Really profound talk. I especially liked the imagery where you were talking about the Civic Religion squirming away from the knife of vivisection, dissection.
Top notch analysis my friend. I'm really enjoying this series and even for those very well versed in these subjects you are providing some new insights. On a complete side note after listening the first time I had a fucking crazy dream where I was summoning and battling demons that went lucid and holy fuck this content must have influenced those events. R E S P E C T
Which ones? I am esp. interested in practical and lifestyle stuff. (Not so commonly addressed. Though then the common reply may be that the historical context changed.)
This is why our conquest of the prevailing CR has to result in a segregation of Christians and pagans afterwards. We don’t need a single replacement for the ACR, we just need to show it is ultimately suicide.
many people, especially religious people, have heads full of nonsense, a great floating nothing in their imagination, which neither means anything, nor impacts everything
What I am is a materialist* with some qualifications.
"At some point, you rack up enough mutations and speciation occurs. It is telling that classical liberals and boomer communists, the kind who think all this race and gender stuff distracts people from focusing on class consciousness, they all recognize the woke as something apart from themselves.
Though it’s probably more the case that they are refusing to recognize their own children, refusing to recognize to accept responsibility for the whirlwind they are reaping."
Personally, I just call them all collectively, "Leftish". I just couldn't find a word for what they saw as differences between themselves (and qualities of the other they didn't want to be pinned with and evade), and the commonalities they shared in terms of habits, values, and general interests. So I settled on that.
"There is no stable equilibrium between the belief that all men are created equal and the inherent and ineradicable inequality of the real world. Any attempt to institute partial equality is unstable, and wants to collapse into total equality."
Now what's the evidence or argument? Something like an inductive historical slippery slope? You start with X (St Paul's equality in Christ, the French Revolution's egalité, the inalienable 1st generation human rights, or whatever), and little by little you end up in woke hell? Just my guess. This trope that certain Christian or apparently common sense ideas are Trojan horses (memes slowly but inescapably mutating according to some subliminal logic of development of degen doctrine), is quite common among the prople of alt right, dissident right, Neo-Reaction (NRx), and so called frog Twitter.
It seems to me like you are conflating egalitarianism/equality vs. hierarchy with excellence and beauty vs. ugliness.
It's true that an extreme of equality is a Procrustrean bed that will kill all that is greater than the lowest common denominator, but where competition and relative excellence is worshipped, one has a perverse incentive to destroy the others rather than create. You can be the smartest guy in the room by upping your intelligence OR by busting heads until brain damage.
In short, the question of balance between these two are clearly very skewed in modern society. But they are but means for objective beauty and excellence, which can be lost if hierarchy is itself made an end.
you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Of course competition is expensive and destructive, but trying to end competition is suicidally expensive and destructive
I honestly think that it must be this way. It's part of human nature. Truth is elitist. Black pills are only for the strongest stomachs and useless without the most vital hearts.
Interestingly enough, the desire to enlighten the mainstream truth with the inevitable tragedy of life is hyper egalitarian in an important sense. And my intuition is that it runs counter to exactly the truth, and is therefore impossible.
But maybe I read too much into what you wrote. Perhaps you only mean to say that Frogs aspire to reach truth, but not to spread it.
I think you'd be making some conflations yourself.
To acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy, the fact that something occupies the upper and lower ends, and to take note that some are stronger and others are weaker, and to admire the stronger for being awesome, isn't worshipping hierarchy. The fact that things sort themselves, according to some quality it has or has not, is simply a fact of life, not in itself an object of praise.
Lets say one grows fond in some way of something weaker -- Like ones pets, or women, or children, and women, or the disabled, and women, or women. While they may be cherished with their fragility, weakness itself isn't being praised. Weakness all by itself is ugly and unwanted. To look weak is to risk being contemptible, and to be weak feels awful. In order for that to not be the case, then weakness must be paired a some proper subject that can't really help itself, or it is noticed for complementing something stronger somehow. This is looking at the lower end of hierarchy with regards to when it produces static (women, pets) or defined things (children, disabled), and arbitrary outcomes (women, disabled). When we're looking at a hierarchy thats changing or that needs energy to remain the same, its because classes within them are striving to move or not be moved. Thats competition, and life is rife with it.
All these things are interesting, but the same process that encouraged and uplifted the strong and great, also produced the weak and brought the losers low. In other words, it also created something contemptible and undesireable. Theres quiet alot to like about the fact that the roll of a die made you lucky, or that your efforts were better than others. Theres even something to admire about chosing to play the game of trying to move. But theres nothing to worship about something that simply "does that".
Its like... Gravity. We admire architecture in part for the special ways a structure stands against it or with it. But, even though the structure may owe its form to gravity, its not gravity thats being admired here. In fact, gravity may also just doom the structure. Its simply an almost unremarkable aspect of life, that you just have to deal with because it cannot be avoided in a universe that makes sense. And think of the ones who thought it was simple for them to ignore gravity, or who thought they could suppress it somehow? They're either in loony shelters or dead.
worshiping hierarchy is not the opposite of worshiping equality. Realizing the hierarchy is inevitable and desirable is not the same as worshiping it. One must allow nature to take its course, that is all.
We already had and have various tools and incentives to not make hierarchy an end. Maybe a bit of a heart for that.
Love (four kinds, in fact), an interest in fairness, compassion for some of those who can't help themselves, and some sense of common decency made sensitive by the centuries long development of a guilt culture.
We're already wary of psychopaths, who take pleasure endlessly in dominating and abusing others, before spreading their maltreatment to their next target. Pride is known to be a sin, for reasons unrelated to the gays (but applicable to them still), because it needlessly puts people in competition with others, when their energies were better or more pleasurably spent being at ease. And the fact that some tyrannical situations can be avoided by distributing power encourages a habit of not getting too attached to said power, and a mentality of sticking to ones role without the want to destroy everything in the name of rising higher.
Really profound talk. I especially liked the imagery where you were talking about the Civic Religion squirming away from the knife of vivisection, dissection.
Top notch analysis my friend. I'm really enjoying this series and even for those very well versed in these subjects you are providing some new insights. On a complete side note after listening the first time I had a fucking crazy dream where I was summoning and battling demons that went lucid and holy fuck this content must have influenced those events. R E S P E C T
Do you believe material wealth flows from spiritual wealth? I suspect that it doesn’t. Camel through the eye of a needle and all.
Part of the reason I am not a Christian is that I think many of the things Jesus says are just flat out wrong.
No way Jose
Which ones? I am esp. interested in practical and lifestyle stuff. (Not so commonly addressed. Though then the common reply may be that the historical context changed.)
That will be one of the topics in part 3
Btw, you may know there's this. https://www.amazon.com/Patriarch-Mindset-Christian-Masculinity-Century/dp/B09MYVR8DD/ Promoted in the Man's World.
Not good enough, imo. The author sounds tradcat.
This is why our conquest of the prevailing CR has to result in a segregation of Christians and pagans afterwards. We don’t need a single replacement for the ACR, we just need to show it is ultimately suicide.
if you think I am lacking in a spiritual affinity, I claim such affinities are merely internal labyrinthes which signify nothing
many people, especially religious people, have heads full of nonsense, a great floating nothing in their imagination, which neither means anything, nor impacts everything
What I am is a materialist* with some qualifications.
"At some point, you rack up enough mutations and speciation occurs. It is telling that classical liberals and boomer communists, the kind who think all this race and gender stuff distracts people from focusing on class consciousness, they all recognize the woke as something apart from themselves.
Though it’s probably more the case that they are refusing to recognize their own children, refusing to recognize to accept responsibility for the whirlwind they are reaping."
Personally, I just call them all collectively, "Leftish". I just couldn't find a word for what they saw as differences between themselves (and qualities of the other they didn't want to be pinned with and evade), and the commonalities they shared in terms of habits, values, and general interests. So I settled on that.
This crucial line is worth fleshing out:
"There is no stable equilibrium between the belief that all men are created equal and the inherent and ineradicable inequality of the real world. Any attempt to institute partial equality is unstable, and wants to collapse into total equality."
Now what's the evidence or argument? Something like an inductive historical slippery slope? You start with X (St Paul's equality in Christ, the French Revolution's egalité, the inalienable 1st generation human rights, or whatever), and little by little you end up in woke hell? Just my guess. This trope that certain Christian or apparently common sense ideas are Trojan horses (memes slowly but inescapably mutating according to some subliminal logic of development of degen doctrine), is quite common among the prople of alt right, dissident right, Neo-Reaction (NRx), and so called frog Twitter.
It seems to me like you are conflating egalitarianism/equality vs. hierarchy with excellence and beauty vs. ugliness.
It's true that an extreme of equality is a Procrustrean bed that will kill all that is greater than the lowest common denominator, but where competition and relative excellence is worshipped, one has a perverse incentive to destroy the others rather than create. You can be the smartest guy in the room by upping your intelligence OR by busting heads until brain damage.
In short, the question of balance between these two are clearly very skewed in modern society. But they are but means for objective beauty and excellence, which can be lost if hierarchy is itself made an end.
Any thoughts on this?
I am not conflating them, the worship of equality will always terminate in making everyone and everything ugly
Yes, my point is that worship of hierarchy will lead to ugly things as well.
you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Of course competition is expensive and destructive, but trying to end competition is suicidally expensive and destructive
At some point I will write about this, the mainstream truth is about comfortable fictions fleeing from the inevitable tragedy of life.
Then Wokeness is about taking ugly truths and weaponizing them in revenge fantasies that are power grabs cloaked in moral language.
And Frogs aspire to embrace truth, no matter the cost.
Basically summed up by CovfefeAnon, "The Woke are More Correct than the Mainstream".
I honestly think that it must be this way. It's part of human nature. Truth is elitist. Black pills are only for the strongest stomachs and useless without the most vital hearts.
Interestingly enough, the desire to enlighten the mainstream truth with the inevitable tragedy of life is hyper egalitarian in an important sense. And my intuition is that it runs counter to exactly the truth, and is therefore impossible.
But maybe I read too much into what you wrote. Perhaps you only mean to say that Frogs aspire to reach truth, but not to spread it.
I think you'd be making some conflations yourself.
To acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy, the fact that something occupies the upper and lower ends, and to take note that some are stronger and others are weaker, and to admire the stronger for being awesome, isn't worshipping hierarchy. The fact that things sort themselves, according to some quality it has or has not, is simply a fact of life, not in itself an object of praise.
Lets say one grows fond in some way of something weaker -- Like ones pets, or women, or children, and women, or the disabled, and women, or women. While they may be cherished with their fragility, weakness itself isn't being praised. Weakness all by itself is ugly and unwanted. To look weak is to risk being contemptible, and to be weak feels awful. In order for that to not be the case, then weakness must be paired a some proper subject that can't really help itself, or it is noticed for complementing something stronger somehow. This is looking at the lower end of hierarchy with regards to when it produces static (women, pets) or defined things (children, disabled), and arbitrary outcomes (women, disabled). When we're looking at a hierarchy thats changing or that needs energy to remain the same, its because classes within them are striving to move or not be moved. Thats competition, and life is rife with it.
All these things are interesting, but the same process that encouraged and uplifted the strong and great, also produced the weak and brought the losers low. In other words, it also created something contemptible and undesireable. Theres quiet alot to like about the fact that the roll of a die made you lucky, or that your efforts were better than others. Theres even something to admire about chosing to play the game of trying to move. But theres nothing to worship about something that simply "does that".
Its like... Gravity. We admire architecture in part for the special ways a structure stands against it or with it. But, even though the structure may owe its form to gravity, its not gravity thats being admired here. In fact, gravity may also just doom the structure. Its simply an almost unremarkable aspect of life, that you just have to deal with because it cannot be avoided in a universe that makes sense. And think of the ones who thought it was simple for them to ignore gravity, or who thought they could suppress it somehow? They're either in loony shelters or dead.
worshiping hierarchy is not the opposite of worshiping equality. Realizing the hierarchy is inevitable and desirable is not the same as worshiping it. One must allow nature to take its course, that is all.
We already had and have various tools and incentives to not make hierarchy an end. Maybe a bit of a heart for that.
Love (four kinds, in fact), an interest in fairness, compassion for some of those who can't help themselves, and some sense of common decency made sensitive by the centuries long development of a guilt culture.
We're already wary of psychopaths, who take pleasure endlessly in dominating and abusing others, before spreading their maltreatment to their next target. Pride is known to be a sin, for reasons unrelated to the gays (but applicable to them still), because it needlessly puts people in competition with others, when their energies were better or more pleasurably spent being at ease. And the fact that some tyrannical situations can be avoided by distributing power encourages a habit of not getting too attached to said power, and a mentality of sticking to ones role without the want to destroy everything in the name of rising higher.