Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Traditional man and country

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 12
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 11 12 template Next
  • #1

    Traditional man and country

    I wrote all this originally in my response to 'The Ideal Armenia' thread, trying to explain what is to me both the most sensible and self-realized form of spiritual order for a race, that dwells both internally in its people and manifests itself in all their institutions, a choice for those who want to ascend the decadence and spiritual blindness of the modern civlization (or lack thereof) we live in today, especially in western countries.

    (The following paragraph might feel like a shock of total backwardness to many, but I encourage you to read on, I have points that follow which explain why I have chosen this structure):

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The kind of system I propose is a kingdom of confederated princedoms, appearing left right and center throughout the land and who are united as a single spirit in war. Decentralized power, laws of exchange and interactions to be adhered to between the different classes and ranks of society, laws which if not adhered to, pose a consequence of spiritual alienation from ones class/rank (similar to what happens in traditional Hindu society when one betrays their caste).

    If one wishes to ascend the condition of their soul within this system, they must do so via an internalized path, that is, spiritual ascendancy, which manifests itself through valor and virtue externally, to be seen by the eyes of others. This is in fact the opposite of what we do in our modern society, where the majority seek to ascend their condition via material means, totally abandoning this idea of internal ascendancy, and in many cases, the idea of the soul altogether. It is not hard to see thus why lifestyles based on virtue and valor are not emphasized in our media or stories as they once were. Rather, we emphasize emotional states of pleasure and ecstasy, for example through stories of romance, or self exhibition just for the sake of drawing attention, and last but not least, a vague and obscurantist theme called 'freedom' (which in reality is just anarachy against a given authority or social order, and most often leads to the masses being cheated for their support of an alternative governing class), as the highest ideal. This pays service to none when left unchecked, except towards one's own selfish internal void of desire to be something they are not. Thus, it is the rejection of one`s personal nature by obsessing with artificially created shallow ideals as the basis for one`s identity.

    In a system based on valor and virtue, it is equally dangerous for a tyrant to disobey the spiritual, ritualistic obligations of his particular role as leader and instead pursue materialistic benefit, as it would be for a serf, a clergyman, an artisan, a merchant, a scientist or a warrior. Not only is it dangerous for one's personal consciousness (as one can never feed all of one's eternal desires, can never bring cessation to the emotional disturbances caused by their lack of wisdom), but it can prove to be cataclysmic if left unchecked for the entire fabric of the civilization made up of its individual, well defined roles for its people (where each one is supposed to serve and lead in its own, well defined way. These divisions and differentiations, ironically to some, are the actual basis for harmony in which people can lead and follow accordingly to their respective natures and with their own personal virtue towards the sacred principles found at the bottom of their civilization's traditions). When the traditional, timeless order of a civilization is broken, it signals the downfall for a traditional society, the subversion of its leadership by individuals who'd prefer to destroy all its traditional laws and rituals for their own self centered benefit (and leading the masses with banners and ideologies that teach them to start doing the same, all the while restricting them to the same lowly materialistic existence they always assumed. The masses gain nothing, but are actually robbed of their ability to participate in a system of valor and virtue).

    The most horrible result of all is... precisely what we have today... where the majority actually reserve their own personalities to an extremely microcosmic existence that trusts nobody and only tries to survive, or perhaps, cheat others in order to secure more resources unnecessarily. This occurs because of a deep rooted paranoia of being taken for a ride by their "leaders". After this goes on for too many generations, people actually start to think that power and high rank is associated with greed and is fundamentally "bad/evil", not realizing that these are not natures of man, but instruments or outfits which he must wear and use accordingly to the dictum of his consciousness, which can be positive or destructive for his civilization. Modern man is reserved to considering superheros, such as Superman, as the only type of people who can wear such outfits. They reserve such good use of power and "supernatural qualities/rank" to mythical characters, and not as possibilities for actual men. This is very defeatist and is something I cannot agree with.

    Basically, the reason why I'd like a kingdom based on rank, valor and virtue is because it is the best earthly realization of a system that allows man to look upwards, living for ascendancy via his own internal spirit, rather than downwards, towards measuring his status based on materialistic considerations (be they based on love for tyrannic control, greed or other materialized desires), using his emotions as the main basis for guidance which ultimately leads him to dissatisfaction and towards achieving alienation from a spirit that is greater than himself, working instead towards an abysmal, self-destructive obsession towards the self.
    Last edited by jgk3; 04-13-2009, 05:24 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Traditional man and country

    agreed.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Traditional man and country

      Bravo!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Traditional man and country

        Originally posted by jgk3 View Post
        The kind of system I propose is a kingdom of confederated princedoms, appearing left right and center throughout the land and who are united as a single spirit in war.
        When you say "Left, Right, and Center throughout the land", do you mean their actual physical locations......or do you mean they all have various internal/spiritual views but are a united front when it comes time for war.

        Originally posted by jgk3 View Post
        Decentralized power, laws of exchange and interactions to be adhered to between the different classes and ranks of society, laws which if not adhered to, pose a consequence of spiritual alienation from ones class/rank (similar to what happens in traditional Hindu society when one betrays their caste).
        When you say different classes and ranks, do you mean there are set-in-stone groups people are born into and can't get out of (Nobility,Peasantry, Etc.)...or do you mean the various cliques people eventually fit themselves into as they grow older?

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Also this question:
        What liberties would be guaranteed for the people in this kind of system? Speech and expression? Armed population? Property and privacy? Spiritual/Religious Believes?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Traditional man and country

          Originally posted by Muhaha View Post
          When you say "Left, Right, and Center throughout the land", do you mean their actual physical locations......or do you mean they all have various internal/spiritual views but are a united front when it comes time for war.
          their actual physical locations.

          When you say different classes and ranks, do you mean there are set-in-stone groups people are born into and can't get out of (Nobility,Peasantry, Etc.)...or do you mean the various cliques people eventually fit themselves into as they grow older?
          They are set in stone... but for those who consistently prove themselves worthy within their own ranks and show a spirit that can take on the responsibility associated with a higher rank, there is the possibility of promoting oneself, by decree of their tribe, to this higher rank. This exists in many military traditions. A most worthy example is Tacitus' description of the Germanic armies that invaded Rome, called Wuotanes Hari (which has the Germanic meaning of Frenzied Army/Army of Odin): Men, or sons of men who have shown their merit in the past, are eligible to participate in higher orders or responsibility, function, and also honour within their society. In this manner, one can (overtime or after a few generations), eventually assume the level of being a princeps (or allowing this possibility for his descendants), who has his own army. The currency is valour and virtue, proven before the eyes of your own people. That is the entire point.

          However, this kind of ascension cannot be possible if you democratize the criterion to participate in a highly specific social function. A priest cannot function as a king, a serf cannot function as a monk. It is a choice for the civilization in question to define what degree of heredity is involved for each of the classes. Most often, you tend to find a more rigid basis for this in dividing the peasantry, clergy and nobility, yet you find in the case of several usurpers of higher classes a lowly birth, who have proven themselves worthy, before the eyes of their entire civilization, that they had the wit and the ability to lay claim to a higher rank victoriously. This again, is the entire point. It weeds out the cancerous individuals who are not worthy of the class they are sitting on.

          Yet still, the general condition is as follows: your rank and function is well defined, escaping it is a heresy and rightly so, because it reverses the entire social order you live in. Those who know this, know who they are and what their purpose is towards their civilization. They can participate in honour by doing their task as it is specified by their sacred traditions, or likewise... succumb to dishonour or alienation by failing to do so. This kind of system has maximized a peoples' vigour towards attaining honour in mastering the responsibilities associated with their personal rank/function, all clearly laid out by their timeless traditional doctrines, doctrines which if tampered with for purposes of "modernization", especially when it comes to loyalty towards sacred royal rituals (including sacrifices to the main divinities), signal the end of tradition itself, and thus, a peoples' ability to rely on a spiritual means for ascension towards the divine as a coherent tribe/race.

          What do traditions when adhered to mean for feminism? gay rights? socialism? Democracy? Most probably their absence from society altogether. Why? Because you've killed the modern man, that worm-like state of a man that women, gay people, social rights activists, etc... try to attain for themselves to partake in his "rewards" for his behavior. But ask your motley crew of social rights activists if they'd ever like to be the kind of man who gets his hands bloody fulfilling his warrior obligations in order to serve and protect his traditions, his loyalty towards his brothers in arms and towards his king?

          Haha, they would likely answer "why are you so hung up about war... why can't we all live in peace!" And that is precisely why they are not fit for this kind of role... They'd rather believe in fantasies than about the nature of ultimate reality: "Death is always near, but fear it not for you are divine and can participate in ordeals which involve the possibility of death" and this is precisely what defines the traditional man in battle, or in service characteristic of men.

          Ask women, or children to do such a thing... Go on. You may find some who have the potential to do so, you may find that in some traditions, you have more women and children who know of this than in other societies, but also note that in their societies, it is still understood that the archetype for this kind of psyche is the man, not the non-initiated, nor the women.

          Egalitarianism has not done service to mankind... it has precisely robbed men of knowledge towards their very nature, reducing them to the proletariat... human capital, a disgrace.


          Also this question:
          What liberties would be guaranteed for the people in this kind of system? Speech and expression? Armed population? Property and privacy? Spiritual/Religious Believes?
          This is up for the particular civilization to decide. We don't need to look at this issue in a complex manner, you have a well defined role, you have laws, you always serve a class that is superior to your own until you reach the king, who is spiritually the bridge between his people and the gods ("Arevordi"s for example in the case of Armenians), but all abide to the traditional guidelines and rituals set out by a force that is to be seen as immaterial and immortal, timeless and primordial.

          I do not advocate, much like modern (democratic) movements do, that there is some kind of ideal social organization for all of mankind. That is total bs and all it does is destroy the plurality of civilization on the earth, reducing all of man to the same mediocrity, whereby the psyche is one of mundane, fatalistic and de-spiritualized sense of existence and purpose.

          Modern science is used as an attempt to fill this gap, because it's supposed to apply to all of us and the universe... it is like cough drops, or a piece of candy for the every day worker to hear about some scientific "breakthrough" that really, does not tend to help them know more about themselves and what kind of mess of an existence they live in. This is why science is only interesting and worthy of pursuit if you have made it your "class", that is, if you are a scientist. But neither popular media, nor the ideologies propounded by "science" (including the atheist phenomenon we witness today), is using it this way. Their agenda, whether consciously known by its adherents or not, also obscures man from his traditionalism by trying to prove that the latter's cosmology, mysticism and esoteric doctrines are rubbish, obsolete ways of thinking.

          Science does not need to become such an antagonistic, modernistic movement once it has been accepted that its scope is most productive when it is dedicated for observing and proving insight towards individualized phenomenon occurring in the universe. In order to answer bigger questions about the workings of the macrocosm, of ultimate reality, you may use your knowledge of individualized phenomenon, but combine them with the same approach man has used since he began observing the stars in the sky... creativity, imagination, sensation of the workings of the universe. Essentially, it is of the same spirit that man has used in receiving the traditional divine doctrines he has held to be sacred in the past and felt compelled towards when setting up an order to be followed by his tribe. For a scientist to deny their own creativity, imagination, etc... in a "holier than thou" kind of way, in an attempt to perhaps adhere to the scientific method in a more "absolute" way, is comparable to a devout priest castrating himself in an attempt to appease God by trying to "better avoid sin".

          To return to the consequences of all this modern ideology on the masses, when your average unintelligent, unzealous slob gets home from a 9 hour shift, he's not going to buckle down and read (even) a 20 page scientific article about a topic that interests him, and he knows as much about the scientific method as he does about the methods used by any highly specialized social class/function, nada. Science is just not going to enlarge the state of consciousness for the modern masses or direct them to any less of a meaningless, distracted, impotent existence.
          Last edited by jgk3; 04-13-2009, 06:19 PM. Reason: I edit myself frequently...

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Traditional man and country

            that's awesome to hear Anon

            Comment

            • #7
              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

              Comment

              • #8
                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.

                Comment

                • #9
                  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.
                  Last edited by jgk3; 04-15-2009, 06:36 PM.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment

                    Previous 1 2 3 4 5 11 12 template Next
                    Working...
                    X