Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Vigilance

1 ... 7 [8] 9 ... 26
106
Interzone / Re: Further ruminations
« on: March 17, 2014, 03:37:38 PM »
I doubt the method.

The internet is television now.

Television is zero commitment, as a signal, for most people.

So their MO is to enjoy the programming, then do nothing.

Only postage is real....

107
Interzone / Re: Crimea 2014
« on: March 17, 2014, 02:43:54 PM »
All these mechanisms ensure that nationality is a fleeting thing.

There are many pressures on everything on earth. If a thing does not resist, it is destroyed. That does not mean we should assume the destruction as a given.

As Shiva dances he creates as he creates so he destroys. I don't see where creation begins and destruction ends. Do you?

108
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 15, 2014, 04:55:21 AM »
We must resist entropy.

You propose that we resist a mechanism that is hardwired into the nature of reality?

109
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 14, 2014, 07:48:21 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.

I'd like you to consider what stable means in context of the rest of my post. As American history has shown, the heroin addiction has been cured before.  To be clear: I'm not arguing for liberalism, I'm arguing conservatism: preserving what works by making a case for the American Democracy.
 
Much respect to you brother but there are views that are veering into utopianism:

Spengler pointed out that all cultures are subject to diminishing returns. At some point everything that can be said, will be said and the people therein tend to seek out external sources. This is one human impulse which has to be ignored in order to have an isolated cultural idenity. Further, you have to ignore human migration, the impact of border expansion, the constitution of peoples after imperial states. Ethnic identities are in constant flux, though particular constitutions will arise and hold ground for some time. In short: entropy.

Monarchy isn't bad, though we only need what it entails at a specific juncture. Same with Aristocracy and same with Populism.

110
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: 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.

111
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: 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.


112
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 13, 2014, 05:51:48 PM »
I tend toward a strategy these days of tending to the little corner of the universe I occupy, and, you know, just mostly trying not to be a dick.

This is generally known as submission, acceptance, and concession.

It's just us writ large, a rather less inspiring notion.

Sounds like democracy, which is the individual projected onto the larger screen. Not every approach has that flaw.

Quote
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.

Part of the problem is a signaling problem. Democracy is shaped around the individual; aristocracy is shaped around the social order and serving its ideals.

I don't agree with this and will offer up the American South prior to the American Civil War as support for my claims.

113
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 12, 2014, 09:18:43 PM »
A bit like slavery then: seemed like a good idea at the time, but as times changed, that good idea became a bad one.

That's how it ended up, because fascism, like all Utopian movements, posit Reformations that in one way or another, leave out a few human quirks here and there. Thus, when they get into power, they enact tyranny and genocide because those little quirks stand in the way of the "New Order." Their conception of humanity is always counter propositional to the way humanity behaves.

Exactly. All human systems inevitably lead to exclusion of certain forms of humanity, because any system has to be closed to be a system. Fascism, democracy, aristocracy, communism, socialism, they all will fail because it is impossible for them to understand all. Anarchism seems like the solution, but wouldn't it eventually end in the eco-raping mass culture form of democracy today, since the exploiters would improve on patterns to train the masses to exploit themselves?

The statement is really only applicable to utopias. The American Democracy has been through the cycles outlined in Plato's Republic more than once now. If the system itself falls it will be due to two primary factors:

1) The failures of the cultural mythology of progress are misattributed as failures of democracy because

2) the common understanding of democracy is its definition, not the thing in practice over the course of history. Analogous to the claim that communism was never tested because no society met the rigid theory of Marx.

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.

Re: Anarchy

Anarchy is a mess. It's not worth elaborating further on that point since most anarchist social models tend towards Utopia.

114
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 12, 2014, 08:35:57 PM »
I have a hard time seeing how this:

"It's strange how much effort humans devote to showing themselves to the world to be something other than what they are, how much energy most of us devote to convincing the folks around us—and ourselves—that the image we project is the substance of being.  If other living things had time to worry about something other than being what they are, I suspect they'd hold us in quite a bit of contempt.  I know I do."

Is not humanity being humanity. That's the difference.

Perhaps, like the trout's inefficient, two-chambered heart, it is one of those 'fatal flaws' that the messy process of evolution often leaves intact.  Under favorable conditions, it is no real impediment, or perhaps even a virtue; under conditions of stress, it becomes essentially destructive.

That said, it seems suspiciously like a cultural practice than "human nature" as such, given the varying rates of prevalence in different populations.

I don't know. Our brand of social primate has adaptions that others like it do not posses, stacked utop older revisions. Adaptions are exactly what you describe: optimal under the conditions they arose to deal with and potentially fatal in other circumstances.

You can witness a sort of posturing in other mammals that by all reasonable accounts, is done with the intent to communicate an illusion of superiority.

I think this reading is more in the nature of anthropomorphization.  Animals don't "posture" to communicate an "illusion of superiority," they posture to indicate a willingness to resist violently if necessary.

If that's your interpretation, I doubt any more of my words can change it. ;)

115
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 12, 2014, 08:08:08 PM »
I have a hard time seeing how this:

"It's strange how much effort humans devote to showing themselves to the world to be something other than what they are, how much energy most of us devote to convincing the folks around us—and ourselves—that the image we project is the substance of being.  If other living things had time to worry about something other than being what they are, I suspect they'd hold us in quite a bit of contempt.  I know I do."

Is not humanity being humanity. That's the difference.

Perhaps, like the trout's inefficient, two-chambered heart, it is one of those 'fatal flaws' that the messy process of evolution often leaves intact.  Under favorable conditions, it is no real impediment, or perhaps even a virtue; under conditions of stress, it becomes essentially destructive.

That said, it seems suspiciously like a cultural practice than "human nature" as such, given the varying rates of prevalence in different populations.

I don't know. Our brand of social primate has adaptions that others like it do not posses, stacked utop older revisions. Adaptions are exactly what you describe: optimal under the conditions they arose to deal with and potentially fatal in other circumstances.

You can witness a sort of posturing in other mammals that by all reasonable accounts, is done with the intent to communicate an illusion of superiority.

There are non-cognitive adaptions we can see on other species which provide illusions of being something other than what they are to the onlooker.

I'd suggest that cultural variance is just as much a part of the human condition as anything else.

116
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 12, 2014, 07:51:59 PM »
I have a hard time seeing how this:

"It's strange how much effort humans devote to showing themselves to the world to be something other than what they are, how much energy most of us devote to convincing the folks around us—and ourselves—that the image we project is the substance of being.  If other living things had time to worry about something other than being what they are, I suspect they'd hold us in quite a bit of contempt.  I know I do."

Is not humanity being humanity. That's the difference.

117
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 12, 2014, 07:44:10 PM »
I must be ahead of my time.
I have become very aware that humans are a lost cause, and no matter what, will always revert to whatever sludge they temporarily arose from.
That's a shame. But there it is.

I guess we differ. I'm perfectly fine with being what we are.  When I was younger, I used to care more about what "could" be. I care less now and knowing what happens when we try to attain various visions of what "could" be by our own hands, I'll leave such notions at the door.

118
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 12, 2014, 07:38:02 PM »
A bit like slavery then: seemed like a good idea at the time, but as times changed, that good idea became a bad one.

That's how it ended up, because fascism, like all Utopian movements, posit Reformations that in one way or another, leave out a few human quirks here and there. Thus, when they get into power, they enact tyranny and genocide because those little quirks stand in the way of the "New Order." Their conception of humanity is always counter propositional to the way humanity behaves.

119
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 12, 2014, 07:30:08 PM »
RE: Fascism.

First, I agree that left/right is past its pull date, but that's besides the point.

First off, the actual fascists movements set out to transform every dimension of society, not just the political dimension.

Each fascist regime openly opposed Marxism, liberalism and conservatism. This is a matter of recorded historical fact.

The conservatives of that period supported aristocracy, localism and the like. Fascists emphasized a totality in which traditional hierarchies were abandoned.

Racial preferences was common at the time of the last major outbreak of ffascist movements. For that matter so was militarism and eugenics. These are crucial points. The liberal parties of that period were pro-imperialism and pro-military expansion for example. The fascists were generally populists who used common peripheral talking points to gain support coupled with a desire to overturn the existing stale-mates by positing meaningful corrective action to the problems of that time period in a way that the existing leadership failed to do.

The democratic systems of the time were gridlocked. Charismatic leaders seized the opportunity by saying what was on everyone's mind, but going the step further to dissolve the frozen democratic systems and establish a new modern order.



120
Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 12, 2014, 06:58:00 PM »
Fascism has nothing to do with the far right. It's a common misconception. If anything, fascism was totalitarian centrism.

If you want to talk about the misconception of Neitzche that's fine and well, but do it in a way that is free of the pithy moral platitudes.

1 ... 7 [8] 9 ... 26