JustARandomPanda

Linking to the Conservatism thread because that thread has spun majorly off-topic and the subsequent discussion Ralis is heading toward in it fits with this thread far better than it does with my original posted topic. Any further Global Weirding posts there I'll Cut and Merge into this one (so would encourage anyone wanting to address those Ralis posts on that topic well...it's easier to just post them here). Again...because it fits the whole theme of this thread far better. Another post Ralis linked to can be found here.

As I said elsewhere you will be missed. Best wishes to you always.

I looked up authoritarianism on Wikipedia. I'm not sure how disputing scientific research equates to authoritarianism. Has he actually posted in the past that his position is the right one and all climate scientists are wrong? I've only seen him question the assumptions that feed into the methodologies so far - perhaps you can give an exact quote wherein he states his scientific evaluation is the absolutely correct one? And the main reason I've seen him question them is his (legitimate imo) fear that such research will be used as an excuse by the Money Power Leviathan to further it's grip of control on the populace - which makes him *surprise surprise* AGAINST totalitarianism (assuming Wikipedia's entry is correct). This is where he and PFL sound alike in some respects imo because such centralizing power only comes about with the aid of the technological/creative classes of society's use of technology (the much ballyhood Knowledge Workers with High Paying Jobs politicians love to trot out to their constituents). Without this strata of workers to grease the daily work-wheels of power (power whose financial costs of maintaining and sustaining such are plummeting decade by decade). The populace doesn't even see how they inadvertently grease the wheels of that which they dislike or even in some cases hate. To put it in Nassim Taleb's terms - there's very little anti-fragility built into the world-system now. Even a 4% cut by any developed world government will bring the system crashing to the ground. The Money Power employs - directly and indirectly - the people who control technology whether that control be via STEM or via "Creative-Class" aid. Because there is now almost no anti-fragility in society (that's one of the consequences of technocratic-enabled centralization imo and I think JMG agrees) the Money Power has us all by the throat. One move - if we don't do as they say - and the system comes crashing down to the suffering of nearly all. He's not wrong to point out that this is a definite possibility. A carbon tax market just creates another avenue for the tertiary paper economy to blow a 'gaming the system' bubble (in JMG's 3-tiered outline) to make the world's societies even more vulnerable if financial shenanigans go bellyup. It's as if the guys at the top are saying - "fine...just know that if you bring us down to ruin..you'll bring yourself down to ruin too". And most people are too scared to move. They fight each other instead of seeing they could potentially be natural allies. But it would mean giving up a lot of the stuff in their lives they love and think they can't do without. JMG teaches his blog readers they actually can do without and live a damn fine life at it to boot. He teaches them to be anti-fragile in an increasingly systemically fragile world economy. I don't know if JB would ever concede if there's a possibility that climate science might be right. I think they are but that's just me. And I admit I'm no scientist. All I've seen at the moment is him just questioning some undesirable and rather totalitarian-esq outcomes of the proposals floated about Congress and International Governing bodies (like the EU). Such constant focus on what government can do makes people forget 1. the Money Power has vastly disproportionate influence there and 2. they actually can act without pre-authorization from any elites - governmental, corporate or financial. We don't act because energy goes where there's least resistance typically (habits are like this too). Some people are very early adopters..most like me are rather late to the table. I'm actually with Aaron (and JMG) in that one of the better ways to start changing things is to take back our power. Don't wait for government to save us (on any level - not even local - you do that and you'll be waiting a loooong time). Anyway...all of the above is off-topic. To get back to the point - how does equating authoritarianism with global weirding address what I was posting about - That there's more than one type of conservative out there. The level of education of what conservatism is - from my admittedly recent but ongoing investigations - doesn't convince me that everyone who thinks he/she is a conservative actually is or knows the history of that term. Which kind of conservative? The Jacobite Mercantilist Neocons? The Technocrats? The Theocrats? Those are the ones that dominate much of the Republican party. Surprisingly a huge bunch of the same mentality has an inordinate amount of power within the Democratic Party too. Why else does Obama's Democratic Administration refuse to prosecute TBTF bank execs and the shadow bank execs that nearly brought the world to it's knees in 2008? That's what I was talking about earlier. You can't get away from the inevitably cultural-ethnic history of what divine will even is (assuming there is such). Divine will as Russell Kirk saw it presumes a Supreme Diety...something no Buddhist would agree to for example. Yet Buddhists do acknowledge there is an Absolute (that's what the dharmakaya is as I understand it). They just don't reify it as a Supreme Diety the way most Abrahamaic theists do. It's possible imo to become aware of transcendence - part of what this whole website is about imo. Just break through the skandas and you'll start to find out how little you really know. But again...so I can bring it back around to my Opening Topic. People like Paul Gottfried would argue someone like Russell Kirk's definition of conservative overlooks a lot of other history loaded into that term. A lot of history which can end up contradicting many of Kirk's conclusions. I don't know if Gottfried is correct. But he's made me curious about the actual history as opposed to what the Media has been telling me for most of my life. I surely don't hold up Rupert Murdoch owned Media outlets as vaunted sources of historical accuracy.

Here is JMG's very latest post. Guess what it's about. The Reification of Civil Religions. Interestingly it touches on the themes in this very thread. Enjoy!

Wow. Had no idea my C&P of assorted articles would generate such posts. I question the equation of Conservative = Mental Illness if for no other reason than I think it's quite possible for people of other ideologies to become mentally ill as well. Illness doesn't check first to see what one's ideology is. I guess I equate mental illness with a more biological imbalance than with a categorizing of positions one is for or against or indifferent to. To start merging them begins to lose the usefulness of the term mental illness. I actually recall getting into a dispute with Aaron and Marblehead over this very thing in the Nietzsche thread. Both of them preferring to use the term Mental Illness with positions they deem irrational. And while Mental Illness may be irrational not all irrationality is mental illness. I found neither Marblehead's, Aaron's nor anyone else's arguments in this thread for oozing the term's boundaries (equivocation) convincing. **** I think what got lost from my Opening Post is that what is called 'conservative' today is not what was historically considered conservative. "Old Time" conservatives were actually against standing armies and constant military interventions around the globe and behaving like an Imperial power and seeing that such comes at great cost not only to the invaded countries but also to the people back home. Paul Gottfried doesn't agree with the Russel Kirk definition of what is conservative but he and others like him (ie Paul Gottfried) are definitely conservative. Libertarians don't count as conservatives according to Paul Gottfried either. They're 'hopelessly demented Leftists' in his opinion. That they don't see that themselves (it's leftist historical roots) is a testament to the poor state of education of even recent history among the average citizen in the West. Libertarianism would actually open the door to increased control of society by Mercantile powers - something many old time Conservatives would oppose (unless they themselves were one of those Mercantile powers-that-be). 2. I disagree that an appeal to the Transcendent always equates to appealing to an (inevitably somebody's culturally-defined) Supreme Deity. Dharmakaya in Buddhism is taught as the highest truth. It is certainly transcendent if I understand it correctly but it's not appealing to a Diety of any kind. Yet if it is re-ified then those opposed to Deities should equally apply that opposition to Buddhism. Thus it is not God as such that is a possible source of contention but the re-ification of (inevitably somebody's culturally-and-ethnically defined) Transcendence that is the contention. As if other cultures can't get a clue that there may be a transcendent so they gotta be 'shown the correct way'. That's why I believe it's possible a Hindu's use of the word "god" can be correct if 'god' is a non-reified term for highest transcendence. And Buddhists often can and do exactly the reverse - else why would the Buddha have continually taught dependent origination instead. I also think it's quite possible for atheists to be virtuous yet don't need a 'god' to justify virtuousness. Anyway...that gets a bit Off-Topic but it's to show why I'm surprised so many continue to stick with the current media-ted (as VMarco puts it) version of conservatism that's currently sold. It's not the only 'kind' around. And it's not even the oldest kind around. And most of all...I find it surprising that I'm the only one who doesn't see JB as an authoritarian. If anything he's as fierce a critic of the Money Power Leviathan that spans the globe as much as anyone else in this thread so far. As such you'd think others who oppose the same would see him as a natural ally - not an opponent.

Another article that was first published in 1953. Spooky how it still sounds relevant for today August Heckscher (1913-1997) was an American intellectual, historian, and administrator. This essay appeared in Confluence in 1953. We’re grateful to The Imaginative Conservative for first making the text available online.

Preview of Did the Greeks Invent the Irrationals Another book by the one of the same authors on a similar topic Arithmetic and Ontology: A Non-Realist Philosophy of Arithmetic The Myth of Irrational Numbers pdf

Here is the link to the Article on Historical Fascism written by Paul Gottfried that stirred up the hornets nest (and made him to write the follow-up essay I posted prior) and prompted a lot of invectives hurled at him. If one is going to go around scaring people about the "Fascist Peril" it's probably a good idea to familiarize yourself with the actual historical political ideology and how it played out when actually implemented by various governments around the world.

Ok Here's an article on Historical Fascism the Ideology (as opposed to Fascism the current-day popular put-down by assorted political party hacks, talking heads and all-around [imo] wankers...) I like Paul Gottfried (an "Old Right" - read pre-20th century Conservative) because he's made a career about studying political history and then trying to remind people where their favorite political terms, ideas, policies, etc originated. What's the old saying from Santayana? Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it...

I think what Vortex was trying to point out was that you inadvertently supported to some degree what WWROA said.. That's what Vortex was pointing out: So I would say to WWROA if he would actually want to discuss things reasonably: 1. If I were to wade into such a touchy-subject I would be asking for an in-depth analysis of exactly how Karl Marx's Communism was re-branded Jewish theology. You have to show how Communism is Talmudic, Rabbinic, etc.. Unless they have a separate Ideology from that of their historic-theology? If so I'm unaware of it as I've always seen their ethnicity bound up with their historical theology even if most are agnostic/secularists and don't actually believe it. 2. The next question I would then ask is what particular thing is it about Jewish theology (or ideology) is so horrible for taking over (say in a Worst-Case Scenario Thought Experiment). What is it about this particular Theology (or Ideology?) that is so reprehensible that it's reprehensible-ness is derived from it's Jewishness as opposed to simply being reprehensible on it's own terms? That is - would it still be reprehensible if everyone on the planet suddenly had amnesia and didn't even acknowledge a Jewish people existed/exist (including say the Jews themselves)? In other words...the reason some find WWROA's posts objectionable is that he has failed to demonstrate specifically that it is the Jewishey-ness of the theology/ideology that is the cause for being alarmed. [edit: or to put it another way - he has not clarified his position so that it is easy to draw the conclusion he is saying that one needs to be alarmed because it is Jewish as opposed to it being simply bad. ] 3. If one can NOT demonstrate this link then there is no basis for targeting Jews specifically for the things WWROA is posing one needs to be alarmed about. In other words...it's basis has not been shown to be rational. And when the non-reasoning part of people begins to overshadow the reasonable part bad things tend to follow in its wake as Ralis' post (and history) amply shows. As another example - The Chinese equivalent would be the similar debates in the 19th and early 20th century in the U.S. of the "Yellow Peril" that was popular then (as an aside: notice how the "Yellow Peril" was mostly an objection against Chinese men...seems men of all ethnicities are all too delighted to mate with willing, pretty females of other ethnicities).

Mercantilist power - aka "the bankers" / "the financiers" In other words...not unlike what we have today in the NWO of Non-Prosecutable TBTF bankers / Shadow Bankers and Speculators

I didn't get that from Bill Bodhri. Had no idea he even talked about it. I got that from myself and from beginning to study what Plato actually said and how he was influenced by Pythagorus and others. I still say Plato was a mystic and his conception of 'the good of the state' was influenced by meditation-derived realizations of the necessity of virtue. According to Plato if that meant a lot people were denied the right to vote so be it (and judging from the low voter turnout in most Western Democracies most people wouldn't actually miss it in actual practice). Plato wasn't promoting democracy at all. He was showing why democracy is inherently unstable and non-virtuous because it replaces people who have awareness of Prajna wisdom and Bodhicitta with the idea of number being the determinant of what's in the best interests of the state or people. High Virtuous Wisdom doesn't rule-the-day but rather just what's popular at that particular moment with that particular crowd which almost always involves some kind of self-gratification (hence all the special interest groups crowding around the taxpayer trough demanding their share of the pork). And JMG is not always going on about being pro ' increases in production'. He actually thinks that's madness as there's no such thing in nature as "sustainable growth' and has written extensively about it. It's a total oxymoron and he outlines why that's so and why that also translates inevitably into economic instabilities over the long haul.

Not sure I agree with you completely PFL although I see where you are coming from. But it still comes across to me as a position of 'what-the-hell-ever' and someone else can and will do differently. Actually most will. Your niece's answer was right in light of your own professed truth-'realization'. Master Nan Huai-Chin was talking about one of the Buddha's suttas on this. The Buddha said some Karma is like a big fiery wheel (the karma of nations is often like this) and to stand against it or try to do anything about it merely feeds the fiery wheel to make it bigger and it will eventually mow you down. But as Master Nan pointed out the end result of people buying into such a 'trap' as yours (which is the same as the Buddha's - you just use the word Mother Nature where the Buddha used the word Karma) is that people will stand on the sidelines with their hands in their pockets doing nothing all the while they're bemoaning the fate of all living things. I (and Master Nan too) like the Confucian teaching better - history is in the hands of humans.

thought I'd post this guy's review of The Principles of Representative Government Also wanted to mention that there actually was some truth imo to the charge during the 2nd Bush Administration of it being influenced by Straussian ideas on regime-building [bush's "lets make the world safe for democracy" for example] and foreign policy (Strauss and his disciples are big believers in regime-change and regime-building). I've been looking into that too. The most interesting thing being that Leo Strauss didn't realize that the kind of elite-philosopher types he kept saying modern societies need to return to for grounding their morals (instead of relativism, materialism and nihilism) was not the kind of 'philosopher king' Plato was talking about. That is - Leo's "philosopher king" was not the same "philosopher king" Plato was talking about. I guess he wasn't aware of Sanskrit, Pali and Ancient Chinese and so didn't realize that Plato's philosophy of Forms was very similar to what is taught in Eastern Spiritual traditions. You have to be able to have attained Samadhi to get to the level Plato is talking about. In short - Plato's philosophy of Forms corresponds to the first 4 jhanas (the next 5 corresponding to the formless jhanas). So Plato recommending that the ideal society being governed by 'philosopher kings' would mean being governed by people who had all attained the virtue and realizations of the Buddha or Lao Tzu. These are the only kind of people genuinely qualified to be fit to rule according to Plato. Something Leo Strauss (and his most famous disciple Alan Bloom) never knew about. Buddhism also talks about the idea of Forms for example (it also goes on to talk about the formless too which is even higher). Plato was a mystic advocating the best rulers (and Corporate Executives in this day and age) are people on the same level as Lao Tzu, the Buddha and Jesus Christ. If only...

If you really believe that PFL then why were you an activist and why are you in this thread posting anti-corporate/anti-finance messages at all?

Here's an interesting Op-Ed by JMG that I enjoyed. Certainly gave me things to think about. His book The Wealth of Nature expands upon this essay and much more. Lies and Statistics

Well to respond: 1. Sitting in full-lotus (which not everyone can do - I can't even do half-lotus but that doesn't stop me from meditating anyway and I've still managed to see some good results!) - pardon for the digress. Anyway...sitting in full-lotus is part of that whole 'self-refinement' vs self-gratification thing I mentioned earlier. Very few people do it. And most don't see why they'd need to or want to anyway. It's asking the typical Secularist-Spiritual-but-not-Religious-Science-luving citizen to take on faith that there IS such a thing as self-refinement and thus higher states of being a human than what they already know and experience in their everyday lives. In short - to them it sounds suspiciously like propaganda to pacify the growing anger the average middle class technical/creative class strata feels justified in feeling. They don't yet see how their living style and high-paying job is a crucial part of the leviathan that greases the whole system...lose this class and the elites will finally have to reveal their hand...aka brute force "peace keeping"..aka overturning posse comitatas...aka regular media-talking heads denouncing the increasing radicalization and polarization going on in society by [insert bogeyman-of-the-month here]. 2. It's not required to see things less Western in order to see "Reality Isn't What it Used to Be". I'd say that's actually a diversion although possibly interesting if it gives new ideas and options. All that's required is for people to realize they're finally going to have to give up a lot of things they STILL (even now) see as sacred cows in their very own lives. Everybody is trying to get some other guy/gal to be the one to take the hit and point the finger at instead of realizing they already have power to re-write the rules of the game without 'pre-authorization' from any elites. They always ever did. That's why new methods of social interaction begin whenever calamity hits. People finally wake up from the dream and realize that since the old order is gone even in the midst of suffering there are new ways to begin solving problems in their lives directly.

Wanted to share one other resource for everyone. Check out this book The Endless Crisis: How Monopoly-Finance Capitalism Produces Stagnation and Upheaval from the U.S.A. to China Be sure to check out Hans Despain's review as it gives a very good summary. corresponding YouTube vid by one of the authors ***** Edit: BTW - Dr. Graeber gives only a partial reason for why corporations began capturing a larger portion of productivity gains than employees. To get another equally important reason of why that began you'd need to read JMG's book The Wealth of Nature. In fact...he is the ONLY resource I've discovered to outline this economic reason of why it began when it did and not sooner. He is also the only person I've seen explain why corporations end up technologizing/A.I.-izing and Outsourcing and it ISN'T because they're greedy thieves (although of course there is plenty of that too). Also...he explains why it's going to INCREASE despite the political and social attempts of the West to stop it. The West's outsourcing and economic decline is a result of the "wealth pump" flows of capital worldwide. It can not help but be so and he shows how the mechanism works and why it makes it very difficult for companies to increase employment and manufacturing when this "wealth pump" system is going on even if they genuinely want to! In short...lots of handwaving and agitprop but nothing will actually get done because the average Developed-World Citizen is into Self-Gratification of the Senses and Ego instead of Self-Refinement...Notice that this Preference for Self-Gratification is just as true of most all of von Hayek/Rothbard-loving Libertarians as it is of most all Leftist Progressives. p.p.s. To JMG's assessment above I'd add the average Citizen in Developed Countries (and Very-Fast Developing Countries too) the preference for Convenience. That's why petroleum is the Ur-Commodity of all modern economies. It is the commodity that sets the limits upon all others since it is the one that separates what a 'modern' , 'developed' production economy is compared to all prior economy types in history. Are you beginning to see why the U.S. Jacobist-loving Republicans and Democrats and their Capitalist-Corporate Cronies loved the idea of "Nation-Building" in the Middle East? If you've got developed economies where the average citizen's "bread and circuses"-lovin tendencies are getting more crimped by the decade it starts to make political sense to put a claim on the Ur-Resource that can more easily quell potential domestic dissent and anger at the elites in control of the leviathan.

Thought I'd toss in some resources for consideration. The problems outlined in this thread are not going to be fixed imo. The biggest roadblock is not just the corporations but that the average Westerner (and increasingly Easterner) doesn't want to give up his/her way of life. Here are some resources for folks to check out whether one ends up agreeing or disagreeing. Cheers! Review of The Principles of Representative Democracy (very good - *not* what you think it's gonna be). The following are critiques of the current "Right" coming from...the "old" Right! Oakeshott vs America The New Jacobism: America as a Revolutionary State Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right Conservatism Revised: The Revolt Against Ideology some other stuff: Debt: the First 5000 Years - be sure to read Hans D. Despain's review and replies to the ensuing commentary The Great Rebalancing - be sure to read the reviews of Lemas Mitchell and David Merkel Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea - (again...not what you think it might be..this guy really dislikes TBTF banks) The Wealth of Nature: Economics as if Survival Mattered - really like JMG...he is a severe critic of the U.S Supreme Court and it continually permitting the central government over the 20-21st century to usurp the power of the people and local governments. For that matter he also distrusts state governments quite a bit too ...probably because they're miniature versions of the federal government with the same centralizing-of-power mentality. His book covers angles in economics none of the other resources I've listed here do. How Social Darwinism Made Modern China: a Thousand Years of Meritocracy Shaped the Middle Kingdom The Rule of the Clan: What an Ancient Social Organization Reveals about the Future of Freedom And a book I want to read asap: Subversive Virtue: Ascetism and Authority in the 2nd-Century Pagan World Saw a thread discussing this book and knew I had to get it. Basically..when a people decide to focus on Self-Refinement of the Senses instead of Self-Gratification of the Senses..there is almost no way for any Elites (whether government, financial or corporate) to control them. That's why Imperial Rome had a bad habit of exiling it's philosophers...they couldn't be controlled and bought-off politically with cheap entertainments and stuff to buy since their entire lifestyle revolved around slowly minimizing the desire for self-gratification and sharing the possibility of inner fulfillment instead with others. If a majority of the U.S. populace adopted this philosophy (which is not unlike Taoism)...the government and corporations would have a hard time maintaining the leviathan control they now have. *****Some Vids***** by Yanis Varoufakis Prof of Economic Theory - University of Athens (4 short vids) - He titled his talk "The Death of the Asian Development Model" - fast forward to 12:12 - he gives a good reason for why China may not be the "savior" of the world economic system a lot of people hope for. Documentary - China: The Biggest Domino Michael Harris on Yra Harris on Anarchist-leaning (and critic of modern anthropology) David Graeber on

Post something funny! My contribution for the day!

So I take it it's impossible to experience this 'rigpa' (whatever the hell that is...guess there's no corresponding word in english...) unless you got a master or guru to give/introduce it to you?

Will definitely go through them. Thanks ***Edit*** Bowing out. Will not be checking this thread anymore. Cheers to everyone.

****Edit***** Bowing out of the thread. Cheers to everyone.

Drew...can you explain this more in-depth?

BTW - wanted to emphasize this. I'm equally wanting to see the axioms the climate deniers are using too. Someone hopefully will post them here.