DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
*****************************************************
#Post#: 25795--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: antihellenistic Date: April 7, 2024, 2:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Origins of Progressive Yahwism
Western Civilization
[quote]The debate on the origins of industrialization cannot be
reduced to when England started to experience nationwide changes
in productivity, or when the rapid succession of innovations,
which began in the early 1700s, were translated into
uninterrupted growth throughout the economy. 21 It is quite a
stretch to turn an argument which slows the spread of the
British industrial revolution into an argument for similar
“macroeconomic patterns” between England and Qing China. There
was “a break in the trend of growth around 1760–70” (Landes
1998: 193–94) in those sectors which first saw the introduction
of the new inventions. Moreover, while this breakthrough began
in England, there were many regions in Europe, such as Alsace,
Bohemia, Flanders, Hamburg, Lombardy, North of France, Saxony,
Silesia, and the Zurich highlands, which were decidedly moving
in a similar direction (Komlos 2000).
The comparison here is not of two economic periods in the
history of Britain (say, before 1830 and after 1830) but rather
a comparison of trends in England with trends in Qing China. In
terms of that comparison it is misleading to describe the
economy of Britain before 1830 as “traditional” and “similar” to
China’s. The industrial revolution marked the dawn of a new era
in the economic history of humanity when living standards would
no longer collapse, despite sustained population growth.
It is the case, furthermore, that the sources of the inventions
and innovations that made possible the beginning of this new era
go back to the scientific culture and the institutional changes
of the Enlightenment. It is also the case, as Mokyr argues, that
Britain was not alone in the cultivation of this culture: “while
Britain pulled ahead of the rest of Europe for a while between
1760 and 1820, its technology relied heavily on epistemic bases
developed elsewhere in Europe, especially in France, but also in
Germany, Scandinavia and Italy” (2001).22 The science of
mechanics was a necessary precondition to the development of
working steam machines. There was a positive feedback relation
running from scientific understanding to technological
improvements in the development, for example, of Newcomen’s
engine. The theoretical-technological elements that made
possible Watt’s solution to the problem of rotary motion – the
principles underlying the suction pump, the nature of a vacuum,
the theory of atmospheric pressure, the first workable airtight
cylinder and piston driven by atmospheric pressure, the
understanding of the nature of steam and the realization that
air and steam were different – were the joint achievement of
Europeans (Mokyr 2003).23
Still, it is not enough, to show that Europe had the theoretical
capability to invent new machines. I agree with Mokyr that
England forged ahead temporarily due to the presence of a more
practical culture that regarded the purpose of knowledge to be
the improvement of life. Mokyr thus writes of an “industrial
enlightenment” in England before the industrial revolution and
after the scientific revolution. The science of mechanics of the
seventeenth century and the “industrial enlightenment” combined
widened the epistemic and institutional base of technology and
made possible the “gradual stream of improvements” in techniques
after 1750. Growth before 1750 occurred “in relatively brief
spurts” followed by “long periods of stagnation or mild
decline,” because the knowledge sustaining these episodes of
growth were “narrow.” The knowledge supporting the technology
associated with preindustrial expansion was “relatively small”
and this made it too difficult and too costly to find solutions
to problems in the operation, application, and improvement of
existing techniques (2002: 18–19, 31).
To take the contribution of modern science first, it offered a
deeper understanding of “why and how” particular techniques
operated and why they worked. It provided the mechanical
principles that explicated the underlying rules of the
techniques and this facilitated further upgrading. Already
during the seventeenth century we observe in Western Europe, and
not just England, a growing appreciation for precision and
standardization in measurement of instruments and equipment, a
common and open method of verification and experimentation with
a set of rules to test “which techniques worked best,” including
a conviction in the orderliness and predictability of nature,
and a Baconian culture which promoted the accumulation of
knowledge in order to make useful things to improve the material
conditions of life.
However, Mokyr also cautions against “the notion that the
scientific revolution led directly to the Industrial Revolution”
(2002: 29–77). He has contributed to the debate the idea that
the “Industrial Enlightenment” of the eighteenth century was the
“missing link” which formed the “historical bridge” between the
world of Galileo and the world of James Watt. This enlightenment
involved the rise of numerous societies “dedicated to the
diffusion of useful knowledge” and the creation of information
networks between engineers, natural philosophers, and
businessmen; the opening of artillery schools, mining schools,
informal scientific societies, as well as numerous
micro-inventions that turned insights into “successful business
propositions.” It also included “the emergence of experts,
consulting engineers, accountants, and other professionals,”
standardization of information, scientific notation, improved
standards for weights and measures, and specialist collections
of technical and engineering data. Finally, it included a wide
range of institutional changes that affected economic behavior,
commercial relations, resource allocation, savings and
investment.
Even as Mokyr agrees that economic growth “was very slow during
the Industrial Revolution, and that living standards barely
nudged upward until the mid-1840s” (2002: 83), he carefully
distances himself from the claim that the divergence began
suddenly in the 1830s.
Moreover, while the Industrial Revolution began in England
because this island offered somewhat more incentives and
opportunities, Mokyr offers abundant evidence showing that the
Industrial Enlightenment was a “Western phenomenon” to the
degree that it drew heavily from a European-wide scientific
culture, and the degree to which continental Europe was not far
behind in its applications.24[/quote]
Source :
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization by Ricardo Duchesne page
196 - 199
#Post#: 25800--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: antihellenistic Date: April 7, 2024, 11:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Liberalist and Democratic Revolution in Britain give a way to
the Progressive Yahwism
[quote]What makes Goldstone different from Mokyr, despite their
additional agreement that New World products and abundant
deposits of coal in Britain were not, on their own, the specific
factors that led to the great divergence, is essentially that
Goldstone sees England’s adoption of a engineering-oriented
practical culture as a “happy chance” made possible by a series
of unexpected political events associated with the Glorious
Revolution of 1688. He contends that England’s engine culture
was able to flourish as a result of some “highly contingent
circumstances” which led to the liberal revolution of 1688 and
created a more open society, in contrast to the anti-Newtonian,
pro-Cartesian Catholic “reaction,” which swept much of
continental Europe and kept it in a state of industrial
backwardness (2002a). The “rather odd and unusual” engine
culture of England was “by no means a necessary and inevitable
outcome of a broader ‘scientific’ [Europeanwide] revolution”
(2002b: 373). “Multiple” scientific renaissances and
“modernities” were happening all around the globe in the
post-1500 era; the Galilean breakthrough was one of similar
scientific advances elsewhere (330, 334). For all her engine
culture, England in the 1700s was “undergoing a similar
macro-economic pattern as Qing China” (360). It was only after
1830 that England “managed to avoid such a [Malthusian] decline”
and achieve self-sustaining growth.25
In developing his “happy chance,” Goldstone draws from Jacob’s
carefully constructed work, Scientific Culture and the Making of
the Industrial West (1997), which is an expanded version of her
earlier book, Cultural Meaning of the Scientific Revolution
(1988), both of which look at the long-term gestation of the
scientific culture of Europe. Lest readers be misled, however,
Jacob does not argue, in either one of these books, as Goldstone
implies, that experimental physics and Newtonian science were
“halted” in Continental Europe in the late seventeenth and early
eighteenth centuries. She says that the timing of this engine
culture varied from country to country in Western Europe, and
that by the 1720s the Baconian ideal of applied mechanical
knowledge was “more visible in Britain than anywhere else in the
West.” Absolutism and the power of the Catholic clergy over
education in France and Belgium “inhibited” but did “not stop”
the introduction of new machines for industrialization. Already
by 1800 the mechanical culture England originated was well
underway in most of northwestern Europe (1997: 106, 131–164).
Neither does Jacob portray modern European science as one more
variant within a common tradition of “Eurasian natural
inquiries,” as Goldstone puts it. She writes that the
“scientific legacy of Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, and
especially Boyle and Newton” – as popularized and cultivated
within English society – “helped to make the concrete
applications of [steam] power possible,” and explicitly states
that she wants “to debunk the myth about how important
inventions in the early stages of industrial revolution had
nothing to do [with the Scientific Revolution]” (7, 133).
The key figure of industrial Britain, she explains, was not a
semiliterate tinkerer; it was men (and women) who “knew machines
from having built them, or from having closely examined them,
and knew that machines worked best when they took into account
mechanical principles learned from basic theories in mechanics,
hydrostatics, and dynamics” (109). Thus, she would not welcome
Goldstone’s suggestion that the engine culture of Britain could
have been as easily adopted and integrated by other cultures in
the world given another set of random circumstances.
Britain’s engine culture was a mentality, an outlook on life
brewing for a long time right across Europe. By the eighteenth
century this ethos had spread and penetrated deep into British
civil society, the schools and textbooks, the academies and
journals, the coffee houses and printer’s shops.26 The advantage
England enjoyed was in the earlier fusion of theoretical and
applied-industrial science. This fusion found its highest
expression in the minds of individuals like Henry Beighton
(1636–1743), capable both of constructing the self-acting valve
(1717) as well as writing about the performance of mine-drainage
engines. In his article “A Physico-Mechanical Calculation of the
Power of an Engine” (1717), Beighton provided “clear directions
as to the quantities of water that could be pumped per stroke,
per minute, and per hour, from various depths, according to the
diameter of the engine cylinder, strokes per minute, and bore
pump.” It was similarly evident in the life of the ironmonger
and tinkerer Thomas Newcomen, who, in 1712, succeeded in
erecting his first atmospheric steam pump and wrote about “rules
for calculating engine power, according to the diameter of the
cylinder, including allowance for variations in barometric
pressure and also friction” (Musson and Robinson 1969: 47–8).
And finally, this engine culture mentality was an obvious
feature in the work of John Smeaton (1714–92) – founder of the
civil engineering profession and innovator of waterwheels – who
conducted scientifically controlled, mathematically-tabulated
investigations of the atmospheric steam engine and read numerous
papers, as a Fellow of the Royal Society, on mechanics,
scientific instruments, and astronomy. Each was committed public
participant who rationalized, piece by piece, the entire British
economy.
When Jacob says that “no single event in the history of early
modern Europe altered the fortunes of the new science more
profoundly than the English [1688] Revolution,” she means to
re-assert – against Marxists and economists who think that
humans are motivated only by the location and prices of
resources – the “extraordinary link” between the scientific
spirit of utilitarian improvement and the Puritans’ millenarian
vision of spiritual redemption thorough hard work and worldly
reform (1997: 51). The conduct of British machinists and
entrepreneurs in the eighteenth century were not mere responses
to institutional incentives. They were authentic values infused
with a religious zeal and a spirit of conviction. The ethos
Jacob finds in England, and observes in detail in the Watts
family as early as 1690, is a Calvinist commitment to undertake
rational, arduous tasks, “disciplined labor, and
self-examination within a universe framed by piety and science”
(119).
It was not that Calvinism as such brought modern science to
industry. Jacob knows too well the strong links Britain’s steam
engine culture had with the seventeenth century Baconian vision
that science could be made useful to ordinary people rather than
remaining a monopoly of the “supercilious arrogance” of
scholastic culture – as had already been demonstrated by the
world of the European Renaissance, by shipbuilding and the
voyages of exploration, by cartography and the science of
geography, by the use of perspective in painting, by the spread
of printing presses, by the rise of a new lay intelligentsia,
and by the cultivation of a science of ballistics and a
technology of cannon making. But Jacob wants to remind us – in a
scholarly tradition that goes back to Max Weber and also Robert
Merton’s classic work of the 1930s, Science, Technology and
Society in Seventeenth Century England – how Puritanism, more
than any other religious current within Christianity, endowed
scientific knowledge with millenarian importance. This
religious-utilitarian ethos, preached by Quakers and liberal
Anglicans, cannot be ignored in our efforts to understand why
the first successful application of modern science occurred in
Britain.[/quote]
Source :
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization by Ricardo Duchesne page
200-203
#Post#: 25841--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: antihellenistic Date: April 9, 2024, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How Decentralization give a way to the Progressive Yahwism
[quote]The question that now arises is the following: what
explanation does he offer for this remarkable “divergence” in
human accomplishment between the West and the Rest? His answer
is that human accomplishment is determined by the degree to
which cultures promote or discourage autonomy and purpose.
Accomplishments have been “more common and more extensive in
cultures where doing new things and acting autonomously [were]
encouraged than in cultures [where they were] disapprove[d]”
(395). Human beings have also been “most magnificently
productive and reached their highest cultural peaks in the times
and places where humans have thought most deeply about their
place in the universe and been most convinced they have one.”
The following are the basic comparative historical points Murray
makes on purpose and autonomy. Both Buddhism and Daoism taught
that purposeful action on this earth was a delusion; they
encouraged the virtues of serene acceptance, gentleness, and
passivity as a way of comprehending the universe and one’s role
in it. The progress achieved in China and Japan was made
consensually and hierarchically by individuals motivated to
become a valued part of a tradition by imitating their past
masters. Islam gave its believers a sense of purpose and energy
that helped foster the achievements of its golden age. But Islam
saw God as a deity who is not bound by immutable laws, and which
emphasized obedience to God’s rules and submission to his will
against any presumption that humans could comprehend his works
or glorify God with their understanding of nature. Islamic,
Chinese, Japanese, and Indian cultures were all highly
familistic, hierarchical, and consensual cultures (400–01).
Europe was different in the way it was able to integrate purpose
with autonomy. This integration produced “the defining cultural
characteristic of European civilization, individualism” (401).
The Greeks laid the foundations of human rational autonomy but
their culture was still not individualistic, insomuch as it did
not conceive the individual apart from his public role as a
member of the polis. It was Christianity that “differentiated
European accomplishment from that of all other cultures around
the world” (402). This did not happen immediately, but with the
consolidation of Roman Catholicism and the development of a
philosophical outlook, notably by Thomas Aquinas (1226–1274) who
stressed that “that human intelligence is a gift of God, and
that to apply human intelligence to understanding the world is
not an affront to God but is pleasing to him”. This outlook,
adopted by the Church, also taught “that human autonomy is a
gift of God, and that the only way in which humans can realize
the relationship with God that God intends is by exercising that
autonomy” (403). However, the full development of individualism
came with Protestantism and its encouragement of
industriousness, persistent action, and empirical
utilitarianism.[/quote]
Source :
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization by Ricardo Duchesne page
294 - 295
#Post#: 26013--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: rp Date: April 17, 2024, 11:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://twitter.com/jasoncrawford/status/1780427854443892902?t=LwiwJu4g6W7WsR3q_DWgkw&s=19
[quote]
Mastery over all aspects of nature:
• Biology: cure disease & aging
• Space: supersonic, flying cars, rockets
• Matter: nanotech, megastructures
• Energy: fusion, Dyson spheres
• Information: AI, BCI
• Environment: terraforming, climate control
All enabling trillions of humans, living everywhere on Earth and
throughout the galaxy, without pain, suffering, or death
[Quote]
What is your vision of abundance?
[/Quote]
[/Quote]
#Post#: 26015--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: If Western civilization does not die soon.....
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 17, 2024, 11:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
He also looks like what we would expect:
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1227771761078362113/AaFoJ0VI_400x400.jpg
#Post#: 26069--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 22, 2024, 8:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tFx_UNW9I1U/maxresdefault.jpg
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFx_UNW9I1U
[img width=720
height=1280]
HTML https://scripture-images-new.us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/images/web/mobile_wallpapers_01/Habakkuk-2-14-WEB-christian-iphone-wallpaper-hd-I35002014-L01.jpg[/img]
Most relevant comment:
[quote]How is this possible when we are now turning into a IIIrd
world country?[/quote]
Everything hinges on which one happens faster.
#Post#: 27959--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: rp Date: September 23, 2024, 5:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Progressives explain how progressivism is about disregarding
history:
HTML https://x.com/SpandexAdmirer/status/1838182422313115700?t=Dr3dqMVnsc4BdqeWbW49eQ&s=19
[Quote]
A country transitions from developing to developed once it's
people stop going from "we wuz" to "we are" /"we can".
Oh. Wasn't talking about the superpower republic of vishwaguru,
btw. Mera bharat mahaan😅🫡.
#Post#: 28074--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: rp Date: September 30, 2024, 7:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=SirGalahad link=topic=1013.msg25296#msg25296
date=1709418167]
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
[/quote]
I agree with this. If even Jews (who are high in ethnotribalism
due to Turanian blood) are open to reproducing with "non White"
ethnicities, what will stop other "White" rightists from doing
the same?
#Post#: 28075--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: rp Date: September 30, 2024, 7:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All this illustrated that our task is not as simple as uniting
all "non Whites" against "Whites", but all non Westerners
against Westerners. This involves identifying and eliminating
the traits that are pro Western.
#Post#: 28077--------------------------------------------------
Re: Progressive Yahwism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: September 30, 2024, 8:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]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[/quote]
Israel is currently successfully preventing gene editing from
being accessed by those Palestinians whom they have already
exterminated. Why would we not expect "whites" not to do this to
"non-whites" as a whole prior to the release of gene editing to
the public domain?
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-we-lose/msg644/#msg644
[quote]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?[/quote]
This similarly could occur after "non-whites" have already been
exterminated.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page