Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Political/social philosophy of ANUS members

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 30, 2010, 01:17:42 AM
"You are aware that the various Communist regimes have raped the Earth too, correct?"

Even if I am aware of that it would look better on you if you came up with some examples rather than pretending you're representing some infallible truth, wouldn't it?

I don't mean to be offensive or anything, but this reply seems to suggest that you are more interested in defending your pride than seeking truth. Yeah, it would've been nice if he offered some examples to support the claim, but given the logic of his claim all you really needed to do to knock it down was to find an example of a communist regime that wasn't a bad polluter. Have you bothered to look into that? Presumably looking into this matter would be pretty illuminating for you given your concerns. And it would be pretty illuminating to determine whether communist regimes would on balance be worse polluters than capitalist regimes. You don't have to go far to find discussions of this sort. Simply google the phrase 'communism pollution' or something like that. The fact that you don't seem to have a ready reply to this concern suggests that you've arrived at your view too quickly. Also, since it is a documented fact that at least some communist regimes were really bad polluters (look it up) it might be worth examining whether that fact is the result of something inherent to communist regimes. But instead of examining any of this further you decided to remark on how this guy might go about looking better, which doesn't directly address the truth or falsity of his claim. What's the point of that?

Why should I have to defend myself against a statement that's offered without any arguments? Like I wrote earlier I might as well argue someone has a hooknose and claim they have a hooknose until they prove otherwise. It's ridiculous and immature. You can attack my character because of my refusal to debunk obviously unfounded claims but that just makes you even more immature. Here you are literally claiming things and then telling me to look it up on google. But we're not exactly discussing when someone's birthday is are we? So why don't you come up with some links or arguments to back up your claims? Why don't you prove that you did look into things? Maybe you're too "proud" for that? Hah!

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 30, 2010, 01:55:09 AM
Look @ Sparta for a variant of "communism."

I think Umbrage is right: I can't say I know a whole lot about these things, but it is my instinct that a discussion like this would have to assume FIRST that Ecofascism and Free Market DON'T work together, and then go from there if you think they DO.

I think an IDEAL society would, indeed, be communist.  But, of course, that society would have to be composed of near Zen-Masters with few desires.  But, hey, the ideal is an ideal for a reason.

You see, the people of a society would need something else, that SO FILLED THEM UP, they didn't care about money.  Take Sparta.  It meant SO MUCH to be a SPARTAN, that currency paled in comparison.  (I'm not positive that Sparta didn't have currency AT ALL, so I guess correct me if I'm wrong).

That was what I meant. Or to put it blunt: idealistically people wouldn't be greedy selfish bastards. It would be GREAT to have people simply working for prestige in their field rather than monetary gain. I don't expect much loyalty from those who only pursue money. And with the advantages being made in cloning and genetic manipulation it seems more possible to create an ubermensch. And well, once you have a race of those then you can probably get them to go along with anything. I think having an expansionist worldview or not makes a big impact on the type of political utopia people dream about. You could also go for something small of course, local tribes and villages that live by the code of nature instead of science. But then how will you compete with other nations? If you have my type of utopia as your neighbor you might have a serious problem.

That said, I think it's a little sad that if we attempt to deeply discuss any of the ideas we mention we will always lose ourselves in detail anyway. In that sense this is another everybody-make-a-list-of-personal-stuff thread, kinda like the Metal Timeline one, which only function as a positive drone (OM) I'm not against those types of threads, I'm just saying that people will have to use their imagination a little when reading them rather than bickering over little things.

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 30, 2010, 06:20:39 AM
Spartiates were not allowed to handle money - Perioikii acted as craftsmen and merchants, and fuelled whatever economy Lacedaemonia had during the Archaic and Classical ages.  A Spartiate was wholly uninterested in gold, silver, or any such frivolity, because such things were, from a practical perspective, worthless.  The education system instilled an appreciation of simplicity and functionality in the Spartan - indeed, the modern adjective "spartan", often used negatively in English to denote sparsity, comes from the truth of Spartans owning few possessions beyond necessities.

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 30, 2010, 08:17:35 AM
Why should I have to defend myself against a statement that's offered without any arguments?

Because you don't need an argument for that particular claim in order to easily refute it given its logical form. Are you going to wait for him to offer one before you decide to advance the discussion when you could've easily advanced it in the first place? What's the motivation here?

Quote
Like I wrote earlier I might as well argue someone has a hooknose and claim they have a hooknose until they prove otherwise.

So what? If you didn't have a hooknose and somebody claimed that  you did you could easily refute the claim by showing a picture of yourself. What would be the point of not presenting that refutation in the first place? And this describes precisely the logical structure of what's going on between you and that guy. Yet you're refusing to refute the claim and instead waiting for this guy to present evidence. The issue he raised cuts right to the heart of this view you're presenting. Yet you appear not to have anything ready at hand to say about it. I would expect somebody who wanted to adopt such a view to first check out the environmental track record of communist regimes before they adopted that view. What's the point of not saying anything about that? You could've dispensed with his claim if you had some information about this matter, and if you don't have such information, then you're not justified in holding this particular view of yours, much less in putting it forth so aggressively.

Quote
So why don't you come up with some links or arguments to back up your claims? Why don't you prove that you did look into things? Maybe you're too "proud" for that? Hah!

Because I have  no stake in this particular argument. I was merely making a meta-observation about it.

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 30, 2010, 09:06:23 AM
I lean to the right on many issues, and have a great deal of respect for libertarian ideals, but I could also be identified as an 'ecofascist'. This causes me some difficulty, as there is a preponderance of leftists in the environmentalist community, and many libertarians either disregard or oppose any efforts at conservation. How do those who post on this forum reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions?

Keyword: conservative

Quote from: HRH Charles Windsor, The Prince of Wales
In these uprooted times, there is a great need for constancy; a need for those who can rise above the clamour, the din and the sheer pace of our lives to help us to rediscover those truths that are immutable and eternal; a need for those who can speak of that eternal wisdom which is called the perennial philosophy.

Keyword: environmentalist

Quote
None of us, I imagine, can fail to be conscious of, and be concerned about, those matters that might together be called “the environmental crisis of the twenty-first century”. Indeed, none other than Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, in his book Our Final Century, has said that:

"…in the twenty-first century, humanity is more at risk than ever before from the misapplication of science. And the environmental pressures induced by collective human actions could trigger catastrophes more threatening than any natural hazards."

http://www.sacredweb.com/conference06/conference_introduction.html

Let me also point my fellow philosophers to another short paper, this time by F. Schuon, titled "No Activity Without Truth." To quote from it: 

Quote from: Frithjof Schuon
In our time one has often heard it said that in order to fight against materialism—or materialist pseudo-idealism—a new ideology is needed, one capable of standing up to all seductions and assaults. Now the need for an ideology, or the wish to oppose one ideology to another, is already an admission of weakness, and anything undertaken on this basis is false and doomed to defeat. What must be done is to oppose truth purely and simply to the false ideologies, that same truth that has always been and which we could never invent for the reason that it exists outside us and above us. The present-day world is obsessed with "dynamism", as if this constituted a "categorical imperative" and a universal remedy, and as if dynamism had any meaning or positive efficacy outside truth.

No man in his senses can have the intention of merely substituting one error for another, whether "dynamic" or otherwise; before speaking of force and effectiveness one must therefore speak of truth and nothing else. A truth is powerful in such measure as we assimilate it; if the truth does not confer on us the strength of which we stand in need, this only goes to prove that we have not really grasped it; it is not for truth to be dynamic, but for ourselves to be dynamic in function of a true conviction. That which is lacking in the present world is a profound knowledge of the nature of things; the fundamental truths are always there, but they do not impose themselves in actual practice because they cannot impose themselves on those who are unwilling to accept them.

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 30, 2010, 09:29:18 AM
The principle I'd want to adhere to would be something like 'No action ought to be coercively prohibited unless it is an initiation of force against somebody.' I've realized over time that fleshing out that principle is fraught with some serious difficulties, though.

That is like saying, "as long as you don't bother others, you can be as vile as you wish", is it not? Sounds like a cheap excuse to me--and in reality it is not so simple, because everything we are and do has an impact on others and our surroundings. Of course not everyone needs to be told what to do, but if you ignore those who need to, destruction ensues. If there is really a soul-state analogy, we need castes, and a do-as-thou-wilt-standpoint such as above will certainly sabotage the state.
Why is that "principle" so important to you, if I may ask?

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 30, 2010, 11:33:43 AM
That is like saying, "as long as you don't bother others, you can be as vile as you wish", is it not?

Sure, it certainly allows people to engage in things that you find distasteful as long as it doesn't interfere in the relevant way with other people's activities.

Quote
Sounds like a cheap excuse to me

Really? Why? I could certainly turn around and say something like "Fascism is a cheap excuse to push people around." But I wouldn't want to argue against views I disagree with in that way.  

Quote
and in reality it is not so simple, because everything we are and do has an impact on others and our surroundings.

Sure, but there's a question of whether certain ways of impacting others leaves them at liberty in the relevant sense and their moral responsibility intact, and I think plenty of the ways in which people are impacted satisfy that condition.

Quote
Of course not everyone needs to be told what to do, but if you ignore those who need to, destruction ensues.

Well, I don't think destruction ensues as a result of only telling people what to do in the minimal sense in which I think they should be told what to do. But of course, I would have to know what you mean by this talk of destruction.

Quote
If there is really a soul-state analogy, we need castes, and a do-as-thou-wilt-standpoint such as above will certainly sabotage the state.

I don't see why that should be the case. I don't see the undoing of states as the result of an abundance of laissez-faire, but rather as the result of overreach and irresponsible policy, or invasion from some external force (see Iraq war, Bush), or internal revolution.

Quote
Why is that "principle" so important to you, if I may ask?

Because I think that human beings have certain fundamental rights (yeah, not a very kosher view in this corner of the internet) which entail a prohibition on the initiation of force, which is generated from a sort of Kantian view of respect for persons foundationally. In certain moods, I find contractarian explanations of this attractive. On a purely emotional level, I am offended by the idea of legally enforcing somebody's specific conception of the social good, but of course that has no justificatory force (unless, of course, you think my moral intuitions have evidential force).

By the way, why did  you put "principle" in quotes? Do you think it's a fake principle? Is it perhaps an ice cream cone masquerading as a principle?

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 30, 2010, 04:33:01 PM
Confucianism: act according to your nature, respect the hierarchy to which you were born, work within the system, "have no twisty thoughts", equity over equality ("the treasure of states").

I never took the works of Confucius as elucidating a concrete political system, more a loose template for natural human harmony (which is possible and doesn't exclude the reality of conflict).

Confucianism is certainly inductive to communal wellbeing, if it's adopted by all individuals within the community.  I think Tokugawa Japan is a pretty good example of this - 250 odd years of relative peace and social stability, which was only rumbled by exterior (Western) influence (meddling).  Meiji Restoration can suck my cock.

Haha, good point.  That's the one downfall of Confucianism, that it must be "adopted by all individuals".  This requires a very diligent and well-educated populace, and a certain degree of selflessness and deference, which I rarely see in my current setting among the general population.

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 30, 2010, 07:59:13 PM
It seems to me from reading the various things posted up on this site and the users' comments on this board that most people here adhere to some sort of fascism or traditionalist conservatism. At the very least, there is a lot of collectivism and authoritarianism going around these parts.

Horse shit yet again. The world doesn't divide into handy Randian categories; all societies are collectivist and, unless they use a non-state solution like a monarchy, are statist. "Fascism" is completely misunderstood. Your average person here is a paleoconservative realist (that's what nihilists become) who realizes that without fascism, society decays.

And for the proof, open a window. Kick yourself awake. This is a moribund society with more problems than hope of solutions. What is falling, push. And when you rebuild, don't let your fear of what others might judge/"think" censor your need for things to be done right.

Regarding academia: it's thoroughly corrupt on an intellectual level. Get your knowledge from older sources or real-world experience (after you finish your degree). Until then, you're living in Ivory Tower land and they're shitting in your head.

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 31, 2010, 05:24:57 AM
I think the problem with modern politics is the insistence on viewing the world in purely economic terms without regard for the 'human' aspects like culture or aesthetics. I think the fact that the West (excuse my eurocentrism here, but, well, I do supprt ethnocentrism for all peoples) is in decline is almost entirely due to this, the greatest shaper and foundation of any civilization is art and culture. The only monuments the West has produced in the last 150 years are billboards devoted to Coca Cola products. We live in a cultural wasteland; modern art rejected the notion of 'art for art's sake' and insisted that all art must be 'functional' or 'utilitarian' - this turns artists into uncreative craftsmen who can only produce Apple products. I think artists and writers are more important than politicos because art inspires people and civilizations to greatness far more so than political rhetoric.

With that said I am sympathetic to both Nationalist and Greenist politics. Though I wonder whether 'nationalist' is the correct term; to me, the nation and the people that are part of the nation are one and the same. The nation's borders are dynamic in accordance with historical narrative and the march of the people. Heritage (ethnicity), culture, language and common mythos make up the nation and the people; according to this definition, not every nation has a state - and some countries are artificial constructs. I think Belgium should be split up as Flanders and Wallonia, for instance, and that the Basque Country, Catalonia, and other 'nations' should have political independence and autonomy. I also support Regionalism, that regional identity is as important as national identity, so that regions like, for example, Wessex and Mercia, deserve a certain degree of autonomy if not full independence. Considering that the term 'nationalism' is too much linked with the modern conceptions of 'nation-states', I prefer the term Tribalism.

Of course, since I support Nationalism for all nations, I support Israel and Zionism - this apparently upsets some Nationalists, but I just think they are being hypocritical. I won't go into more detail, but this website explains the manner in which I support Zionism and reject the false 'State of Palestine'.

Nationalism is often linked with imperialism, but I totally object to imperialism in all forms. To me, imperialism and multiculturalism are but two sides of the same coin. I support total self-reliance and independence of all nations, I don't want to create any kind of 'empire', today European nations are experiencing mass immigration from former colonial countries so I consider imperialism as disastrous and harmful (for all concerned) as multiculturalism. Imperialism creates an dependence on foreign influences, it is also a form of egalitarianism - if we are to judge a foreign people by our own standards, they will always fail, but the African definition of civilization is different to the European definition. Why compare them? I don't see the need to compare different races or rule over them like imperialism does, just give each their own space.

For these reasons I am against 'White Nationalism', pan-Europeanism and Eurasianism. Firstly, White Nationalism (WN) considers all whites to be the same. It is completely ignorant to the vast cultural, historical and political differences between European Nations. WN would consider a Pole to be the same as German as a Frenchman; but they are culturally unique, and there is even different racial types within Europe - I believe these different cultural and racial traits and different languages must also be preserved. I object to Polish immigrants in Britain as much as Africans or Asians - And I say that as an Englishman with both Polish and Jewish heritage.

The same with pan-Europeanism, I do not want a single European State, or European Empire: not to mention that Europe is far too large to be ruled as a single entity, but it is just another form of multiculturalism and internationalism. I want no part of it. I also do not consider Russia to be a European country, it is not and has never been part of the Occident. It has a history of imperialism and anti-Western sentiment. As far as I am concerned, it is an Asiatic country with a mixed race population of Slavs, Nordics, Tatars and Mongols. I would split it up into Chechnya, Tatarstan etc.

Pragmatically, I think Eugenics is essential to eleminate elements that are detrimental to the whole health and well being of the nation; sterilize drug addicts and those with hereditary diseases, abort deformed foetesus, execute dangerous and habitual criminals. No welfare, or free healthcare to those that cannot help themselves or stand on their own. People who do not cause serious harm to wider society should be left alone, but if the community deems their behavior parasitic - exile them.

I mentioned Greenism, to me, Nationalism and Greenism are inter-dependent - 'blood and soil' and 'ecofascism' are concepts I am firmly in agreement with. Honestly, green anarchists are the politicos I respect most. Another problem with modernity is the divorce of man from nature. Mankind must be seen as part of a much larger system, part of the totality of life itself. Man is not 'seperate' from nature, and definitely not more important. The most fundamental task for Man is to reconnect with nature. Everything else is secondary.

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 31, 2010, 08:45:03 AM
my butthole reeks when i take a shit

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 31, 2010, 09:57:09 AM
Horse shit yet again. The world doesn't divide into handy Randian categories

Okay, your response is all over the place and I don't see how it really addresses what you've quoted in any way that I need to care about. First of all, what is a Randian category? Second of all, in what way have I attempted to divide the world into these "handy Randian categories"?

Quote
all societies are collectivist

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by this. I don't really see how this undermines anything I said.

Quote
and, unless they use a non-state solution like a monarchy, are statist.

Monarchy is a non-state solution? I would like to know why you contrast monarchy and statism. It is statist in pretty much every way that I care about. At any rate, what is the relevance of your point here?

Quote
"Fascism" is completely misunderstood.

So perhaps you can point out in what ways I have misunderstood "fascism," if that's what you mean to imply.

Quote
Your average person here is a paleoconservative realist (that's what nihilists become) who realizes that without fascism, society decays.

How is any of this inconsistent with the part of my post that you quoted?

Quote
This is a moribund society with more problems than hope of solutions. What is falling, push. And when you rebuild, don't let your fear of what others might judge/"think" censor your need for things to be done right.

Thanks for the advice. I don't know why you think I need it, but thanks.

Quote
Regarding academia: it's thoroughly corrupt on an intellectual level. Get your knowledge from older sources or real-world experience (after you finish your degree). Until then, you're living in Ivory Tower land and they're shitting in your head.

Academia has its uses, and those are the things that I value about it. The suggestion that academia is shitting in my head as though I am somehow under its spell and need this pointed out is both presumptuous and insulting. Anyway, I don't know why you're telling me to do these things as though they're somehow incompatible with being in academia.

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 31, 2010, 10:34:51 AM
National states are bullshit if not organized into a bigger threat, or to put it more clearly, an Empire. If that doesn't happen, another Empire will seize them as it has always been. Empires rise and fall while national states exist only for a flicker of an eye and they never had a true sovereignty.

Salute to the Iron Emperors!

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 31, 2010, 02:54:37 PM
@Umbrage: Look up "The Great Leap Forward".
I lean to the right on many issues, and have a great deal of respect for libertarian ideals, but I could also be identified as an 'ecofascist'. This causes me some difficulty, as there is a preponderance of leftists in the environmentalist community, and many libertarians either disregard or oppose any efforts at conservation. How do those who post on this forum reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions?

Keyword: conservative

Quote from: HRH Charles Windsor, The Prince of Wales
In these uprooted times, there is a great need for constancy; a need for those who can rise above the clamour, the din and the sheer pace of our lives to help us to rediscover those truths that are immutable and eternal; a need for those who can speak of that eternal wisdom which is called the perennial philosophy.
Nous

Keyword: environmentalist

Quote
None of us, I imagine, can fail to be conscious of, and be concerned about, those matters that might together be called “the environmental crisis of the twenty-first century”. Indeed, none other than Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, in his book Our Final Century, has said that:

"…in the twenty-first century, humanity is more at risk than ever before from the misapplication of science. And the environmental pressures induced by collective human actions could trigger catastrophes more threatening than any natural hazards."

http://www.sacredweb.com/conference06/conference_introduction.html

Let me also point my fellow philosophers to another short paper, this time by F. Schuon, titled "No Activity Without Truth." To quote from it:  

Quote from: Frithjof Schuon
In our time one has often heard it said that in order to fight against materialism—or materialist pseudo-idealism—a new ideology is needed, one capable of standing up to all seductions and assaults. Now the need for an ideology, or the wish to oppose one ideology to another, is already an admission of weakness, and anything undertaken on this basis is false and doomed to defeat. What must be done is to oppose truth purely and simply to the false ideologies, that same truth that has always been and which we could never invent for the reason that it exists outside us and above us. The present-day world is obsessed with "dynamism", as if this constituted a "categorical imperative" and a universal remedy, and as if dynamism had any meaning or positive efficacy outside truth.

No man in his senses can have the intention of merely substituting one error for another, whether "dynamic" or otherwise; before speaking of force and effectiveness one must therefore speak of truth and nothing else. A truth is powerful in such measure as we assimilate it; if the truth does not confer on us the strength of which we stand in need, this only goes to prove that we have not really grasped it; it is not for truth to be dynamic, but for ourselves to be dynamic in function of a true conviction. That which is lacking in the present world is a profound knowledge of the nature of things; the fundamental truths are always there, but they do not impose themselves in actual practice because they cannot impose themselves on those who are unwilling to accept them.
I'm fully aware of the connotations that the term "conservative" has in the context of the discussions that occur on this board, but in my dealings with 'normals', identifying oneself as an adherent to conservative policies typically means something entirely different. I live in the Bible belt, and many who deem themselves conservatives are repulsed by those who don't hold an anthropocentric outlook. I'm trying to find a way to more easily recognize and collaborate with those whose goals are similar to mine, and calling myself a conservative usually complicates things in many cases(not always, though).
Unsure at this point, but I'd prefer a Pan-Nationalist system that doesn't predicate itself on an attempt to hammer out some iron clad aspect of human nature as most systems we've created so far tend to do.
Same here. The greatest impediment to the realization of such a state is that every country must agree to it, though. A consensus on that level will be hard to achieve.....

Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
December 31, 2010, 11:54:25 PM
It seems to me from reading the various things posted up on this site and the users' comments on this board that most people here adhere to some sort of fascism or traditionalist conservatism. At the very least, there is a lot of collectivism and authoritarianism going around these parts. I have serious misgivings with such views, but whatever. A couple of people have expressed some libertarian sympathies in the past, and I know that there is at least one out-and-out anarcho-libertarian on this board (mandrake).

Personally, I am what might be described as "right-wing" libertarian. Core commitments: Anti-authoritarianism, anti-collectivism (I do not think collectives have any moral standing at all, nor do I think such abstract things as traditions and nations have moral standing), and robust private property rights. I arrived at this view from a deontological moral perspective, but when people want me to defend it on consequentialist grounds, I can certainly play that game.

Perhaps some of you don't have a name for whatever political/social views you hold, and perhaps you don't find naming them of much use, but if you can broadly characterize your views of these matters, please share. I am very interested to hear about these things.
I'm fairly sympathetic to certain Libertarian concepts.  There are just too many instances where government interference simply leads to worse unintended consequences (e.g. the War on Drugs).  I'm also rather drawn to the notion that the onus lies on those wishing to use force / coercion and that non-intervention should be the assumed position.  However, I don't agree with the rational that force is only justified in instances where there is a direct conflict of "rights" (I put it in quotes because I reject the concept of human rights).  I support eugenics, euthanasia, abortion, the death penalty for all serious criminals, etc.