace and alarm them. They cannot strike the Sun out of Heaven, but they are able to raise a smouldering smoke that obscures Him from their own eyes. Not being able to revenge themselves on God, they have a delight in vicariously defacing, degrading, torturing, and tearing in pieces His image in man.''


In a sense, I believe that this hatred built man's Civilization, but that all men of good will have fought against it, sometimes these men being defeated as when the Greeks sacked Troy, sometimes good men prevailing as when Armenius defeated Varus and his Legions in the forests of Germany.

But not everyone that is ''in'' Civilization is ''of'' Civilization, as I've amply discussed for almost 40 pages now. How can this state of affairs be? I'll borrow concepts from Oswald Spengler to illustrate;

Stage One : Apollonian Civilization (the Classical Greco-Roman Civilization)Polytheism Ascendant

Stage Two: Magian Civilization (Apollonian Civilization goes underground)Monotheism Ascendant

Stage Three: Neo-Apollonian Civilization (Magian Civilization is being forced underground)Polytheism Ascendant.

This may seem a side note or tangent to what I've been writing so far, or even Edmund Burke, but it isn't; somewhere I read that President Trump remarked on January 6th (with apparent surprise) at how ''scruffy'' some of his political followers were...Might be true story, or apocryphal, but it goes to show how there is a mutual incomprehension between opposing forces in America and in the West. Trump is a production of the very apex of Western civilization, with a Pagan's heart, very Greco-Roman... I've discussed this before. But his followers by and large are not. They projected something onto him, and him onto them, and those hating Elites did as well in turn; is it possible that they don't hate Trump after all as much as maybe even they think, Trump the New York Liberal and vulgar Cosmopolitan they loved or at least tolerated until 2015, that instead they hate his voters more?

They were always spiritually divided in the West, and always have been, from at least Homer and his works forwards. This is what made the West. Or rather, un-made it.

Freedom in the West within it's bounds politically isn't with Achilles. It's with Aeneas...
#15154976
@Verv , @Political Interest , @Potemkin ;

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;

''Freedom in the West within it's bounds politically isn't with Achilles. It's with Aeneas...''


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.

Our ideals are our destiny. One's heroes are exemplars and role models to emulate.
#15155254
@Potemkin , @Verv , and @Political Interest , I came across this article earlier today;

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states ... overnments

And I thought of the end state of Modernity. From the article;

Planned legislation to establish new business areas in Nevada would allow technology companies to effectively form separate local governments.

Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak announced a plan to launch so-called Innovation Zones in Nevada to jumpstart the state’s economy by attracting technology firms, Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Wednesday.

The zones would permit companies with large areas of land to form governments carrying the same authority as counties, including the ability to impose taxes, form school districts and courts and provide government services.


The measure to further economic development with the “alternative form of local government” has not yet been introduced in the Legislature.

Sisolak pitched the concept in his State of the State address delivered Jan. 19. The plan would bring in new businesses at the forefront of “groundbreaking technologies” without the use of tax abatements or other publicly funded incentive packages that previously helped Nevada attract companies like Tesla Inc.

Sisolak named Blockchains, LLC as a company that had committed to developing a “smart city” in an area east of Reno after the legislation has passed.

The draft proposal said the traditional local government model is “inadequate alone” to provide the resources to make Nevada a leader in attracting and retaining businesses and fostering economic development in emerging technologies and industries.


The Governor’s Office of Economic Development would oversee applications for the zones, which would be limited to companies working in specific business areas including blockchain, autonomous technology, the Internet of Things, robotics, artificial intelligence, wireless, biometrics and renewable resource technology.

Zone requirements would include applicants owning at least 78 square miles (202 square kilometers) of undeveloped, uninhabited land within a single county but separate from any city, town or tax increment area. Companies would have at least $250 million and plans to invest an additional $1 billion in their zones over 10 years.


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.
  • 1
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42

Middle-management has to suck up to the top while[…]

Hollywood films are inaccurate generally , when d[…]

US bombs Syria

Please...please...please Biden don't be a war hun[…]

Atheism is Evil

it is impossible to do good without God. The Eut[…]