DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18524--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: christianbethel Date: March 21, 2023, 11:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Terminator, The Matrix, Halo, Mass Effect; I, Robot (I know,
I know, written by a Jew, but bear with me.), 2001: A Space
Odyssey, I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream, etc. So many 'AI
gone rogue' stories just turn me off to the idea of AI being a
part of human/non-human society. The only time AI should be
necessary is for the production of a video game.
#Post#: 18527--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: guest98 Date: March 21, 2023, 2:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.thepearl.org/Sophia.htm
[quote]
5. “Mortals create their own gods. They worship the demiurge,
calling him Lord, and truly he is their Lord, but he has only
the power they give him, for he is the projection of their own
minds
[/quote]
#Post#: 19062--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 28, 2023, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Continuing from:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/exposing-people-with-the-western-darwinian-worldview/msg18931/#msg18931
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emDoQId847M
Extermination is the only correct response.
#Post#: 21997--------------------------------------------------
Re: Linguistic Decolonization
By: Twobrains Date: September 9, 2023, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How two brains can synchronise and why it matters - BBC News
[quote]How two brains can synchronise and why it matters - BBC
News
Is collective intelligence more important than IQ and what
exactly does it mean?
An internationally acclaimed neuroscientist explains why brain
synchronicity - the ability of two different brains to match
their electrical brainwaves - is crucial to our future.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EB1O86fhdI
Comments:
[quote]This escalated quickly from quite interesting to man-made
horrors beyond our comprehension.[/quote]
[quote]This article is not synchronising with modern times, the
people to people relationships are based on
competition,intolerance and within families it’s bringing
discord let alone communities that we
represent.😊[/quote][quote]I agree. Also, no sooner does
it mention the fascinating idea that people who group together
solve problems sooner then it suddenly swerves away and hits the
garden hedge of rambling on instead about inconclusive lab tests
involving mice and people with white coats. Almost as if the
producer suddenly realised to their horror that the script was
about to endorse socialist ideas about sharing knowledge and
investment in educating the masses. Which, of course, is SUCH a
dreadful thought...[/quote]
[quote]Those last few lines on a hive mind, collective
consciousness are some of thee scariest most dystopian ideas on
the right way to take us as a race I’ve ever heard no
individualism and further erosion of free
will[/quote][quote]Maybe you should listen again? [/quote]
[quote]Awesome concept. And, the only question I always have is
why should humans who they say is just matter and molecules,
care about our species surviving. If there is no purpose why
should humans survive, rather than be destroyed by by a more
evolved specie; Apex Predator[/quote]
[quote]Why do organisms want to survive ? That’s your question
?[/quote]
[quote]"We are the Borg. We will assimilate you. Resistance is
futile". Hive mind. Every real genius in history has been a lone
thinker.[/quote]
[quote]Nope. All major breakthroughs in science have come off
the back of other people’s work and typically the ‘genius’
you’re aware of is just the better known half of a duo.[/quote]
[quote]Well, I wanted to say that.
Depends on the definition of lone thinker, I guess.
Of course everyone’s educated by our ancestors knowledge.
But you gotta admit that People who had scientific breakthrough
did think somehow out of the box, though …
That’s how progress is achieved.
I would say, you’re both right.
It took a lot of people thinking out of the box to build the
necessary knowledge for Einstein to come up with the Relativity
theory.
But again that depends on the definition of lone thinker.
Many geniuses in their domain were and are absolute idiots when
it comes to things out of their area of expertise.
Which may qualify someone as a lone thinker now that I think
about it.[/quote]
[quote]Takeaway: adopt the placid, female hive mind (regardless
of individual intelligence & productivity) so we can transfer
our skills to each other and then to machines (a bit
iRobotesque)[/quote]
[quote]A terrifying end to an interesting video.
😬[/quote]
#Post#: 23755--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 15, 2023, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Enemy article on combining Duginism with machinism:
HTML https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2023/11/14/the-battle-between-the-eternal-roman-and-the-eternal-jew-selections-from-ernst-niekischs-die-dritte-part-1-of-2-imperiale-figur-the-third-imperial-figure-1935/
[quote]Ernst Niekisch (1889–1967) was a German writer who first
belonged to the Social Democratic Party of Germany and was
vigorously opposed to the Western powers represented by the
Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Treaties. In his belief
that the strongest opposition to the decadent West would be an
alliance of the Prussian Germans and the Russians he formed his
own political circle called “National Bolshevism.” His National
Bolshevist ideology was expressed in various articles that he
published in his own journal Widerstand and in the books he
wrote between 1925 and 1931. In 1932, he published a study of
Hitler’s movement called Hitler: ein deutsches Verhängnis
(Hitler: A German Calamity) and in 1935 the present work, Die
dritte imperiale Figur. In light of his opposition to Hitler as
a bourgeois demagogue, his journal Widerstand was banned in
December 1934 and he himself was arrested in 1937. He was
convicted of literary high treason in 1939 and sentenced to life
imprisonment.[/quote]
Hail Hitler!
[quote]Niekisch hopes that, in the modern world, the industrial
workers will ally themselves with the unspoiled Slavic and
Tartar peoples and constitute a third imperial figure, the
technological “worker.” Niekisch’s “third imperial figure” is
inspired by Bolshevist notions as well as by Ernst Jünger’s
modernist and futurist conception of the technological worker in
his 1932 work Der Arbeiter. Niekisch’s ideal of a “third
imperial figure” fortified by modern technological skills who
will be able to supersede the eternal Jew and the eternal Roman
...
modern technology, like the earlier mechanical industry, is only
a handmaiden of the bourgeois commercial interests. As Niekisch
himself notes, industrial and technological advances are never
indeed the main aim of the Western civilization that has come
under the spell of the economic reason:
The technological apparatus is, as elaborately as it may have
been constructed, only a Western by-product; it was never
directly aimed at; it was a means of the economic goal. For the
European-bourgeois man the mechanism of the free-market economy
was the natural element of his self-development. (ch.45)
...
the “anti-bourgeois and eastern peoples” can subdue the economic
reason through the technological reason:
For the European-bourgeois man the mechanism of the free-market
economy was the natural element of his self-development; for the
anti-bourgeois worker and the eastern peoples, on the other
hand, as a result of the accord of their characteristic
orientation with the apparatus, the technological structure will
be that element. The economic realm will be transformed by
subjecting it to the dictatorship of the technological realm.
(ch.45)
[/quote]
From our perspective, machinism is even worse than capitalism.
See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/msg9778/#msg9778
We need to do to all machinists what Hitler did to Niekisch.
(And we need to finish Generalplan Ost.)
#Post#: 23760--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: machinist plague Date: November 15, 2023, 6:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Progressive yahwism and the endlessly news machines that it
produces must be annihilated from the face of the earth. The
only way to deal with this thousand headed dragon is with the
utmost ruthlessness.
#Post#: 23762--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 15, 2023, 7:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Note that Niekisch views Hitler as too similar to the eternal
Roman archetype for his liking:
[quote]what Niekisch decries in his 1932 book Hitler: ein
deutsches Verhängnis, namely, Hitler’s bourgeois and southern
German, Catholic style that easily accommodated itself to
Italian Fascism[/quote]
This academically agrees with what I was saying here:
HTML http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/our-enemies-admit-hitler-was-not-rightist-but-judaism-is/
except of course I consider this to be positive. Hitler's own
praise of the Roman Empire has also been extensively covered in
the past, and is in contrast to our enemies' view:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/the-ancient-rolemodels-of-our-enemies/msg22128/#msg22128
#Post#: 25296--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: SirGalahad Date: March 2, 2024, 4:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think that progressive Yahwism may eliminate most forms of
superiority-based ethnotribalism (in particular, white
“nationalism”). Regardless of whether “white” people actually
are more intelligent and prone to innovation than other groups,
I think that the white nationalist who makes a case for the
preservation of their “race” from that particular perspective of
“We are the best, we are the carriers of western civilization,
we are the ones destined to explore the universe”, isn’t
thinking far ahead enough
First of all, gene editing will almost certainly be a widespread
thing sometime soon, and most people will want their hands in
that pie, regardless of whether they’re “white” or not. And
neoconservatives who believe that they did the non-western world
a favor by introducing westernization, even those who believe in
“race” realism, will simply switch over to promoting gene
editing that selects for intelligence and machinism in the
descendants of non-whites. Paleoconservative white nationalists
who don’t want non-whites to be on equal footing will probably
protest against this, but will most likely be unable to prevent
this from happening
However, even the gene editing scenario is STILL too
shortsighted, as I believe that transhumanism and the
singularity will most likely supplant gene editing, before
hyperintelligent designer babies even have a chance to become
the norm. If you’re a progressive, why stop at simply
“improving” human biology through gene editing, when you can
create something that surpasses the human body itself?
Ethnotribalism/“racism” wouldn’t even make sense as an impulse
anymore, when you no longer have a human body to begin with
Ultimately, I think that progressive Yahwism will probably be
our primary, longstanding enemy for the foreseeable future,
rather than “white” nationalism or any other form of
ethnotribalism. Actually, I think that gene editing and
transhumanism will convert rightists to something much closer to
our conception of race, instead of what they have historically
(and erroneously) labeled as race. After all, a “white”
progressivist/machinist/traditionalist has more in common with a
“black” progressivist/machinist/traditionalist, than they do
with a white-passing person who instinctively despises all three
of those things. And they’ll no longer be able to deny this,
once everyone has been forced to be on equal footing, regardless
of ethnic background
#Post#: 25300--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: Schwartze Katze Date: March 2, 2024, 6:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I think that gene editing and transhumanism will convert
rightists to something much closer to our conception of race,
instead of what they have historically (and erroneously) labeled
as race.[/quote]
I would agree with others, especially my favorite Jungian
Analytical Psychologist C.S. Joseph, that trans-humanism and
singularity before ever even fully understanding the cognitive
functions of the human mind, and especially the Demon Function,
will lead to absolute disaster:
Why Should You Learn to Master Your Demon? | CS Joseph
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_4Z-7fajFQ
This also ties into what I was asking in this thread:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/volunteer/the-farmer's-mind-and-jungian-analytical-psychology/msg25300/#new
Related?:
Love and Light
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA0lKHpaBxg
Demons can become Angels but it takes mastery...
The Shadow - Carl Jung's Warning to The World
[quote]Carl Jung warns us against the dangers of the shadow (the
unknown dark side of our personality). We must acknowledge our
shadow and enter into long and difficult negotiations with it
through shadow work. Only then can we become conscious of the
collective shadow (the unknown dark side of mankind) and not
fall prey to it.
Exploring our shadow allows us to rescue the good qualities that
lie dormant within us, which improves our lives and the lives of
those around us. We can then face the collective shadow and take
responsibility to address the denial of important issues and a
lack of individual and collective initiative.
Telling the truth is the most desirable way to deal with a
difficult past, rather than dismissing the atrocities and having
the shadow grow blacker until it can no grow no more, and thus
history repeats itself.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhzBo0dZNpY
#Post#: 25774--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftist vs rightist moral circles
By: antihellenistic Date: April 6, 2024, 1:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Greece, Judaism and European version of Christianity, the root
of Western Civilization, the Civilization of Terror
[quote]Consider the following numerous interpretations, starting
with Hanson; he has argued that consensual government, civil
liberties, decisive warfare, and a free market economy
originated in ancient Greece, and “would form the later core
foundation of Western civilization” (1999).6 Roger Scruton has
emphasized the significance of Rome in its creation of a secular
system of governance anchored on the “autonomous principles of
judicial reasoning and an explicit statement of the law” (2002:
22). Nemo has highlighted the Roman “invention” of the legal
persona together with an intricate system of legal concepts that
reflected the individuality of each person by separating “very
precisely what is yours from what is mine: to each by right”
(2004). Rodney Stark, on the other hand, has insisted that
Christianity “created Western civilization” by nourishing a
theological outlook of “God’s nature, intentions, and demands”
consistent with the rational investigation of nature. The “rise
of science, according to Stark, was not an extension of
classical learning, [but] the natural outgrowth of Christian
doctrine” (2003: 157).7 Grant (2001) and Woods (2005), for their
part, have emphasized the Catholic ideas, laws, and institutions
that “built Western Civilization.” Berman, too, has looked to
the role of the Church but has restricted the “crucial” period
to the years of the Papal Revolution between 1050 and 1150,
which laid the basis for the “modern state, the modern church,
modern philosophy, the modern university, and modern
literature”(1984: 4). John Hale (1994) has followed an older
interpretation in concluding that the Renaissance was a whole
new epoch in the way Europeans came to forge a distinctive
identity as the inhabitants of “Europe,” a “civilization” that
was different from the Greco-Roman past and from the
Papal-centered world of Latin Christendom. Similarly, John
Headley (2008) has traced the roots of the idea of a common
humanity and the principles of political dissent to the
Renaissance.8
Every period of Western history has had an advocate: For G.R.
Elton it was the Reformation that prepared the ground “for the
secularization of Europe” (1963: 279). Steven Ozment (1993) has
also reasoned that the Protestants were the true progenitors of
such modern values as social reform, individual religious
conviction, hard work, and the rejection of corruption and empty
ritual.9 Herbert Butterfield, in stark contrast, has estimated
that the Scientific Revolution “outshines everything since the
rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation
to the rank of mere incidents, mere internal displacements”
(1957: 7). Bernard Cohen has agreed, the story of Copernicus,
Galileo, Kepler, and Newton are testimony to “the creative
accomplishment of the human spirit at its pinnacle” (1960:
190).10 Christopher Hill, for his part, has drawn attention to
the “Century of Revolution” between 1603 and 1714, as the
“decisive” years in which the principle of “Divine Right” was
“fatally wounded,” and men of commercial property “won freedom
from arbitrary taxation and arbitrary arrest, freedom from
religious persecution, freedom to… elect [their] representatives
[and] freedom to buy and sell” (1980: 254–265).11 Paul Hazard,
looking at a later period, has argued that “never was there a
greater contrast, never a more sudden transition” than the one
between 1680 and 1715, when “an hierarchical system ensured by
authority [and] firmly based on dogmatic principle” gave way to
enlightened inquiry and open debate (1935).12 But Albert Soboul
has embraced the French Revolution of 1789 as the “truly”
radical one, in “wiping out every surviving feudal relic” and in
promulgating the “rights of man” in general and the democratic
ideal of “universal suffrage” (1975: 3–19). Cipolla has
countered that “no revolution has been as dramatically
revolutionary as the Industrial Revolution [which] transformed
Man from a farmer- shepherd into a manipulator of machines by
inanimate energy” (1973: 7–9). T. S Aston (1948) and W. W.
Rostow (1960) have agreed that this revolution broke with a past
in which 9 out of 10 Europeans lived in small towns and
villages, and in which mortality rates and famines were
recurrent realities.
Similar claims have been made about the establishment of a
“modern capitalist world system,” the “Military Revolution,” the
Romantic Movement, the German Philosophical Revolution from Kant
to Hegel, the “Second” Industrial Revolution, and the First
World War. The historiography of Western/European civilization
is indeed filled with “foundations,” “births,” “origins,”
“creations,” and “transitions.”13 What I find restrictive in all
these authors is the supposition that Western uniqueness can be
comprehended around one or a few turning points. It is not that
these scholars have studied new developments or periods in
isolation from preceding or subsequent changes. Cipolla has
traced the “roots” of the Industrial Revolution “back to that
profound change in ideas and social structures that accompanied
the rise of the urban communes in Northern Italy, in Northern
France and in the Southern Low Countries, between the 11th and
the 13th centuries” (1973: 9). Ozment has carefully documented
the roots of the Reformation in the spiritual and monastic
currents of late medieval times (1980). White has looked back to
the “Christian dogma of man’s transcendence of, and rightful
mastery over, nature,” to explain Europe’s “unmatched
[technological] dynamism” after 1000 AD (1982: 90). Soboul has
investigated the “transition from feudalism to capitalism” and
the ideas of the philosophes to understand the origins of 1789.
Jacob (1997) has addressed simultaneously the Baconian
utilitarian ideal of knowledge, the Puritan emphasis on hard
work, and the Anglican “liberal” consolidation after the
Glorious Revolution of 1688 to account for the cultural roots of
the first industrial revolution. Toby Huff (1993) has drawn
attention to the Papal Revolution of the eleventh century to
explain why modern Galilean science emerged in Europe rather
than elsewhere.
Other scholars have actually looked across millennia, but only
to emphasize the creativity of Europe in one cultural sphere:
painting (Gombrich 1950), music (Grout and Palisca 1996);
warfare (Hanson 2001) in science (Lindberg 1992), philosophy
(Tarnas 1991), or technology (White 1982). What is missing is a
full appreciation of the unparalleled degree to which the
history of the West was filled with individuals persistently
searching for new worlds, new religious visions and new styles
of painting, architecture, music, science, philosophy, and
literature – in comparative contrast, for example, to the
history of China, where artistic and literary styles lasted for
centuries (Chow 1994; Sullivan 1999).
I can think of only four individuals, two philosophers of
history, one sociologist, and one world historian, who have
spoken in a wideranging way of: i) the “infinite drive,” “the
irresistible trust” of the Occident, ii) the “energetic,
imperativistic, and dynamic” soul of the West, iii) the
“rational restlessness” of the West, iv) “the deep-rooted
pugnacity and recklessness of Europeans” – Hegel, Spengler,
Weber, and McNeill respectively. In the previous chapter, I
delineated the essentials of Weber’s thesis on the peculiar form
of Western rationalism. I don’t think I was able to extract from
his writings an answer for why the West exhibited such a high
degree of rationalism in the first place. I drew attention to
his ideas on the rationalism of the Old Testament, the Judaic
cultivation of a coherent doctrine on the purpose of life here
on earth. I made reference to the affinities Weber noted between
these Judaic beliefs and certain aspects of the
Calvinist/Puritan version of Protestantism, its ascetic “worldly
calling” for a methodical style of life. I suggested that Weber,
in going back to Judaism, was indeed implying or considering the
possibility that in this religion there was to be found the
original source of the worldly ethos that promoted modern
capitalism. However, I also suggested that the rationalist
character of ancient Judaism and its connection to Christianity
and Protestantism was one among other unrelated processes of
rationalization. As Weber himself insisted, “the history of
rationalism shows a development which by no means follows
parallel lines in the various departments of life” (in Ritzer:
137). There were other lines of rationalization with independent
sources: the rationalization of arithmetical calculations by the
ancient Greeks, the systematic ordering of legal norms by the
Romans, “the rational utilization of lines and spatial
perspective – which the Renaissance created for us,” the
“transformation of the process of musical production into a
calculable affair operating with known means, effective
instruments, and understandable rules” (in Ritzer: 145), and the
professionalization of law and administration by nation-states.
I could not find in Weber an account of the ultimate sources of
these autonomous currents of rationalization. On one occasion
Weber did ponder whether it would be “natural to suspect that
the most important reason” for the West’s “rational restless”
“lay in differences in heredity” but this comment was strictly
speculative and marginal.14[/quote]
Source :
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization by Ricardo Duchesne page
297 - 301
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page