a lot of the new cults are Atheist cults. some of Dawkins’ followers are quasi-cultists, use harassment and shoddy inferior argumentation. no wonder since Dawkins frequently uses fanciful ahistorical notions such as that “science is the best way to do anything.” (that’s a literal quote.) that someone so educated would make a claim like this is ridiculous. that’s not what science even means. “a way to do any and every thing”, nope. that’s not what science is. likely ~ 99% of the world’s people do not read research publications on sex to have great sex. there’s no evidence of those who have the best sex of having based than on science. that claim Dawkins makes is itself pseudoscientific. he made a thoroughly pseudoscientific claim. is someone paying him to make a fool of himself? science is a research method—it’s impossible to do *most things” scientifically, because typically science is to *study* things perioperatively in a limited way, and then exist as a database to seek knowledge in for experimentation. most things we do are nonscientific. science is a type of measure, it is not all measure. all quantification is not science, because it’s more fundamental than science, and even animals do quantification and navigation that is far more protean than science. science is not instinct. we learn to walk by instinct. even before walking we navigate environments, kinetically transferring ourselves through crawling. science does nothing to that but measure that in a limited but expanding sense. infants learn to walk by themselves, and for most people to try to interfere in that inspired by Science would be likely griveously harmful. sex, most know through instinct. what the hell is wrong with Dawkins? is he just out to make money? does he get enthusiastic but scientific blowjobs from Atheist followers?
it’s especially bad about Dawkins that he was actually a scientist, that he’d make such as pseudoscientific claim like “science is the best way to do anything.”
*even devised things* such as writing was an art for thousands of years before science. mapping, only became scientific quite recently. fashion, overall prescientific except in its most latest trends which may use science to make money. drawing, probably much older than writing. generally no one cites science qua science as a way to learn drawing or painting, as it’s something more primitive and exists in prescientific societies around the globe. etc. etc. etc.
sure, applying science to map is the best way—but when it comes to dancing, it’s not really to do with the scientific method. it’s not taught at dance classes, and dancers do not cite it. probably almost no dancer has cited the scientific method as how she became such a dancer. what Dawkins does is reduce all rigor or training to science. he in doing that contradicts himself, because he might at an other occasion tell you that tribal dancing is not scientific.
he’s a freaking pseudo-intellectual that does not realise the shallowness of his own arguments.
‘Looking at its etymology, “nice” is not a “nice” word for us new wave of tradition folks. We’re not supposed to be “nice” guys. We have a saying in Iceland, as elsewhere, that the last person to laugh has the best laugh. The following is said to your benefit, bona fide, my dear bon homes.
Definition is a tool of the LORD. He separates light from dark, for in the darkness all is equal. All the cows are black in the night. I.e. they are equal,
in pitch black:
equally dark. As in the Darkness of Communism, where all are equally human. Except the capitalist pigs.
We all see through a glass darkly. What if the anarchy you see has its origins within you? What, my dear M., if it is you who are an anarchist?
Certainly, we are living in a certain order. An arche.
Continue reading “Anarchism vs. capitalism”
When Christianity blossomed from its inherent seed of feminism, it became morally vacuous enough to be a type of Nihilism. Placing hopes in sentiment and faith without works.
As I’ve quoted a few times before, the Wikipedia article on Nihilism ▬ » The term nihilism was first used by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743–1819). ]…] A related but oppositional concept is fideism, which sees reason as hostile and inferior to faith. »
I wouldn’t say fideism is oppositional to nihilism, but that it’s a type of the same. It nihilizes rationality, places it as opposed to faith, when in fact correctly they go together. Faith, works and rationality. I.e. it says “rationality is nothing before Faith.” That strictly goes against the Roman conception, in which bonum fide is harmonious with rationality. The idea that Romans, the builder of aqueducts, roads and superior rationalities of laws, techniques and even war, were not rational is pseudo-intellectual. Fides was a Roman virtue, but it took dissolution to divorce it from Auctoritas, Veritas and Gravitas.
If atomisation is a breaking-down
into down to the elementary, it is not a breaking-off, nor a breaking-through up levels (such as increased intelligence is). A breaking-down is a dissolution, fragmentation without a reverse. If atomisation is not a breaking-off (meaning here self-proliferation), or a breaking-through (meaning here self-improvement) it is not capitalism.
There are two modernities conceived. A Left-modernity and a capitalistic modernity. The former is miscalculation of living standards, and the proliferation of anything but healthy living. The latter is an increasing of the useful, the sane, the rational. The former is a chemical cancer causing bath, while the latter is the health spa that improves your health.
Capitalistic Modernity is only making provisional (providential) use of destructive tendencies, per case: from an over-view : ad-hoc — for a building-up. Leftism is making use of destructive tendencies for a tear-down. Capitalism proper increases wealth and social health. Capitalism subservient to leftism, is a non-factum
Primarily Identifying capitalism with the dissolutory—rather than the constructive, generative aspect—is simply falsifying capitalism as Yin over yang.
There’s nothing that equates capitalism with a death-spiral downwards to the sub-human elementary (inorganic strata) — except a tendency for over-individualisation.
A well-run business is a business with a healthy balance betwixt innovation and fortification.
If you see anyone blinded by the illusions of his empty and Calypso-like imagination, seized by the desire of scratching and delivered over to the senses, it is a brute, not man that you see.
If you come upon a philosopher winnowing out all things by right reason, he is a heavenly, not an earthly animal.
If you come upon a pure contemplator, ignorant of the body, banished to the innermost places of the mind, he is not an earthly, nor a heavenly animal: he more superbly is a divinity clothed with human flesh
~ Pico della Mirandola, Orations on the Dignity of Man
We take trouble with this phrasing. Was not the Pharoah, the God-King, divinity clothed with human flesh? Why does life-abnegation have to be more divine? It doesn’t except from a gnostic perspective. Christianity and Buddhism are para-gnostic strains.
A look at the world of Tradition, predating Christianity and Buddhism, shews divinity clothed in human flesh, as kings, as emperors—and even simply heads of families (cf. La Cité Antique); indeed every king and priest in Ancient Israel was a messiah, according to their definition. Hardly banished to the innermost places of the mind, “ignorant” of the body.
Mark Citadel spuevvs utter thwarp:
▬» Why was it that in his quest for a spiritual warrior elite, Heinrich Himmler modeled his SS on the Teutonic Knights? Precisely because no such thing existed in Germany’s pagan past. It was a Roman import taken up with stunning efficiency by the martial Prussian character, but was not itself German in its metaphysical origins. Because Northern Europe was late in emerging from barbarism, it lacked a sophisticated understanding of the superior and inferior. »
Firstly, “no such thing” is inaccurate. An order of knights is a mannerbund, a thing in North & Central Europe’s “Pagan” (Heathen) Past. Secondly, the SS was modeled on Pagan cultures as well. Third, the Germanic Varangian Guard predates the Teutonic Knights!
The Rus’ provided the earliest members of the Varangian Guard. They were in Byzantine service from as early as 874. The Guard was first formally constituted under Emperor Basil II in 988, following the Christianization of Kievan Rus’ by Vladimir I of Kiev. Vladimir, who had recently usurped power in Kiev with an army of Varangian warriors, sent 6,000 men to Basil as part of a military assistance agreement. Basil’s distrust of the native Byzantine guardsmen, whose loyalties often shifted, with fatal consequences, as well as the proven loyalty of the Varangians, many of whom had previously served in Byzantium, led the Emperor to employ them as his personal guardsmen.
And yet, there is one thing that the Rome bunker does. It endures. It is obstinate. It refuses to eliminate itself. It perpetuates its contained subterranean void. It endures without us. It is a chamber that sits and subsists, a repository for stale air, steady temperature and stillness (and home to a few spiders). And it remains true to the original design intent – to “immobilize time and space” (197), but now for its own sake, rather than for any purpose of human security.
But this is the destiny of any underground chamber – to lay there partly- or wholly un-known, perhaps existing in a dimension too small for human presence, to be perceived only remotely through the enquiring eye of an industrial endoscope, a bright light momentarily illuminating an otherwise constant darkness, like the torch flash of a deep sea diver, momentarily glimpsing another world in the enveloping darkness of the deep.
Vibrant voids: how some places ignore you, and others trip you up
NOVEMBER 27, 2015