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 ... 5 [6] 7 ... 26
Interzone / Re: What is conservatism?
« on: April 01, 2014, 10:33:25 AM »
I'm not sure what you mean. Conservative traditions vary between peoples. Which structures and values are you saying worked and form whom did they work? Or do you just mean it works well across the board?

Interzone / Re: What is conservatism?
« on: April 01, 2014, 08:17:49 AM »

Good point on the values. As I mentioned in another thread: American conservatives fetishize a period of time, somewhere in the past, that never existed. Funny enough, the American brand of social conservative values dates back to only 1912 and a book nonetheless.

I don't agree that systems differ superficially. Granted, there are always hiercharchies of power. I made a case in the "deleted post" thread that the American Democracy/Republic allows you to remove the inept, stupid and ineffectual from the upper tiers of the hierarchy when they become detached from reality, as is common for the human condition.

Alexis Tocqueville noted in his observations of Americans that they would take it upon themselves to build, maintain and manage commons like infrastructure and education, collectively without running to some centralized authority like a monarch to do it for them. 

Interzone / Re: What is conservatism?
« on: April 01, 2014, 07:33:16 AM »
"It has been turned into something it is not, by the left. Now everyone thinks they know what conservatism is. And most of what they think it is, has nothing to do with conservatism."

Am I the only one that finds the fact that what is now considered conservatism is actually a shining example of liberalism? Free trade, Imperialism, Military Buildup and tax policy/immigration favoring the industrial class (Reaganomics). The liberal mantra was that anything which helps the managerial classes helps the nation. Funny how this rhetoric is almost unanimously used by contemporary conservatives, at least those Americans who self identify as such.

Interzone / Re: What is conservatism?
« on: March 31, 2014, 01:51:38 PM »
True, and true of American conservatism. American conservatism is pro-capitalist, but that's only because capitalism is the preexisting principle of resource distribution.

This is only true of American Pseudo Conservatism which has only been around for less than a century since the end of the Second World War.

Interzone / Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
« on: March 31, 2014, 11:56:15 AM »
The whole idea of 'progressive' is without any kind of merit. It doesn't even seem to be an 'idea' at all.
The first time I encountered the term, it was used by hippies to describe a pointless kind of so-called music, that seemed horrible to me.
Nobody questioned it, back then, because nobody ever admitted to not knowing what was meant, man.
It was just what hippies liked, and so hippies liked it.

The irony is, Progressivism is even more unrealistic and fantastical than the traditional religion it claims to replace and oppose. Unlike that religion, Progess places its heavens, its hells, its narratives all on earth and in the physical cosmos, rather than beyond it.

Interzone / Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
« on: March 31, 2014, 06:20:39 AM »
Okay, but this seems to be a secondary motivation of deep ecologist. If civilizational growth is the primary motivation, then I think we need a different term to refer to this attitude towards the environment.

My proposed nomenclature: Progressive Civilizationalist

Its defining features:
- protection of the environment insofar as it is necessary for the continued development (hence Progressive) of human civilization (hence Civilizationalist)
- no ethical obligation to the preservation of individual ecosystems, plants, or animals for their own sake

Your proposal suffers from faulty presuppositions. You can't have unlimited growth/development of a civilization on a finite planet. The expansion of a civilization with always encroach to a degree proportional to its size and scope. The more energy flowing through that civilization will increase its complexity and strengthen its affect on the earth.

No. The Progressive world view is destructive to civilization and the planet while being wholly unsustainable.

Interzone / Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
« on: March 30, 2014, 10:29:57 AM »
I'll address the individual comments once I have more time. Despite his intellectual poise, Nydwracu can be rather imprecise with his terminology, so I agree with a lot of complaints. For now, perhaps the most useful next step for this discussion would be a taxonomy of Greens:

Nature lovers: concerned about the well being of individual plants and animals, e.g., an African elephant.
Environmentalists: concerned about the well being of systems of plants and animals, e.g., a terrestrial ecosystem.

...and also of their political corollaries:

Primitivists: desires technological regression to restore society to an earlier state, e.g., John Zerzan.
Deep ecologist: desires technological minimalism due to being either a Nature Lover or an Environmentalist, e.g., Pentti Linkola.

My questions for the deep ecologists here:
- As long as civilization prevails, why should we give a damn about the continuation of any plant or animal species?
- To those who point to the beauty of nature in its defense, what does it really have to offer that Virtual Reality won't eventually be able to match or surpass?

Everything mankind (civilization) produces relies on the goods and services produced by nature. Ecology/Environmental conservation is not just an ethics question, it's economics. Man has to be careful to not only avoid overshooting the resource base, but avoid making disruptions in the cycles of nature which produce the raw materials and energy resources a civilization relies on.

This is the point that is sorely missed in all discussions on ecology and conservation. Everyone falls into a trap of moralizing the issue. All the while demonstrating a sheer blindness to the complex system that allows for man to have civilization of scale at all.

Interzone / Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
« on: March 30, 2014, 09:41:56 AM »
Who cares? We are less than a century away from pissing away the planets petroleum reserves in quanitities that matter. We'll be scaled down in technology and population.

Metal / Re: Ildjarn Split was written by Nidhogg
« on: March 27, 2014, 06:12:19 PM »
Svart Dag and Eksistensens Jeger are two of the greatest pieces of black metal ever recorded. It's nice to finally hear from this artist.


Did Nidhogg produce any other work in the vein of these two?
No, these two where the only ones like that. But music is so diverse, like i've said, I concentrated on other stuff, And mostly, I became a dad and other things started happening in my life.

Understandable. I'll need to cruise your YouTube channel when I get a replacement pair of headphones.

Metal / Re: Ildjarn Split was written by Nidhogg
« on: March 27, 2014, 01:27:28 PM »
Svart Dag and Eksistensens Jeger are two of the greatest pieces of black metal ever recorded. It's nice to finally hear from this artist.


Did Nidhogg produce any other work in the vein of these two?

Interzone / What is Death?
« on: March 27, 2014, 08:07:17 AM »
This is an open question.

For myself, death doesn't represent the end of life, but its completion. The death of cultures, races, men and civilizations aren't endings; their deaths are fulfillments.

Interzone / Re: What is your political viewpoint?
« on: March 27, 2014, 08:04:07 AM »
Conservative in the Burke Tradition. Beyond that it's difficult to identify with anything else, politically.

Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 24, 2014, 08:09:25 AM »
On second thought, don't respond. Nothing constructive is being accomplished by this or any of my other contributions. I'll go back to lurking this section as the differences in perspectives between myself and the rest are far too different.

Giving up already?

Vigilance, the purpose of this discussion board is not to have a "we all agree with one another so let's pat each other on the ass" circle jerk.

We come to genuine consensus and purposeful agreement by contrasting these different perspectives. That is both the beauty and function of a dialogue.

It's like a cooperative investigation into the nature of reality. I could very well be mistaken and misinformed on certain things. I'm here to learn.

Now then, I think we can classify the Civil War as a revolution in that it was a revolution against the Southern Slave Owner class and against the British and French who supported them. (Of course, the delusion is that the North's victory meant total freedom, when in reality they never freed themselves from the Northern Wages Slave Owner class.) Remember, secession, though usually unfavorable, is nothing more than a tactic or strategy or means of and end: revolution. The South's "revolution" was really nothing but a very late counter-revolution to 1776. Another way of seeing this in the "big picture" is that there are different factions of oligarchs who engage in internecine conflict; it's definitely not as simple as "the masses versus the elites" or "the poor versus the rich". I'm sure we agree there.

Regarding Athens being a democracy, this is exactly what I was getting at: it was a plutocracy in which the masses were fooled into believing it was a democracy. In other words, there is only ever the appearance of democracy in formalities, but even this never lasts long, and rarely produces substantive improvements in the lives of the many. Most importantly, we must remember this is the same society which murdered Socrates. (Unrelated but relevant, we must remember the Weimar Republic had democratic features and elections with popular votes, and even though Hitler lost the election in public, behind closed doors in private it was decided he would be appointed.)

Regarding Plato, I'm saying that democracy cannot be some force outside the cycle which makes it less- or non-violent, precisely because democracy is inside of and a part of that very cycle.

I say I'll stop but then I walk into adult day care with a lot of down time and here I an. You've cut down on the polemics so I guess I'll respond.

Re: Secession

I'd first like to know what you understand Revolution and secession to be, before we can continue.

Re: Athens.

What you describe is just one of the ways democracy functions in the real world. In fact, small groups of powerful men making decisions is the way every form of government operates. On paper, I'd agree with you, but I prefer to avoid the drafting board.


I see, I wish you had just said that. I don't know that we'll see eye to eye on it, but I feel that the historical examples of Anacyclosis I listed in this thread are sufficient to prove that it occurs within our Democratic System. For clarifies sake, nonviolence is not the virtue of Democracy, the virtue is in the ability to remove inept, ineffectual leadership in a relatively stable way compared to autocratic forms of government where doing the same is extremely disruptive to the entire society.

Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 23, 2014, 04:22:42 PM »
On second thought, don't respond. Nothing constructive is being accomplished by this or any of my other contributions. I'll go back to lurking this section as the differences in perspectives between myself and the rest are far too different.

Interzone / Re: Deleted post.
« on: March 23, 2014, 03:19:02 PM »
Hmm. Well, here's how I see it.

First off, the American ideal is not democracy, it's a constitutional representative republic, finding its fullest and best to date design and expression in the American School of economics. This is a highly intelligent, nuanced, idealistic-yet-realistic view. It is most definitely not democratic, at all. If you want to talk "historical fact", then name me ONE democracy in ALL of history. You can not find one. They don't exist. Democracy is always a lie, a con, a swindle, a manipulating the masses into thinking they have self-rule.

Setting aside contemporary examples, Athens.

Second, there's nothing dangerous about denying democracy. It's called sanity. If someone says "the aliens are coming to kill us" yet there is ZERO evidence for their claim, I deny it. It's a healthy thing to do. The same goes for "democracy", "libertarianism", "communism", etc. -- all synthetic ideas and demagoguery designed to get people to cut their own throats.

You misunderstood my point. The abstraction of "Democracy" is just that, an abstraction: a mental model used to understand reality, solve problems and communicate to others. The danger is when we start applying this rigid model to reality and dismiss real occurances on the basis that these occurrences did not fit the theory therefore THEY are false. The world doesn't need another go at communism but there are no shortages of the insistence that communism ought to be given a shot because it was never tried.

Third, there is most definitely blood on the sword of America. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War...

I know it's called the American Revolution, but it was a war for secession, big difference. The Civil War was of the same kind. Please note the difference between secession and Revolution.

Fourth, Plato himself forthrightly speaks out against democracy. He states: "These will be some of the features of democracy... it will be, in all likelihood, an agreeable, lawless, parti-colored society, dealing with all alike on a footing of equality, whether they be really equal or not."

Notice how I never said any of these things? Plato described, in detail, the cycles of anacyclosis which i think originates in Plutarch. Regardless, I know Plato didnt think favorably of democracy and I never mentioned otherwise.

1 ... 5 [6] 7 ... 26