Jordan Peterson thinks it makes sense to compare humans with lobsters

thirdform

Well-known member
Online gabber-jihadi, obvs.

I'm not remotely religious. I just recognise it as part of my heritage. If Bach is part of your heritage, then so is Abdulkadir miragi's 15th century drum laced religious compositions with drones in excess of -786 bpm.
 

thirdform

Well-known member
traditionalists are of course the most loyal friends of civilisation. This is why I always say avanti-barbari (or forward barbarians!) destroy civilisation, even that which Vimothy loves! I entirely disagree with Sayyid Qutb, of course, but at least I am not a scaredy cat like Gus and can take the trad pill straight up. Here I quote him so that all this inane idle chatter in this thread can be put to bed.

If a society is based on 'human values' and 'human morals' and these remain dominant in it, then that society will be civilized. Human values and human morals are not something mysterious and indefinable, nor are they 'progressive' and changeable, having no roots and stability, as is claimed by the exponents of the materialistic interpretation of history or of 'scientific socialism.' They are the values and the morals which develop those characteristics in a human being which distinguish him from the animals and which emphasize those aspects of his personality which raise him above the animals; these are not such values and morals which develop and emphasize those characteristics in man which are common with the animals.

When the question is viewed in this manner, a fixed and well-defined line of separation is obtained which cannot be erased by the incessant attempt of the 'progressives' and the scientific societies to erase it. According to this view, moral standards are not determined by the environment and changing conditions; rather they are fixed criteria above and beyond the difference in environments. One cannot say that some moral values are agricultural and others industrial, some are capitalistic and some others socialistic, some are bourgeoisie and others proletarian. Here, the standards of morality are independent of the environment, the economic status, and the stage of development of a society; these are nothing but superficial variations. Beyond all these, we arrive at 'human' values and morals and at animalistic values and morals, this being the correct separation or, in Islamic terminology, Islamic values and morals and jahili' values and morals.

Indeed, Islam establishes the values and morals which are 'human' - those which develop characteristics in a human being which distinguish him from the animals. In whatever society Islam is dominant, whether it is an agricultural or industrial society, nomadic and pastoral or urban and settled, poor or rich, it implants these human values and morals, nurtures them and strengthens them; it develops human characteristics progressively and guards against degeneration toward animalism. The direction of the line which separates human values from animal-like characteristics is upward; but if this direction is reversed, then in spite of all material progress the civilization will be backward, degenerative, and 'jahili'!

If the family is the basis of the society, and the basis of the family is the division of labor between husband and wife, and the upbringing of children is the most important function of the family, then such a society is indeed civilized. In the Islamic system of life, this kind of a family provides the environment under which human values and morals develop and grow in the new generation; these values and morals cannot exist apart from the family unit. If, on the other hand, free sexual relationships and illegitimate children become the basis of a society, and if the relationship between man and woman is based on lust, passion and impulse, and the division of work is not based on family responsibility and natural gifts; if woman's role is merely to be attractive, sexy and flirtatious, and if woman is freed from her basic responsibility of bringing up children; and if, on her own or under social demand, she prefers to become a hostess or a stewardess in a hotel or ship or air company, thus spending her ability for material productivity rather than in the training of human beings, because material production is considered to be more important, more valuable and more honorable than the development of human character, then such a civilization is 'backward' from the human point of view, or 'jahili' in the Islamic terminology.

The family system and the relationship between the sexes determine the whole character of a society and whether it is backward or civilized, jahili or Islamic. Those societies which give ascendance to physical desires and animalistic morals cannot be considered civilized, no matter how much progress they may make in industry or science. This is the only measure which does not err in gauging true human progress.

In all modern jahili societies, the meaning of 'morality' is limited to such an extent that all those aspects which distinguish man from animal are considered beyond its sphere. In these Societies, illegitimate sexual relationships, even homosexuality, are not considered immoral. The meaning of ethics is limited to economic affairs or sometimes to political affairs which fall into the category of 'government interests'. For example, the scandal of Christine Keeler and the British minister Profumo was not considered serious to British society because of its sexual aspect; it was condemnable because Christine Keeler was also involved with a naval attaché of the Russian Embassy, and thus her association with a cabinet minister lied before the British Parliament! Similar scandals come to light in the American Senate. Englishmen and Americans who get involved in such spying scandals usually take refuge in Russia. These affairs are not considered immoral because of sexual deviations, but because of the danger to state secrets!
 

suspended

Well-known member
Because you see traditionalism as a choice in the market of possibilities. It's entirely myopic and amerocentric.

Traditionalism, in the sense that the rest of the world understands it is cosmological and providential, not political. or more rather, the politics are sublimated to the cosmology and the religious providence.

Gay marriage is in conflict with family values not because gay couples are in conflict with concepts of mutual care (no religious traditionalist with a brain would argue this) but because they are a violation of the metaphysical necessity of the family as a unit for raising the ideal type of religious character.
I love this for you
 

suspended

Well-known member
It's always been a marketplace of ideas

Religious folk just didn't realize

Strategic interaction and the ecological situation are my metaphysics Third
 

thirdform

Well-known member
Because they are over optimistic about our ability to overcome this ecological situation

Doesn't matter. it's all rhetoric anyway. Traditionalists aren't nearly pessimistic enough, they think their ideological zealotry will save us. One crumb of marxism can refute this though. Communists don't make revolutions., they lead them. If there's nothing to lead, then, communists can be the most accurately pessimistic people.
 

suspended

Well-known member
Doesn't matter. it's all rhetoric anyway.
Yes, and that's the problem. Rhetoric ends up setting the tone for policy, cf Robert Moses and High Modernism.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what whacky traditionalists say/think—the representatives could matter less to me; they matter only as they're relevant to politicking. What I care about is traditionalism, which is epitomized by the Chesterton's fence thought experiment. The soft-c conservative approach has certain crucial dialectical functions in protesting progressive churn and world re-modeling, so as to ensure load-bearing structures aren't uprooted.
 

suspended

Well-known member
And where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god; where we had thought to slay another, we shall slay ourselves; where we had thought to travel outward, we shall come to the center of our own existence; where we had thought to be alone, we shall be with all the world.
 

thirdform

Well-known member
Yes, and that's the problem. Rhetoric ends up setting the tone for policy, cf Robert Moses and High Modernism.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what whacky traditionalists say/think—the representatives could matter less to me; they matter only as they're relevant to politicking. What I care about is traditionalism, which is epitomized by the Chesterton's fence thought experiment. The soft-c conservative approach has certain crucial dialectical functions in protesting progressive churn and world re-modeling, so as to ensure load-bearing structures aren't uprooted.

be realistic though, you aren't protesting progressive churning and world re-modelling, you're trying to reclaim a content which you think has been lost.

This is why your approach is parochial and Amerocentric. If you grew up fully assimilated into agrarian American Indian culture, you would still have a religious bedrock that has survived all twists, turns and shifts. Hence it is bizarre you are invoking Chesterton, the last, whining, deflated gasp of English religiosity. You are on the losing side, and you know it. Unfortunately America is the biggest genocide denier in the world, especially amongst its anxious chattering classes. Hence you get absurdities such as christian socialism without christianity, feminist/LGBT friendly Islam, pick n mix Judaism, etc. You have no real taste for the orthodox, and are inhibited by philistine revisionist impulses. Which may be fine academically, but is far too woolly to build a theological metaphysics upon.
 
Last edited:

thirdform

Well-known member
as for Chesterton's fence analogy. It makes sense insofar as we are talking about economic processes working rationally, or more correct to say, for his ideal type of fence experiment to work successfully, the means of production must be held in common, and all allocations of resources must be rationally and consciously planned. We do indeed have the necessary productive capacity to achieve such a model, but we are frustrated by the objective constraints of an irrational mode of production (marx's great ethical insight.)

In plane speak Chesterton's approach amounts to if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But this is a red herring insofar as earthquakes around vallies (to give a perfect example) are concerned. The problem in essence is that it was meant to be broke, because time, and the accumulated dead labour by living labour decreed it to be so. To take an even more recent example, if we took Chesterton's thought experiment to its ultimate limit, those who had their dwellings destroyed and those who lost their lives in the grenfell fire should not have protested shoddy construction and lack of cladding, because for some reason they were not aware of the reasons and must defer to experts. Of course, who constitutes such expertise is not based on some foolish Genteel anglo Battycrease meritocracy, but entirely determined by the monetary concerns of university factories.
 

thirdform

Well-known member
Anyway, it doesn't matter what whacky traditionalists say/think—the representatives could matter less to me; they matter only as they're relevant to politicking. What I care about is traditionalism, which is epitomized by the Chesterton's fence thought experiment. The soft-c conservative approach has certain crucial dialectical functions in protesting progressive churn and world re-modeling, so as to ensure load-bearing structures aren't uprooted.

But of course it matters what they say! They think their tradition holds the orderly, metaphysical key. All you do then is basically advocate something no different from cautious pragmatism, dressed up in brooklynspeak kitsch poetics.
 

luka

Well-known member
suspended has smashed third for good. third dont have a say any more cos of how he got humilated. gus is way more clever and killed him. sad but that is where we are
 

luka

Well-known member
game over/ the end of third. hes not allowed to post anymore cos of how bad he got beaten up
 

thirdform

Well-known member
embaressing. gus crushed third for ever. third can never post here again cos of how bad he lost

you continue to think that but we Kurds fusilladed your frog legs eating French Cousins when they tried to conquer Urfa. and we wouldn't hesitate to dish out the same treatment to your lads.
 
Top