Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

To Civilize or not to Civilize...

To Civilize or not to Civilize...
May 21, 2013, 09:19:28 PM
Is civilization a good thing?
Or is barbarism better?
If safety, stability and comfort are the goal, then civilization is the way to go.
Or is it?
If nature, vitality, and sudden extinction are the goal, barbarism is the way to go.
Or is it?

Barbarians need little looking-after, while civilized peoples do.
Barbarians periodically decimate each other, while civilized peoples produce ever more long-term examples of themselves.

Weeds are virtually indestructible, and actually perform an important function, outside of human preferences.
Whereas flowers and lawns are fragile things, requiring constant oversight.

Viruses are probably useless, as far as anyone knows.
Anything that exterminates its own support-system, and consequently itself, isn't much use.
Or is it?

Squawk!

Re: To Civilize or not to Civilize...
May 21, 2013, 10:10:16 PM
Some people try too hard to be civilized, and so become nothing but barbarians. These people I like, because they still have something natural in them. Sure, they can be tiring in the long run - but there is still some shred of innocence living within them, that I can connect with. They are like remnants of the wild lost in an alien world.

Whereas other people try so hard to be like barbarians, that it becomes obvious to all but the blind, that they are nothing but products of a dying civilization. They are all 'image'. They have nothing natural about them, though they violently insist that they are just that - natural. These people I can't stand. In fact, nobody can stand them.

And then there are those who don't see the point in trying to be something, that they are not.

Re: To Civilize or not to Civilize...
May 22, 2013, 01:26:07 AM
What we need instead is to decide for whom civilizing works best and to what extent. Not every lifelong sixth grader can begin to manage graduate school. By the same token, your graduate candidates will never be at their best stuck in a primary school setting.

We can probably scale up the behaviour and performance of our academic components for a tidy parallel comparison to their own societies. While England backslides in literacy, its society at large is a mirror image of decline as well. Ditto for Uhmerica.

The root of the problem is the quality of people which depends upon proportional demographic composition at the time.

If we end up with permanent sixth graders for a population and put them at the graduate studies task, failure will ultimately result. If we have them run Yemen instead of Australia, then things wouldn't much change for Yemen, but they would take a turn for the worse if they were given charge of Australia.

The frustration with the challenges people who are not up to the task are expected to face is the only explanation for all of their mass rioting, their flash mobs, the Occupy demonstrations, their suburban car burnings, and their militant acts of terror. Equality caused all of this unhappiness and destruction.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: To Civilize or not to Civilize...
May 22, 2013, 08:07:40 AM
The strange thing about equality is, that the more havoc it reeks, the more people want it. All the disastrous results of equality are systematically understood as problems of inequality, and so the people demand more equality. It's a cancer for the cure.

I guess we need a total breakdown of the current mainstream social 'reality' (egalité, fraternité, solidarité) before we can move on to something more healthy. Sooner or later, all egalitarian systems are bound to fail, as they are in fundamental discord with reality. In the end, civilization will be left in the hands of those, who actually know how to civilize, not those who are best able to convince the masses, but have no understanding of reality.

Indeed we seem to be in the middle of a gigantic process of change.

I wonder how much destruction of the beautiful, ordered and intelligent we have to see before some robust, properly civilized behavior (on more than an individual or a small group scale) starts to show. Until then, I guess there's nothing to do but endure and prepare - even though it is impossible to know exactly what to prepare for.

Still, it's painful to see all the stupidity and destruction.

Re: To Civilize or not to Civilize...
May 22, 2013, 04:00:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX0oa46_8Nk

The idea that we don't know what to prepare for is a troubling one indeed, 03-04.

We as a society need to step back and re-assess our priorities. Perhaps a catastrophe is what it may take...hopefully not....
No.

Having reviewed the thread, baby Jesus is most definitely weeping at this point.

Re: To Civilize or not to Civilize...
May 22, 2013, 07:07:07 PM
Never heard Hellbastard before. That was cool. Thanks, Humanicide.

NHA

Re: To Civilize or not to Civilize...
May 23, 2013, 08:19:18 PM
Viruses are probably useless, as far as anyone knows.
Anything that exterminates its own support-system, and consequently itself, isn't much use.
Or is it?

That pretty much describes any organism that gets too powerful to be contested by anything else.

Whats the difference between hijacking the cells of another orgasm versus chewing something and converting it to energy. Viruses just have merged eating and fucking into a singular exciting hobby.

Re: To Civilize or not to Civilize...
May 24, 2013, 12:55:48 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX0oa46_8Nk

The idea that we don't know what to prepare for is a troubling one indeed, 03-04.

We as a society need to step back and re-assess our priorities. Perhaps a catastrophe is what it may take...hopefully not....

There is nothing to do, but to keep a level head. Then, we'll hopefully be able to act in the right way, when it is time for action. Until then, we wait and sharpen our awareness.

If all hell really breaks loose at some point - and yes: Hopefully this won't happen, but if it does - I imagine total, instinctive awareness of the underlying causes to be the best means of survival. The great mass of humanity will probably end up concerning themselves with 'who's to blame?', and so be very susceptible to bad leadership, lynch mobs, riots and other acts of panic. This is what we don't want to get caught up in. Meeting chaos with delusion spells certain doom.

With an understanding of reality, we'll be able to identify the sane ones amidst the chaos. We'll know who to group with, and work with. We'll recognize good leadership. Sharp awareness of reality could become crucial.

I speculate... But what else to do, when nobody really knows?

Re: To Civilize or not to Civilize...
May 24, 2013, 01:31:41 AM
Some people try too hard to be civilized, and so become nothing but barbarians. These people I like, because they still have something natural in them. Sure, they can be tiring in the long run - but there is still some shred of innocence living within them, that I can connect with. They are like remnants of the wild lost in an alien world.

Whereas other people try so hard to be like barbarians, that it becomes obvious to all but the blind, that they are nothing but products of a dying civilization. They are all 'image'. They have nothing natural about them, though they violently insist that they are just that - natural. These people I can't stand. In fact, nobody can stand them.

And then there are those who don't see the point in trying to be something, that they are not.

Can you give exemples of those types of people? I'm maybe stupid but I don't know what are you referring to.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” -Krishnamurti

''I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior.''  -Hippolyte Taine

Re: To Civilize or not to Civilize...
May 24, 2013, 10:14:33 AM
It's never stupid to ask questions. Especially not when I speak in such broad and unspecific terms.

The two 'types' are generalizations of private experiences. Often (maybe even more often than not) they can co-exist side by side within the same person. Have you ever met such 'split' personalities, where you feel sympathy for one side of their character, while at the same time greatly disliking another?

I've often found that I can relate to a lot of people on a one to one-basis. At first they put up a 'civilized' front, and talk about social theory, modern literature or entertainment-products of various sorts (yes, I am a university-student), but if I meet them with the right attitude - no hostility, and no condescension, even though I find their talking-points to be vapid trash - if I ask the right questions, and if I truly listen to what they're saying, and react to this,, then some non-superficial humanity gradually starts to show.

They reveal themselves to be 'gentle barbarians/primitives' lost in a hyper-complicated world, that they truly don't understand. The civilized front is just a means of covering up this underlying, and for many people shameful reality, but once they realize that I do not judge them, they start to relax and open up.

Good talking-points with such people are: Relationships/love, childhood memories, hopes/fears for the future etc.

The 'barbarian of civilization' is, on the other hand, always to be found in social settings. They are the 'bros' of humanity, always reveling in hedonistic excess. On a one to one-basis I find such people downright impossible to communicate with. They are the fiercely materialistic types, only able to think and speak of pussy, drink/drugs, and - themselves. They don't have any soul. There is nothing to relate to.

These people will insist that they are just living life by their own law, that they are unbound by the bourgeois morality of society, that they are just doing what everybody wants to do deep down inside and other such nonsense. In actual fact, they are themselves the purest product of a degenerate society, unable to see that they are in chains, forever isolated from any real connection to the world, other people and reality as such.

As I said: There isn't necessarily any sharp divide between the two types. Often the first type can be seen 'escaping into' (that is: Turning into) the second once under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

It's a perplexing phenomenon, and I can't really find an explanation for it. Fear is probably the most likely cause. People are generally desperate to escape the vapid emptiness of modern society, but they have to put on a facade in fear of the judgments of others. They don't want to be seen as weak - and ironically, this is their greatest weakness.

Some people can be brought to realize this, and others can not.

Lengthy post. Hope it explains more than it confuses!

Re: To Civilize or not to Civilize...
May 31, 2013, 06:49:56 PM
It all comes down to what type of person are you trying to create. Have you ever wondered why black metal bands sing of/ hold reverence for things like cold winters,combat,struggle and isolation? Some people crave a environment conducive to barbarism, an environment which is rather wild and indifferent to humanistic concerns. Or civilization which can be very effective to an extent but when civilization becomes the end instead of a means it produces passive aggressive's, hedonistic boors, and feminist types. Power is based off how many idiots can you rally to your cause. Off course having people follow you is imperative to barbarism but unlike western society it isn't solely based of sycophancy. So..... It's all on the type of person you want.