Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Deleted post.

Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 03:57:10 AM
Dylar, your words describe a worldview, and that worldview describes a state, and that state is something of a phenomenon. Not a very good one, but certainly an interesting one.

It seems impossible to describe to the young, a civilized state in which personal freedom is not the be-all-and-end-all. I say personal freedom, because it differs substantially from actual freedom.

When one is competently led, by a competent leader, many arduous stresses are removed from daily life.
One no longer has to have opinions about absolutely everything, or need to decide what to go along with, or not.
One's path is clear, meaning one may go along that path, or elope to be personally responsible for one's survival, rather than have the state be responsible, in return for services-rendered.

There is a great deal of freedom inherent in the old style of strong leadership over a nation. And a great deal of dignity, which is something most moderns don't even know the meaning of, since it is entirely missing at this point.

Personally, I have always opted out of civilization, because it really never suited me, or me it. But I never saw it as flawed, or lacking, or in any way undeserving of continuation, until recently.
It's one sick puppy nowadays.

Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 04:48:38 AM
Sometimes, the doing must be, to some degree, compelled. 

And he reverses his position. How modern.

I never suggested that compulsion has no place in society; I'm just saying compulsion can't be the primary basis of a healthy social order.  It's necessary if you're running a prison, but at best suboptimal if you want to run a civilization. 

I'm not saying this out of some squishy love for mythical rights.  You hate passive-aggression, but compulsion breeds passive aggression.  It nurtures and in many ways rewards passive-aggression.  The more you compel, the more that resistance takes this particularly odious form.  Fine, if you're cool with just piling on proles 'til the job gets done, but I don't think that's what you have in mind.


Quote
And the anecdotal story where the real problem was that someone lied and was passive-aggressive instead of being honest. It has zero relevance to what we're discussing.

A lot of of the basic stuff of "civilization" is penny ante crap, and a lot of making it all work is resolving the penny ante crap without leaving petty, festering resentments shot through the whole warp and weft of society.  The problem with penny ante crap is that it is A.) resolving penny ante crap is mostly a waste of a leader's time and B.) a lot of penny ante crap is remarkably resistant to the application of leadership. 

In any event, part of what brought the incident to mind in the first place was this:

Quote
I prefer organic leadership, which consists of putting the best people in charge and having a cultural shared values system to do the rest

...which I have taken to be central to this project (these projects?).  Building and preserving that "shared values system," I mean.  I know you've tended this garden for a long time, and I'm grateful to be able to visit your back yard, though I doubt it seems that way.

As always, I think we differ far more in degree than in kind, and, as always, you find me lukewarm.  So be it.

Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 05:31:59 AM
It seems impossible to describe to the young, a civilized state in which personal freedom is not the be-all-and-end-all. I say personal freedom, because it differs substantially from actual freedom.

Freedom as such doesn't seem to matter one away or another; but civilizations work best when the people in them are cheerfully engaged participants the life of their civilization, and cheerfully engaged can't really be beaten in.  I don't believe it can be bought with permissiveness, either. 

Quote
When one is competently led, by a competent leader, many arduous stresses are removed from daily life.
One no longer has to have opinions about absolutely everything, or need to decide what to go along with, or not.
One's path is clear, meaning one may go along that path, or elope to be personally responsible for one's survival, rather than have the state be responsible, in return for services-rendered.

There is a great deal of freedom inherent in the old style of strong leadership over a nation. And a great deal of dignity, which is something most moderns don't even know the meaning of, since it is entirely missing at this point.

There is something puzzling about a society where a young woman is more "empowered" by being in porn  than by attending one of the finest universities in the country.  Liberalism creates this bizarre counter-universe where everything is permitted, so long as you think the things you're allowed to think.  On the one hand, near total "freedom" in a purely mechanistic sense, on the other, a society that is profoundly totalitarian at a social/psychological/spiritual level.  But you're free, and crazy to think otherwise.

Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 05:51:11 AM
Freedom is a state of not wondering-if-you're/demanding-to-be free.


Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 05:56:36 AM
Freedom is a state of not wondering-if-you're/demanding-to-be free.

What is it if you're in a state of not-caring-if-you're free? 

Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 06:02:59 AM
Why, that's freedom!

Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 10:22:27 AM
Thus it's easy to miss a happy coexistence between aristocracy and democracy and view the two as being opposed, despite the wealth of historical examples demonstrating otherwise.

Democracy leads to a society built on institutions which cater to the masses desires. When the masses are given free reign, they always gravitate towards endless pleasure with no deep meaning, and so we get a society full of fast food restaurants, entertaining gadgets like Iphones and television, slabs of concrete, and the lives of popular culture. The minority of people, the intelligent, who seek variation, and rich wonders of the mind and earth, are overtaken by the outburst of the average, left without a voice, culture dies. Capitalism thrives so well on democracy because its goal is to sell as much as possible, and what sells well is what appeals to base desires.


There is something puzzling about a society where a young woman is more "empowered" by being in porn  than by attending one of the finest universities in the country.  Liberalism creates this bizarre counter-universe where everything is permitted, so long as you think the things you're allowed to think.  On the one hand, near total "freedom" in a purely mechanistic sense, on the other, a society that is profoundly totalitarian at a social/psychological/spiritual level.  But you're free, and crazy to think otherwise.
.

Anyone intelligent would rather choose shooting scenes where you fuck for money, than attending an institution which gives you institutional 'truths'. The only thing worse than university today would be STD's, but on a clean set, the air compared to university is like breathing in the Himalayans.

Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 12:08:08 PM
Democracy leads to a society built on institutions which cater to the masses desires. When the masses are given free reign, they always gravitate towards endless pleasure with no deep meaning, and so we get a society full of fast food restaurants...

This is true, but there are also false elites. Take a long hard look at what's coming out of Silicon Valley today. Some guy invents ButtSwapr, an application for finding sodomy in public restrooms, and gets offered $100m in funding. There's broken brains there because these people while putatively "smart" are incapable of any depth of thinking. It makes it doubly dangerous when they start launching, a la Bill Gates, on Soviet style social engineering experiments.

Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 01:38:59 PM
Democracy leads to a society built on institutions which cater to the masses desires. When the masses are given free reign, they always gravitate towards endless pleasure with no deep meaning, and so we get a society full of fast food restaurants...

This is true, but there are also false elites. Take a long hard look at what's coming out of Silicon Valley today. Some guy invents ButtSwapr, an application for finding sodomy in public restrooms, and gets offered $100m in funding. There's broken brains there because these people while putatively "smart" are incapable of any depth of thinking. It makes it doubly dangerous when they start launching, a la Bill Gates, on Soviet style social engineering experiments.

Well, once you've delegitimized every natural frame of reference for judging the worth of hairless apes, how do you determine what constitutes the elite?  Why, you check and see how much cash they can stack. 

What fascinates me is the ambiguous cultural space so many of these tech and finance tycoons are made to occupy.  We have to somehow freight all the cash stacking with drama and meaning, so these guys are always either saviors or demons, moneyed Messiahs or Bond supervillains.  It speaks, I suspect, to a society of dependency and excuse making.


Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 02:11:51 PM
Those who claim to be against both the far left and far right are suspicious - what are they for? The middling left-global-capitalist consensus? Better to be even a communist!

Respectfully, I disagree.

There is nothing at all dubious about opposing lies, and so if lies are found in both the left and right ideologies, then a truthful mind just so happens to oppose both.

Politics is not about picking a team, but about picking a goal, and that goal had better not be based on lies.

In fact, Prozak did exactly this, back when he had balls of steel, err, I mean, more creative and productive thinking than the dead-end New Right crowdism of late:

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/politics/

COME ON YOU FUCKING HESSIANS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAAkerF32QQ

ANUS 10 years ago: serious effort at solving problems by redirecting society toward traditional ("Platonic") commonweal

ANUS now: smug posing and useless opining with Social Darwinist sentiments like "kill the poor" (a far cry from and in a sense the opposite of the genuine Eugenics homo sapiens really needs), then crying "hoomanist!!1" or "lybirall!!1" if someone points the stupidity out

Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 02:39:35 PM
Thus it's easy to miss a happy coexistence between aristocracy and democracy and view the two as being opposed, despite the wealth of historical examples demonstrating otherwise.

Democracy leads to a society built on institutions which cater to the masses desires. When the masses are given free reign, they always gravitate towards endless pleasure with no deep meaning, and so we get a society full of fast food restaurants, entertaining gadgets like Iphones and television, slabs of concrete, and the lives of popular culture. The minority of people, the intelligent, who seek variation, and rich wonders of the mind and earth, are overtaken by the outburst of the average, left without a voice, culture dies. Capitalism thrives so well on democracy because its goal is to sell as much as possible, and what sells well is what appeals to base desires.


There is something puzzling about a society where a young woman is more "empowered" by being in porn  than by attending one of the finest universities in the country.  Liberalism creates this bizarre counter-universe where everything is permitted, so long as you think the things you're allowed to think.  On the one hand, near total "freedom" in a purely mechanistic sense, on the other, a society that is profoundly totalitarian at a social/psychological/spiritual level.  But you're free, and crazy to think otherwise.
.

Anyone intelligent would rather choose shooting scenes where you fuck for money, than attending an institution which gives you institutional 'truths'. The only thing worse than university today would be STD's, but on a clean set, the air compared to university is like breathing in the Himalayans.

Is it democracy that does this or the vast wealth brought in to a civilization by an Empire? Further, it's important to recognize we are in the rationalist period at this juncture in arc of literate civilization. Check the core presuppositions in the cultural narratives of our time and get back to me if you still think a method of governing is responsible.


Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 02:46:36 PM
On leadership:

Quote
Gallup has found that one of the most important decisions companies make is simply whom they name manager. Yet our analysis suggests that they usually get it wrong. In fact, Gallup finds that companies fail to choose the candidate with the right talent for the job 82% of the time.

Bad managers cost businesses billions of dollars each year, and having too many of them can bring down a company. The only defense against this massive problem is a good offense, because when companies get these decisions wrong, nothing fixes it. Businesses that get it right, however, and hire managers based on talent will thrive and gain a significant competitive advantage.

http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/03/why-good-managers-are-so-rare/

Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 02:51:42 PM
Society works when everyone tends his own garden and straightens his own back yard, and it fails when it fills up with people ready to root around in other folks' yards.

Experience suggests otherwise -- you either have strong leadership, or your civilization falls apart. You either have cultural values, or you have anarchy. You seem to prefer the shopping mall model which, not surprisingly, is what you have.

History suggests a cycle: Monarchy->Aristocracy->Democracy-->back again to Monarchy.

If you take it in the literal sense you're talking about systematic change. In America's history we've had:

Washington-Whigs-Jackson movement

Lincoln - Republican - Progressive movement

FDR- New Deal Dems. - Boomer counter culture movement.

 Notice that America has seen not one drop of anarchy, bloody revolution or systematic change while going through this cycle? You want to see the value of the American democracy? It's right there in the stability during the ebb and flow of human behavior. It has glaring flaws, but that's to be expected from a functional and organic system.

---

I think you are correct in the suggestion that we need a strong leader to sidestep the political stalemates that prevent the country from adapting to reality, but I don't see any reason to trash the system along with it. So far, in American history, we've gotten that strong leader. I say, let it run it's course.

Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 03:44:34 PM
The ANUS.com article was one of the most sane things that I've read in a while. Thanks for sharing.

It trumps the discussion taking place here.

Re: Deleted post.
March 14, 2014, 07:24:31 PM
It's right there in the stability during the ebb and flow of human behavior.

Imagine you were a heroin addict. Assuming that heroin addiction is bad, would stability be a good thing for an addict to have?

No -- they'd be stable in their addiction. So it is with democracy, the death of a thousand cuts.

The ANUS article still applies. Conservatism is a principle that transcends our mainstream politics. No matter how you argue it, leftism is crazy-retarded. Absolutely zero (0) "third way" movements have avoided this.

The only sensible option is a non-State, e.g. a monarchy plus strong ethnic-cultural identity.