October 21st, 2018 12:00 AM (ht: @[100002214207885:2048:Giego Caleiro] for pointer) RE: https://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/2011/03/olavo-de-carvalho-introduction.html [O]lavo is wonderful. Really. And that particular essay, in eloquent rose, positions the conflict of civilizations (at least as of the late 00’s) correctly. I came to the same analysis except I state that there are only three weapons of coercion (force/law/government, trade/gain/reciprocity, ostracization/inclusion/words/religion) and civilizations have of necessity evolved to specialize in them. I see four propositions where duggin sees three, with the anglo model being nationalism and law, and the globalist problem being semitic. He seems to think some reconciliation is possible. I don’t. The american solution was to mature everyone into commerce in pursuit of world peace. This was partly possible but did not stop each civilizational strategy from pursuing its interests – they have no other choice. The problem for ‘market civilization’ is that the high trust polities will defeat the low trust state and religious(ignorant) polities and as such defeat is intolerable to the others. I am quite certain the anglo model cannot scale and this is the mistake of the anglos from the imperial program through the postwar period. the potential of each (anglo-law jewish finance, russo-sinic state-military, and islamic-terror-cult simply reflects the dominant class structures of each civilization given its stage of development as it entered the modern era. However, of these, the regressive state-islamic, static state-military, parasitic (and soon to be lost) short-lived-universalist-financial, and inter-state-law models: the most intolerant, with the lowest standard of living, with the highest rates of reproduction, will win – because it is the cheapest strategy. My opinion is that the united states and europe’s attempt to imitate her structure, is counter to the european success, and that a return of nation states eliminates the threat of each. in other words: good fences (walls) make good neighbors. My work will end the semitic/financial forever. Once that is done, the islamic is the principle problem, because I see the Anglo-european-russian-chinese civilizations as a division of risk-labor (time) between high risk, risk averse, paranoid, and riskless states. It’s islam that is the enemy of eurasia – the people-of-the-cult (middle easterners) have always and everywhere been the enemy of the great civilizations – ever since they invented the institutionalization of deceit.
Theme: Civilization
-
“I am questioning the existence of Man (with a great M), and whether or not this
—“I am questioning the existence of Man (with a great M), and whether or not this history you speak of is in actuality histories (plural) of (particular – not universal) men (with a lower M). Does Man exist, or is he just an abstraction that exists as a universal category concocted in the heads of enlightenment philosophers? If he does, how can his existence be known or proven? I apologize if I wasn’t clear before. I am positing an anti-humanist critique of universal-Man.”— Josef Kalinin
Well, like any complex phenomenon, we can create a set of descriptions (general rules of arbitrary precision) at every scale (resolution) from MAN down to civilization …. and all the way down to the individual. And we can select some subset of causal narratives to illustrate the general rule we observe. As long as the relations are constant from top to bottom we have not engaged in error, bias, or deceit.
Man exists since we know what is not man. Man is anything he is not. Whether we slice(organize) the loaf(category) of mankind one way or another only serves to limit the complexity of relations to a small enough set of causes that they are open to our perception, cognition, and recall.
Man became ‘man’ in the enlightenment when the similarities of humans around the world became evident. One could (I have) argued we are different species, and that man, like ape is merely a taxonomic category divided by geography, morphology, and behavior but maintaining (some) reproductive capacity. (That is my approach). Because it is how we treat all OTHER animals.
Man possesses an extremely dense neural system which is terribly expensive. He can move and model space like no other creature. He can forecast changes in state, and make tools. He can cooperate (or not). He can make language. He can negotiate. He can make narratives. And he can possess more or less agency. And strangely enough he can create other systems of calculation besides ordinary language.
This is a terribly unique set of properties – and we have literally killed off most of (not all) of our competing species (previous generations of man) and probably would have had we not evolved our knowledge so quickly under agrarianism.
So I don’t know what anti-humanist means. And I don’t know what else to tell you. But homo-sapiens-sapiens exists. Whether you want to classify man as we do say, Pan, into different chimps vs bonobos, or pretend man is NOT like chimps, where whites and east asians are bonobos (further evolved) is a function of ends you want to accomplish.
From my part we are different species and it’s obvious, and man is a category of life forms among the great apes. And the races and subraces of man are species. And I see nothing to argue against that other than to lie for political reasons.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 14:26:00 UTC
-
If you have to choose between archimedes, aristotle, zeno-epicurus, Homer, and t
If you have to choose between archimedes, aristotle, zeno-epicurus, Homer, and the Greek Tragedies and their results in the ancient and modern worlds, vs abraham, saul, and mohammed, their false histories, and their destruction of the every great civilization of the ancient world, and current destruction of the present. what kind of psychopath chooses the latter?
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 01:42:00 UTC
-
@[100002214207885:2048:Giego Caleiro] for pointer) RE: Olavo is wonderful. Reall
https://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/2011/03/olavo-de-carvalho-introduction.html(ht: @[100002214207885:2048:Giego Caleiro] for pointer)
RE: https://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/2011/03/olavo-de-carvalho-introduction.html
Olavo is wonderful. Really. And that particular essay, in eloquent rose, positions the conflict of civilizations (at least as of the late 00’s) correctly. I came to the same analysis except I state that there are only three weapons of coercion (force/law/government, trade/gain/reciprocity, ostracization/inclusion/words/religion) and civilizations have of necessity evolved to specialize in them.
I see four propositions where duggin sees three, with the anglo model being nationalism and law, and the globalist problem being semitic. He seems to think some reconciliation is possible. I don’t. The american solution was to mature everyone into commerce in pursuit of world peace. This was partly possible but did not stop each civilizational strategy from pursuing its interests – they have no other choice.
The problem for ‘market civilization’ is that the high trust polities will defeat the low trust state and religious(ignorant) polities and as such defeat is intolerable to the others.
I am quite certain the anglo model cannot scale and this is the mistake of the anglos from the imperial program through the postwar period. the potential of each (anglo-law jewish finance, russo-sinic state-military, and islamic-terror-cult simply reflects the dominant class structures of each civilization given its stage of development as it entered the modern era.
However, of these, the regressive state-islamic, static state-military, parasitic (and soon to be lost) short-lived-universalist-financial, and inter-state-law models: the most intolerant, with the lowest standard of living, with the highest rates of reproduction, will win – because it is the cheapest strategy.
My opinion is that the united states and europe’s attempt to imitate her structure, is counter to the european success, and that a return of nation states eliminates the threat of each. in other words: good fences (walls) make good neighbors.
My work will end the semitic/financial forever. Once that is done, the islamic is the principle problem, because I see the Anglo-european-russian-chinese civilizations as a division of risk-labor (time) between high risk, risk averse, paranoid, and riskless states.
It’s islam that is the enemy of eurasia – the people-of-the-cult (middle easterners) have always and everywhere been the enemy of the great civilizations – ever since they invented the institutionalization of deceit.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 00:00:00 UTC
-
Wealthy Intergenerational Families Learn and Perpetuate Mindfulness
Wealthy Intergenerational Families Learn and Perpetuate Mindfulness.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 14:59:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053661917955407872
-
EASTERN VS WESTERN MISTRUST ILLUSTRATED by Emil Prelic with comments by Curt Doo
EASTERN VS WESTERN MISTRUST ILLUSTRATED
by Emil Prelic with comments by Curt Doolittle
—“The rank and file right wing person is almost as much of an NPC. They simply benefit from being raised with greater moral influence (typically through church) and not being functionally retarded and/or opportunistically evil when it comes to economics (99.9% of the left).
From the NRA to the AARP, aging right wingers share more in common with soybois and faghags than they’d like to admit vis-á-vis their support for monolithic quasi-governmental agencies.
Go read Soros’ last speech from Davos. If you replaced the word “Trump” with “Obama” and put a bag over the old potato, it could’ve been any “right wing” leader that read it.
The left is that loud fat ass cunt at the diner screaming about her triple-fried cheese doodles being too fattening and the right is her pencil dick tele-hubby with his nose in his plate mumbling, “yesss deaaar”.”—
CD: I don’t share this opinion because, I think he’s missing the point about silos(packs) and monopoly(herds) And I think he’s referring to the online community and not the people-in-fact. But the element of truth is still there.
What I *DO* see is that he’s placing greater value in the church where we place greater value in the law, because in our experience, the church was a corrupt government of lies, and in the east’s experience, much like the latin experience, it’s the government that was corrupt and the church a local community organization. Eastern Church/Morality, Western Militia/Court.
In other words: all institutions suck if you give them power.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 12:55:00 UTC
-
On Russell Kirk and The “literary” Conservatives
October 19th, 2018 9:16 AM ON RUSSELL KIRK AND THE “LITERARY” CONSERVATIVES [I]‘ll be less kind. Poetics do nothing more than provide sentimental medication for those who are of like mind, but wanting others to act, unwilling to act, and failing to act, because the poet provides only sedation not a recipe for action. The west begins and ends with the militia and rule of law between the peerage of men of the militia, and that militia’s willingness to use violence to deny power to any but the militia, with the monarch as the judge and general of last resort. Kirk was the end of the line of those who sold aristocratic egalitarianism (paternalistic, sky worshipping, militaristic, expansionist, empirical, technological, militia) in christian robes. And he was the greatest example of the conservative (aristocratic) postware failure to out-nice the anti-national-socialists-facists (marxists, communists, socialists), instead of restore the pre-war innovations of poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, spencer, nietzsche, and the romanticist movement to restore western civilization to its ancestral (ancient) origins. So understanding the essayists as a catastrophic failure that allowed the destruction of our civilization – and that it was the genetics, magnetic imaging, cognitive science, and pharmaceutical industry that refuted the ant-darwinian socialist pseudosciences. Either you have the will to fight to rule as a means of preventing alternative rule, or you are merely seeking medication to sedate yourself while being decimated, culture-cided, civilization-cided, and genocided. We are the people of The Real: Reciprocity, Law, Duty, Truth, reason, technology, science, and WAR. Either we fight to preserve it or we die having failed to.
-
Living in a scientific culture
October 18th, 2018 7:52 PM
“Adults living in a scientific culture are more rational (and intelligent) than adults living in pre-modern cultures. For example, according to studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, even educated adults living in Papua New Guinea did not reach the formal stage. Australian Aborigines who were still living a traditional lifestyle barely developed beyond a preoperational stage in their adult years. Without a population that has mentally developed to the level of formal operations, which entails a capacity to think about abstract relationships and symbols without concrete forms, a capacity to grasp syllogistic reasoning, comprehend algebra, formulate hypotheses, there can be no modernization”
Or a concept of reciprocal, negotiated sovereignty! Conceptualising and operating in such a paradigm is as foreign as colonising mars! h/tip Curt Doolittle (No idea who posted this)
-
Living in a scientific culture
October 18th, 2018 7:52 PM
“Adults living in a scientific culture are more rational (and intelligent) than adults living in pre-modern cultures. For example, according to studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, even educated adults living in Papua New Guinea did not reach the formal stage. Australian Aborigines who were still living a traditional lifestyle barely developed beyond a preoperational stage in their adult years. Without a population that has mentally developed to the level of formal operations, which entails a capacity to think about abstract relationships and symbols without concrete forms, a capacity to grasp syllogistic reasoning, comprehend algebra, formulate hypotheses, there can be no modernization”
Or a concept of reciprocal, negotiated sovereignty! Conceptualising and operating in such a paradigm is as foreign as colonising mars! h/tip Curt Doolittle (No idea who posted this)
-
Journalists Are the Principal Enemy of Civilization
October 19th, 2018 2:33 PM JOURNALISTS ARE THE PRINCIPAL ENEMY OF CIVILIZATION [B]ecause they are unaccountable. Make them accountable and journalism will all but end, and reporting will be restored. Journalists are from the bottom third of their classes, and they are primarily educated in the postmodern sophisms marxist pseudoscience, and social democratic religion. They are the only unaccountable producers of a goods, services, and information in our civilization. Every word for compensation must be testimony. That will leave only a few investigative reporters who have deep knowledge of subjects. Entertainment reporting will be limited to ‘undue praise’ and facts.