Traditional man and country

[jgk3]

Re: Traditional man and country

a comment: It is nice that every day, this thread is seeing activity and is constantly being updated, talking about different aspects of the same general topic. I encourage you all to continue in this discussion.

[jgk3]

Re: Traditional man and country

When business becomes the most important aspect of social order, I think you start to lose the point of traditionalism. Selling your own product or surplus (who's production is associated with your rank/class) in the market is one thing, acting as merchant/middle man who are able to incur vast wealth and influence without participating in any production to begin with is quite another. There have historically been civilizations where there is a class of merchants, but by no means could a civilization's ethos and its laws be based on extending this function of distributing resources for monetary gain as the element of highest significance. To be so would negate traditionalism, negate an atmosphere where you instead tend to find distribution of resources and wealth that did not translate into a gain in wealth by anyone, but rather, the sophistication of a system based on honour, loyalty and accountability. Those who shared their wealth out of their own volition gain in status and prominence by doing so, whilst everyone else got to benefit from this distribution of resources. A classic example would be a traditional banquet, where the most prominent members of the group try to outdo each other by providing for the best food and drink, whilst everyone else gets to benefit from this competition by the well to do. The result is an orderly, win-win situation, a truly organic engagement of people in a group.

However, when the example of the merchant/bourgeois class is held in the highest esteem, the atmosphere start to change... For one, the bourgeoisie would now reign and have a free hand in the use of capital and markets, at the expense of traditional social institutions. Some of you may argue that these humanistic movements associated with the rise of the bourgeois and the emancipation of serfs was the greatest leap ever for western man. I question however... What was the purpose of this in the grander scheme of things? In my opinion, it was a movement used to disenfranchise the noble classes (who had, by the end of the Renaissance period, long since lost their virility and right to their own traditional, sacred reason for having their privileges) of their land and nothing else. It was a power grab disguised as a humanistic movement that only nominally was caring about "the people" and the rights "they ought to have". The next thing you know, the government taking its socialistic nature seriously with its ever increasing regulations, consolidated its powers to control the lands of entire nations. In my opinion, it would've just been better to weed out the cancerous dynasties of nobility, who more and more had become tyrants, absolutists just trying to control all the resources of their nation the way a businessman would. Thus, you would revamp the traditional system with people who were able to assume their noble roles, rather than let the bourgeois class usurp all the power.

Once the royalty and all other aspects of the hierarchical social structure based on personal values was removed from supremacy, it is not shocking at all to see how they've neglected the traditional boundaries that would forbid the economy from taking on the supreme form it has today. Some of it's most ruthless of members also run the government accordingly to their own self-interested whims, and this completes the decadence associated with the rise of the bourgeois class. They have thus achieved the same function towards civilization as the tyrannic elements amongst the noble classes which they disenfranchised.

It is because of these two points that I differ from those who praise the economy (free or not) as the highest ideal for a population, because their model society is one where they've killed the function of the king and the nobility, killed the organic nature of a hierarchical social structure where every class serves sustains its superior and allows its superior to partake in its own, highly specialized function. Thus, it is a model where the currency of personality has lost to the currency of money, earned through pure competition in "the economy". This ability to secure the kind of lifestyle you seek, based on material means for attaining material desires, emphasizes individuality, whereby each man partakes in a common system of competition over resources which translate into wealth to be enjoyed by them should they be victorious. This, in the absence of traditional laws of conduct, fosters greed and ruthlessness towards one's own people, and is destructive to civilization because civilizations aren't supposed to compete inside of themselves for wealth, but rather enjoy the fruits of their own dedication towards their particular trade or work, in serving their country and its traditions as a most realized form of loyalty. Without traditional boundaries, you will no longer see your fellow countryman as a brother. There is supposed to be an order from above that keeps the bourgeois class in its place, reminding everyone that it is through one's actions (service that is deemed as good for their personal class/rank/nature/function) that spiritual ascension can be achieved, not by concerning oneself with material gain.

There is a reason why the cells in our bodies don't each have their own brain. They all have their own functions specific to their own natures. Creating a society where the economy is the most important aspect of the civilization is not a civilization. A civilization is like a human body. The master moves his right hand, and it moves. The right hand doesn't think about it, nor is it forced by decree to move, they are part of the same consciousness and work organically.

Again, I expect great disagreement from others along these lines, but nonetheless, this is the traditionalist point of view, where death is taken seriously and where one triumphs through competition done out of loyalty to spiritual ideals, not materialistic ones. When individuals violate this principle, regardless of the level of their birth or what their function is, they sin against both their own and their civilization's spirit, spirits which in a deep sense, are one and the same, interconnected.

[hipeter924]

Re: Traditional man and country

Here is a piece I found interesting incidentally referencing my idea of a natural order. I hope it doesn't deviate from the thread:

I agree with anarchy...but anarcho-capitalism (a rule of economics as opposed to rule of state).

[hipeter924]

Re: Traditional man and country

Democracies naturally evolve into tyrannical or tyrannical-like states.

"Republic" is not a "democracy." The Framers never callled the Republic as such. Idiots like de Tocqueville did.

So many people say that. Republic is not democracy, but contains elements of democracy in order to function. All the people who made the first republic aka roman republic were aware of how the democracy of athens functioned and elements of that was put into the republic. This why I said 'contains' and not is a democracy.

Aka Greek Democracy -> Roman Republic

There was a transition. I hate trying to explain this...

For example there is a transition between modern republic and the older republics, they take elements from the earlier government this does not mean to imply that the modern republics aka USA or Russia are the same as the older ones aka roman or venice republics.

When people were developing the Roman republic they visited places like Greece for ideas, they visited there and adopted Greek religion, some of the political system they adopted (and adapted for the republic) as well.

I view all governments as transitional and related..taking earlier ideas and adapting them while adding on new ones.

[jgk3]

Re: Traditional man and country

Interesting Anon. I think it was relevant to post that, it puts the matter of traditional order in perspective by contrasting it with governmental regulation.

[jgk3]

Re: Traditional man and country

"The sword" is just one of innumerable natural manifestations associated with the destructive force employed in an exchange between opposing forces/intentions.

By the way, when you tread through the forest, enjoying a walk, you must at the same time crush the grass and perhaps break some branches to make your way through. You are establishing order with every advance into nature, and you are warring with the ecosystem constantly. This is not to be seen as negative, because nature is well adapted to (or should I say, made of) this process... You know, you could be killed by nature too. It is just a matter of establishing order for every new action, new movement.

Animals engage in battle to establish supremacy, so does man. It is not a question that man engages in war constantly. Ideologies that seek to interpret the nature of the world in a purely pacifistic way, or as an antagonism between war and peace, are fantasies, and yet, they dominate the psyche of the "civilized" western world. They are also a dominant theme in Christianity. Priests, time and time again, have opposed kings or warriors, opposed this same natural theme of battle or war, because apparently, God dictates against it. Yet man cannot escape from experiencing times where battles are necessary in order to keep order, and this is also why warriors characteristically have taken the initiative of mastering their means for fighting to be prepared for maintaining their order and will instead of losing it altogether to the enemy.

Btw, I also don't see the place for government in the system I am talking about. When your society is based on well defined (and well adhered to) service towards your superior, there is no need for some governmental body to pool in an entire society's resources and redistribute it. In fact, the leader of a feudal society did not control and distribute the capital of his kingdom. His actual political roles were rather restricted to choosing to declare war (using his knights, already associated with a highly specialized class that is made for this service), making alliances or maintaining bonds of loyalty with other royal houses, etc...

He could also set up domestic industries that would help power the needs of his kingdom or empire, but he never ran them himself. They were production oriented and the work was given to a specialized class, guilds-men associated with that particular kind of work, who had their own rituals and regulations, and they had their own chief who was basically their master. This organization had a strong sense of solidarity to it, and its members strongly identified themselves with their trade. You had to have a certain level of birth, or have connections with the right people in order to be eligible to take part in a guild, starting as an apprentice and gradually becoming a master in your art (in modern industries, this sense of mastering the art of your trade tends to be lacking, because the cult of the trade has vanished, a cult that inspires work based on perfection and of putting one's personal soul into the product they have been given the honour to produce).

All unspecialized and undesirable work was left for the lowest classes with the lowest privileges in their social function, as it continues to be done so today even though we like to pretend things are different now because we don't have slaves or serfs (when in reality, you have people who are materially as poor as they, if not lower, and in their nervous need to be able to afford their modern, "free" existence, can be shown to be no more a signal of an independent existence than that of a slave).

[hipeter924]

Re: Traditional man and country

Personally I am against government, I follow a form of anarcho-capitalism instead. My ideal economy is one where you have small businesses run by 1 or 2 people, and no corporations, much like the trade and apprentice system we had before corporations. This would remove all government imposed taxes and regulation that forced the development of corporations to work against such taxes and regulation. As for government there would be none, it would rely on reputation of individuals and moral and religious groups to maintain order through the mind and not through the sword.

[jgk3]

Re: Traditional man and country

What good does the average modern schmuck, who fears any level of existence that could mean his life in service to something noble for the sake of OTHERS (and not himself), have to offer by participating in the decision for what kind of leader should rule his country?

What makes "democracy" heretical by traditional standards is not so much it's technicalities, but more so its ideology of reducing every man that participates in it to the same common denominator... an egalitarian blob rather than a hierarchically structured tower or pyramid. In this egalitarian blob, all the same privileges are offered to the entire population, without discrimination, by an abstract decree of law, not by personal merit. To illustrate an example of this ideology functioning in an extra-political level, look no further than the idea of Heaven in Christianity. Everyone, no matter how valiant or cowardly, no matter how selfless in their acts of loyalty or egotistical and power hungry, no matter how active or idle they are in their respective functions for their people, has entry to heaven.

You can even rape a child and get into heaven if you do proper repentance. What is this? What is going on here? Christianity speaks of hell, but you can't go to hell if you believe in Christ, our lord and savior... What does this mean? This is religion, taking advantage of an immaterial concept of salvation that once was reserved for the noble and self-realized towards their divine nature, but now democratized for the masses. You turned heaven (who's place in the skies was chosen specifically to distinguish itself from the Earth and from the people who's loyalties are towards the ground and not the sky), into a w'hore who's spread her legs open to receive precisely its antagonist, the masses who cannot lead a noble existence.

This is why Christianity is so lovey-dovey, so much about hope for fortune... because the masses are chaotic in their spirit, they listen to and think with emotions, this is why such chaotic ideologies, functioning as religions, are so popular amongst the masses and by contrast, are such a threat to any population who seeks to model itself after the ideal of looking up to the celestial as an inspiration to live for noble conquest and mastery of thyself. Enlightenment and spiritual order vs emotional fantasy and spiritual chaos. Hierarchy vs Democracy.

Now, compare my explanation of this important social effect of Christianity (vulgarization of heaven for the masses) to Obama's movement of "hope and change". Now look carefully at the political apparatus behind democracy... It has no soul of its own, no structure, it is just the electoral realization of a society that looks like a shapeless blob (in terms of merit or virtue... the disparities in physical wealth are not important in this analysis), designed to host, in an official, institutionalized way, the people who can be swayed by Obama, Bush, McCain, Hitler.... you name it. It is a stage show where you, the participant, can m'asturbate for your favorite candidate based on how pretty or soft spoken he is, or how much money he's going to give you, how many promises he delivers for you... It is all emotional. None of what is going on has to be real, because at the end of the day, you're a fool who's just going back to work whether he likes it or not. Unless you're a kook, you will not try to hold the candidates you elected accountable for all the xxxx they did in office, and if you try... well they have their way of keeping you from interfering with their affairs anyway.

The traditional way of picking a leader was not so bureaucratic, nor was it so much of a charade... Often you had a show of arms between the different candidates who vied for the same position, and that settled it. The serfs (masses) played no active part in the process, the Pandora's box of democracy had not been opened yet for their civilization, they were not yet belonging to a society definable as classless blob of mediocrity.

[UrMistake]

Re: Traditional man and country

So u like gambling?its all ot nothing?
Belive me u will not like it,most of the time its bad thing,if u trust 1 good leader then the man after him will be a devastation.aka all the sons of the kings,Soviet Union.
Its all in human nature,so what makes dimocracy better than others?
If u like gambling u got better chances for a better ruler over ur head,much more better days u will see or ur sons.

[hipeter924]

Re: Traditional man and country

It really depends I have lots of arguments for several governments.

Dictatorship:
Everyone can agree this is worse than democracy since it relies on the supreme decision of one individual (which can be good or evil)

Republic:
Contains some democracy but just like democracy it is corrupt and it also doesn't necessarily have as much freedom aka American Republic,Russian Republic, or of course Roman Republic

Democracy:
50% (on average) don't vote
30% vote for a winning party (roughly 60% of vote)
20% vote for opposition (roughly 40% of vote)
- Under democracy 30% rule over 70%
Also democracy has a level of corruption, no denying that every democracy has its corrupt politicians