Traditional man and country

[jgk3]

Re: Traditional man and country

1. What are these personal functions? What are the actual work duties/responsibilities of each of the classes and ranks?

2. What's wrong with having an advanced and efficient model that cares about human rights?

Whatever personal functions are necessary for the country following a traditional, hierarchical order, to prosper. In feudal times, agriculture was very important work and required a lot of manpower. This would fuel the kind of economy and social structure necessary for vassals, who were of a higher rank, to serve the king, who was of the highest rank. The knights (vassals to the king), with the king would go to war and provide protection for their country's inhabitants, the peasantry would provide the food. There were bonds of loyalty, rights and duties due between the king and his vassals, vassals and sub-vassals (freemen who served them), vassals/sub-vassals and serfs. When it came to one's duties, each one on one interaction between master to servant at any one level of the total hierarchy, the relationship was one of personalized totalitarianism. Since all power was decentralized, the king did not control the serf, only the serf's immediate superior did, and this pattern of immediate superior or inferior being the start and end of one's duties and dominion was the rule of thumb. For the freeman, the chartered rights could be defended at a public court, but serfs and peasants hardly had any defensible rights.

There was no such thing as universal or human rights. Where you stood in rank determined what kind of rights you could have, and this is simply an expression and law of nature, the suffering of a person is not enough to subvert this law.

There is still no such thing as human rights. If you are in the position to help people and you want to, then you can. Endorsing human rights in western nations has not lead us as a people to "save the world", it has lead us to participate in the economy under the kind of work conditions that unions and activists fought for and eventually won against the bourgeoisie, it has lead nations to bring together people from all races, creeds and religions to be able to participate in the market, nothing more, nothing less. None of this means that human rights really exist.

If you're going to have a society that is lead by the peasantry, you will find these "human rights" springing up like daisies. But expect to find the subversion or devaluation of all religion, tradition and hierarchy as the cost. The society will have no unity beyond its materialized interrelationships, nothing to pass down to future generations except shopping etiquette. The middle class will struggle to replace the voids of having no leadership or duties to tradition, by means of sports, fraternities, and so forth. Having kicked out religion, whose scriptures infringe on their human rights, they substitute their own folk values and try to find satisfaction in their interactions with nature. To us, peasantry, I have this to say... good luck.

1. If we're not going to use the peace to serve our own desires, what should we use it for then? Serving the desires of unprovable Gods and unprovable Religions and unprovable Spirits?

2. You say Modernity is safeguarded by our educational institutions and media as if the only possible answer for this lifestyle is that we've been brainwashed. Have you considered the idea that modernity might be secured by it's own merit? Is it possible that we're not all just a bunch of brainwashed drones walking around doing what the media tells us to do?

3. Why are you presenting the scenario you described as the only scenario available? Why are you presenting "Taking the economy too seriously" as the only option available? How about you don't take the economy too seriously, serve your God or Gods if you have them, live your life the way you want to live it, and be happy. Democracy doesn't force you to do any of the things your talking about. It doesn't force you to be materialistic, it doesn't force you to vote, it doesn't force you to work, it doesn't force you to live in a certain area, it doesn't force you to live a certain lifestyle. You can buy a plot of land and live like The Amish, completely away from modernity or you can move to a big city and be in the center of modernity.

Our desires are only constructive, positive when they are to find God, to know thyself and to give ourselves entirely, out of love and duty, for the sake of others. This is when times of peace are used most well by those luxurious enough to live in it. Unfortunately, it seems that we often need a wakeup call from war and oppression in order to be reminded of this, and that we've become a bit lost in seeking the comforts that come along with peaceful life.

God is not pursued or worshipped with "the hope of His existence". That is not what faith means. Faith is certitude. We can never "prove" God's existence because we were never supposed to. For one who has faith, his own very existence is testimony that his being stems from God. It is not some scientific exercise. What a scientist would describe as the factors which allow for a fully developed adult to continue his "existence" is an innumerable amount of hard facts which account for the proper functioning of the human anatomy, the physics of the earth (both on the earth and in relation to outer space), nutrition, climate, etc... etc... the man of faith just boldly says all these facts are phenomenon created by God. I repeat, it's not some scientific exercise, it's an act of a human putting all his logic, reason and sense into a very real act of devotion, humility and love. Putting God as the source of All allows one to engage his experience with the universe at a level that does not stop at analysis and observation.

Thus, for a society to hold God as the most important, to give God a sacred name, is a natural thing for humans to do, and we've been doing it throughout human history.

You're right to say that our governments don't force us to be materialistic, however, our modern culture engages us to be so and this is what I am trying to address as so different from a traditional culture. The kind of freedoms associated with being able to pursue a materialistic existence are the only norm that people today know how to live by. This is a sharp contrast from the kind of freedoms that are found internally in the man of faith who adheres to a traditional doctrine. Our society does nothing to engage the freedoms of a traditional man and this is the danger I see for mankind... There is no force to direct the peasantry to some kind of form as a civilization, a form that is greater than the individual. We are directed to be only substance, to be used by those in power.

1. What makes a human a human is precisely what you call "delusions". What makes a human a human is our constant need to do better than before, and to understand the unknown, and to turn unenviable and not so ideal situations into enviable and ideal ones. If the condition of the Human Species is static, what's the point of making discoveries and spreading information? Why not just spend our entire lives doing the utmost basic of things?


2. I'm living in delusions? That may be...but my delusions are simply projections and observations based on what has already happened. I take a look at the past and then at the present, and based on that I come to the conclusion that the possibility of becoming a truly superior species is very real..albeit..like I said before..it's going to take thousands and thousands of years. What are you're conclusions based off of? The idea that there is an entity and that he/she/it wants us to live a certain way?

I'll ask you the same question (from #1), why are we doing the utmost basic, monotonous things as modern day peasants? How are we different from any other era with a large peasant class? Instead, today, we delude ourselves into thinking we have more interesting lives than ever before, free to have fun and engage in technologies that were unprecedented for the masses, and this is supposed to be this great, fascinating end we've reached for mankind, an earthly salvation. Well, it's a person's choice if they want to hold those things as most important... but for an entire civilization to become completely detracted from thinking about life and death situations and to settle in for these comfortable pursuits as a raison d'etre hardly makes sense to me, especially when I read about the Armenian genocide and how we were slaughtered like cattle for trying to find peace without being prepared for war, by denying the nature of things because apparently, the 19th and 20th centuries had obsoleted them. In short, the genocide was our wakeup call, and yet, many Armenians today are busy being assimilated back into the cultures that are asleep, dreaming of utopia and how peace and human rights will bring us there.

The condition of human beings is static, what they do on the earth is not. We are quite the adaptable species, I agree, and we strive to make our habitats livable, but nonetheless, we are also able to know our relation to the grander scheme of things, things that are beyond our power. In this latter sense, our condition is static.

1. People should realize their own personal nature, of course. How do you expect this to happen in a society based off of tradition and pre-determined roles? You seem to be of the opinion that all humans have the same nature and thus are advocating a system that plays to this one nature. I, on the other hand, think each and every single human has his or her own nature, and the only way for everybody to realize their own nature is to give them liberties and not constrain them to pre-determined roles and ideals.

2. Legislation is simply the will of the public, if the public doesn't feel like giving you the freedoms you have now, how do you expect to come to these internal realizations?

People can have their choices within the boundaries of traditional societies just as they do today. The individual can willfully abide by the roles put forth to them by society but can like or dislike them. Or, if they are so adamant about opposing the institutions they are normally forced into, they must face the consequences. Look at public school today, this is an example of how you are put into a mold by your society, often without your choice. You just have to do it and everyone pressures you to go through with it as a kid until you graduate and are ready to become a mature citizen. Talk about an endless baptism...

Amid all this molding... in the end you experience a multitude of things that you can later reflect on and then you can hopefully, learn about yourself... Good leadership in our society? Pah... it's usually mediocre in the public schools.

So in the end, I ask, liberties? what liberties? To hold public demonstrations against Ahmadinajad? To wear counter-culture clothing? These are our highly prized "liberties"? Well, if this is what we want, so be it.

To me, liberty makes sense when a race overthrows the oppressive yoke of another that wants to genocide them, liberty makes sense when you can secure it by virtue of your own power or merit.

[jgk3]

Re: Traditional man and country

1. What would you like to see? How much of the parents work would you like to see transferred into the child's life?

2. What's wrong with anybody being what they want to be? Isn't that the best way to get the most out of every individual?

Since when were people, all people, collectively able to be what they want to be after rejecting all boundaries of divine, internalized inspiration? Honestly... I mean this is what we try to have today in the secular West. How are you free when you need money to be who you want to be? How are you free when the world and all its power struggles, technological advances, foods and drinks, appearances, emotions, etc... determine who you think you are and how you feel? Passionate rationalism takes all the above as what is absolutely real as a means to find knowledge about truth, but where does this lead people after they have placed the center of their existence, causation and reality in all that is visible to the human eye, measurable as phenomenon, and then they are faced with the timeless knowledge of their impending death?

As for parents... well, in a society where everyone can be whatever they want to be, it seems ridiculous to put a child in the position where they must inherit their parents' career or lifestyle, but in a society where there is some kind of tribal order that brings all the people together to find expression in a well defined tradition that indefinitely exceeds the force of an individual, it is of great advantage for the child to learn whatever they can from their parents in how to lead their lives in a spiritually meaningful and socially purposeful way.

So Scientists and Artists are servants? How would this ensure your getting the maximum potential of these people? If Bill Gates was born into this kind of system, we he ever have come up with Microsoft? If Einstein was born into this kind of system, would he have come up with his plethora of work? If the Engineers and Scientists of Lockheed Martin had been born into this kind of system, would they have come up with the F22 Raptor?

There is nothing inherently wrong about coming up with Microsoft, Theory of Relativity or F22 Raptors, but maximum potential of an individual realized at the expense of tradition? This to me seems to ruin the purpose of these human achievements, as they are not being integrated with faith, loyalty, duty or love (which is genuinely caring about another), being expressions of people which draw them together to find order under divine inspiration.

For scientists and artists to be servants is simply an expression of a hierarchical society to integrate them into an order that is governed by a king. Yes, there has been a shift in the cosmology for Westerners since feudal times, and we owe this to the scientific method. There is nothing wrong with this kind of knowledge, provided that you still have a tradition to integrate it with. Technology and scientific theories do not preclude God. The main reason why feudal cosmology was preserved as so different from our own was due to their system of proving things on philosophical grounds, not because of anything inherently biblical. The bible was used by their order, not vice versa. Likewise, the scientific method could have been used by their order too, though it would require boundaries for it not to encroach upon theology, but rather, compliment it.

1. Primordial is a little vague since the definition of the word is "constituting a beginning; giving origin to something derived or developed; original; elementary", can you be a little bit more specific? Is there a certain period of time you feel best represented this "Primordial" tradition you speak of?

2. You speak of living out of divine inspiration, to do this, or at least to ask others to do this, mustn't you first prove the existence of divinity?

The primordial tradition stems from man's appreciation of death, rebirth and the unseen wisdom that creates, manifests and transforms all of existence. It is outside of the bounds of the scientific method, but the human being is perfectly equipped to sense it.

Think about the death of all things, from yourself, to the people you know, to the plants, animals, trees... cities, governments, institutions... patterns, movements. If you don't bother trying, rest assured, life will make you.

Think about the generation, or regeneration of all the aforementioned things.

Now imagine a spiritual view that holds all this manifestation and transformation as part of a single event... You can say it has no cause (and is totally chaotic and random), or you can say it all stems from... well, you can guess, God, the only truth, the increate source of all existence. Now which view do you think our hunter gatherer ancestors lived with when they had their frequent scrapes with death, their survival firmly questioned? It is precisely through moments of great suffering that man.... as he loses faith in his individualized, humanistic decision making and has no alternative but to turn to something greater, is prone to be reminded that all existence, life and death, depends on God.

Because survival is not as questioned today, with our higher standard of living that we tend to monotonously uphold through "work", and that death is not thought about as we chase wealth, "freedom", entertainment, etc... obviously, we're going to try to obsolete "God". It seems as though he's just not a reality to our man-made existence. Thus, we as a society find the hubris to deny his existence as we strive to create our own reality, one that will forever be at odds with nature, until we've been personally challenged, that is... when our man-made reality has been exposed as a fraud, an inept way to deal with the timeless issues of man.... sensitivity towards personal death and rebirth.

I would say the pinnacle of any society is measured by the plurality of all things. If traditionalism doesn't allow maximum plurality and discourages the expression of certain themes, what does that say about traditionalism then?

Man inherently has a plurality of possible expressions, beliefs and works. You do not need a society to establish this plurality, the plurality establishes the society, or in better words, the civilization. You can either have plurality of human expression in a non-civilization, that has nothing that consciously brings it together beyond a materialistic relationship, or you can have a civilization, which can be brought together by a materialistic relationship, but more importantly finds its identity through an ethos that exceeds the individual and brings him to the core of his tradition, his individuality being an expression of his tradition, as a musical note in sheet music played by a great musician is his expression. The musical note has no value in its isolated state, but would leave the music incomplete if it was discarded.

If you compare, by analogy to a musical piece, the plurality of man's expression in a civilization and in a non-civilization, the first is harmonious and working together, the latter cacophonous and disorderly.

I'm talking about in the end, when all is done and settled and Armenia is at it traditional ethos, does this traditional ethos include those freedoms?

Real freedom comes from knowing thyself, from adhering to the integrating force of a tradition, the doctrines of a religion and thus, finding personal shape and form. The opposite effect occurs when we destroy traditions, religions and focus on trying to gain the unnecessary comforts of life, and upon gaining them, to identify with them. This creates, instead of an upward trend of substance ---> form, a downward trend of form ---> substance, substance having no freedoms, instead just being the playdoh that can be molded by the powerful forces and trends presently acting on the Earth.

1. Being called a Wacko or a Fascist is just other peoples opinions of you, this is hardly comparable to what happens in societies based off of tradition, in which people could easily be sentenced to execution for speaking out against the current order of things.

2. The fact that you're freely and openly criticizing Western Society without worry is testament to the inaccuracy of your statement. After making these posts, were you/are you being harassed in any way by some government agency?After making these series of posts, have you been contacted by some government agency questioning you about your beliefs? Have you been asked to change them? Have you been threatened? Have you been insulted? Most of the people on this forum are citizens of Western Society, have they insulted or threatened you? Have they asked you to change your opinions or else?

I'm not harassed. I agree, in a many societies which also happened to be traditional (as there are also very oppressive non-traditional societies like China and the Soviet Union), if you preach of doctrines that are not entirely in line with the one endorsed by an authoritative government, you can face execution. And this is exactly what happened to Jesus, Socrates, and Meister Eckhart to name brief examples... All of whom were willing to die to pass on their messages to mankind. And this act is a message in and of itself... when we believe in a salvation that is everpresent in our hearts, that we are willing to die for an order to keep and not stray from, death is just the beginning of a transformation, a movement or change of external state. We may continue to live in our human form in the memory of those who consider us deceased, but in reality, we never really died. Death only exists for those who see a difference.

What I was addressing earlier was common peoples' attitudes towards traditionalism and materialism, and the effect and role that the media played with them.

[hipeter924]

Re: Traditional man and country

I think to be fair all economic systems are victims of the human character and thus emotions like love and hatred. I doubt any true free market capitalist wants horrific poverty and destruction instead they want people to get ahead and gain a better life for themselves. If people traded freely and responsibly and didn't try to lie and cheat each other the capitalist system would work well and there would be no poverty but sadly like all other economic systems it is in the end a victim to the human condition.

[Muhaha]

Re: Traditional man and country

It is up to the society to decide how much birth to meritorious parents will translate into preferred ranks and privileges. Most often, you will find that this occurs, and that the parents and their rank are expected to provide their children their talents or skills that make them worthy of this rank to begin with. This is why in many rank based societies, it is an embarrassment or heresy to the family when a child grows up and takes on a trade, a role, etc... that they were specifically not eligible for given their birth. Exceptions to the rule do occur, but if measures are taken by the community to fully accommodate for this kind of deviance of personal role and function from one's well defined rank, then you have a corruption of the traditional order. You are leading to a democratic society where anybody can be anything, and thus, the plebs gain more and more ground to becoming obsessed with their "rights and freedoms". Traditional leadership will eventually be succumbed to chaos. With no noble leadership, there are no guardians for traditions, they become tram'pled over and lost for the most part.

1. What would you like to see? How much of the parents work would you like to see transferred into the child's life?

2. What's wrong with anybody being what they want to be? Isn't that the best way to get the most out of every individual?

Interesting that you bring this up. Many traditional societies have extended their sights for surveying the population of the plebeian ranks for uncommon talents in the arts, and perhaps sciences, recruiting them for royal or imperial service. These individuals do not acquire "noble blood" and are still kept at a certain distance from royalty and the ranks associated with nobility (e.g. chivalric warriors), however, they enjoy the privileges of being personal servants (or performers) to the throne or to lesser seats of power.

So Scientists and Artists are servants? How would this ensure your getting the maximum potential of these people? If Bill Gates was born into this kind of system, we he ever have come up with Microsoft? If Einstein was born into this kind of system, would he have come up with his plethora of work? If the Engineers and Scientists of Lockheed Martin had been born into this kind of system, would they have come up with the F22 Raptor?

There is an idea of a primordial tradition of mankind, who's truth is perennial and can only be deviated from by an individual's choice to hold material aspects of the world as the only truth, or to hold their emotions, aspirations, passions as more important than acknowledging the shortness of their lives, a subjective experience of reality, an experience that reaps no lasting reward for the individualized self. When a community is wise, it is well aware of what I just described, and thus has no alternative left but to live out of divine inspiration. They not only learn to work together to compliment their material necessities to live as a community, but also find a way to fit together in a well defined order that expresses their values and cosmology very potently. This primordial tradition is a universal for all of mankind, and yet, we can deviate from it. When cultures adhere to traditionalist principles, they produce veritable civilization or religion, characteristic of an esoteric ritualistic center for its spiritual royalty and warrior class, and an exoteric order to be adhered to by its community's laymen, non-initiates and perhaps its lower level clergy. This phenomenon has in the past been manifested rather potently in Roman, Greek, Hindu, Iranian, Armenian, Germanic civilizations, just as a few examples within the Indo-European speaking substratum of mankind. Today, this structure is gone, and those who seek knowledge and practice of the esoteric, occult spirit and rituals of these civilizations represent the warrior and/or spiritual leadership of a tradition that is yet to be restored over the population. For a good example of this, look no further than Native Americans seeking to hold steadfast to their old traditions and use them for leading future generations, in complete opposition with the mainstream political and cultural influence that engulfs them and has for generations attacked and obscured the influence of their native traditions.

1. Primordial is a little vague since the definition of the word is "constituting a beginning; giving origin to something derived or developed; original; elementary", can you be a little bit more specific? Is there a certain period of time you feel best represented this "Primordial" tradition you speak of?

2. You speak of living out of divine inspiration, to do this, or at least to ask others to do this, mustn't you first prove the existence of divinity?

For the record, the pinnacle of traditional realization within a civilization is not to be measured by the lavishness of its wealth and success of its commerce/economy, its poetic and philosophical writers in expressing themes of love, liberation or intellectuality, or its artists growing ever more secular (relating to worldly as opposed to sacred things) in their expressions, no... not at all... Because none of such cultural markers suggest that the population is adhering to their traditional orders, they in fact suggest a well rooted deviance from the primordial tradition, a tradition completely disinterested in such earthly ideals of "freedom" and "progress".

I would say the pinnacle of any society is measured by the plurality of all things. If traditionalism doesn't allow maximum plurality and discourages the expression of certain themes, what does that say about traditionalism then?

I have not yet decided what Armenia should go through in order to ensure a return to its traditional ethos at a level fully realized by its people, capable of leading them.

I'm talking about in the end, when all is done and settled and Armenia is at it traditional ethos, does this traditional ethos include those freedoms?

muahahaha.... We are living this poverty of culture and dampened ability to criticize our modernistic existence as we speak. If one speaks against modern ideals of longevity, wealth, "standards of living" based on completely materialistic models, the utility of fighting for "peace", the supreme importance of "human progress", etc... they are seen as a wacko, and perhaps labeled as a fascist (which is not really something to be ashamed of in reality, unless you're an idiot about it who believes in dictatorship as a positive end in itself, rather than using it as a means to weed out the forces which stand in a peoples' way to return to their traditional warrior leadership, ensuring a classic hierarchically stratified, divinely inspired civilization)

1. Being called a Wacko or a Fascist is just other peoples opinions of you, this is hardly comparable to what happens in societies based off of tradition, in which people could easily be sentenced to execution for speaking out against the current order of things.

2. The fact that you're freely and openly criticizing Western Society without worry is testament to the inaccuracy of your statement. After making these posts, were you/are you being harassed in any way by some government agency?After making these series of posts, have you been contacted by some government agency questioning you about your beliefs? Have you been asked to change them? Have you been threatened? Have you been insulted? Most of the people on this forum are citizens of Western Society, have they insulted or threatened you? Have they asked you to change your opinions or else?

Traditionalism isn't about having an authority figure brooding over everyone's shoulders like in a dictatorship. People just have their own personal function to accomplish, but it is seen as something important, vital towards their people, their order, their connection to the gods. People today also have personal functions to society, just as they would in a traditional world, except they are completely despiritualized and have no organic relation to any single leadership that brings together an entire people. The economy and bureaucracy is esteemed as a good enough glue for a people to have their "peace", their modern countries. This model is regarded as "advanced", "efficient", "caring about human rights", blah blah blah...

1. What are these personal functions? What are the actual work duties/responsibilities of each of the classes and ranks?

2. What's wrong with having an advanced and efficient model that cares about human rights?

In the end, you die. If you took the economy and materialism too seriously, you end up not knowing who you were, what life was all about, what you died for, what you worked all those years for (haha, for your kids? So they can some day die too, just as poor in knowledge about life?). You die, feeling cheated about all those luxuries you chased after, the peace you wasted because you used it to serve nothing more than your own desires. I can go on ranting, but I seriously believe that the above, this materialism and its result on what a person lives for, is the expression of modernity, this modernity that is so safeguarded by our media and educational institutions, with its myths of "progress", its martyrs of "freedom", its high esteem for "work" as an ethical value in and of itself (even if you hate it and feel oppressed by it).

1. If we're not going to use the peace to serve our own desires, what should we use it for then? Serving the desires of unprovable Gods and unprovable Religions and unprovable Spirits?

2. You say Modernity is safeguarded by our educational institutions and media as if the only possible answer for this lifestyle is that we've been brainwashed. Have you considered the idea that modernity might be secured by it's own merit? Is it possible that we're not all just a bunch of brainwashed drones walking around doing what the media tells us to do?

3. Why are you presenting the scenario you described as the only scenario available? Why are you presenting "Taking the economy too seriously" as the only option available? How about you don't take the economy too seriously, serve your God or Gods if you have them, live your life the way you want to live it, and be happy. Democracy doesn't force you to do any of the things your talking about. It doesn't force you to be materialistic, it doesn't force you to vote, it doesn't force you to work, it doesn't force you to live in a certain area, it doesn't force you to live a certain lifestyle. You can buy a plot of land and live like The Amish, completely away from modernity or you can move to a big city and be in the center of modernity.

Nature isn't about changing itself into some new kind of nature. Within nature, be it human or of the ecosystem at large, there is variation, there is flux of movement and stabilization, there is growth, maturity and death. But there is also an underlying form that makes a human, human... Why try to identify ourselves with something "better" or "more peaceful"? Why hope to become of a form that is outside of what we are? Why not fully realize the actual form we have, instead of live in delusions about "what we could be" or "what we ought to be"?

1. What makes a human a human is precisely what you call "delusions". What makes a human a human is our constant need to do better than before, and to understand the unknown, and to turn unenviable and not so ideal situations into enviable and ideal ones. If the condition of the Human Species is static, what's the point of making discoveries and spreading information? Why not just spend our entire lives doing the utmost basic of things?


2. I'm living in delusions? That may be...but my delusions are simply projections and observations based on what has already happened. I take a look at the past and then at the present, and based on that I come to the conclusion that the possibility of becoming a truly superior species is very real..albeit..like I said before..it's going to take thousands and thousands of years. What are you're conclusions based off of? The idea that there is an entity and that he/she/it wants us to live a certain way?

When you realize your own personal nature, or seek to learn more about it, you find greater freedoms, greater possibilities within your experience of life than you would by seeking or hoping that it "changes" or "evolves".

The only constant, true freedom is the internally realized kind, not the kind that is granted by legislation or material wealth.

1. People should realize their own personal nature, of course. How do you expect this to happen in a society based off of tradition and pre-determined roles? You seem to be of the opinion that all humans have the same nature and thus are advocating a system that plays to this one nature. I, on the other hand, think each and every single human has his or her own nature, and the only way for everybody to realize their own nature is to give them liberties and not constrain them to pre-determined roles and ideals.

2. Legislation is simply the will of the public, if the public doesn't feel like giving you the freedoms you have now, how do you expect to come to these internal realizations?

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

LOL Anon, I was only adding some imagery to the conversation that sums up how the "free market" has been under control for ages.

Audit the Fed... that's like telling the god father that he's going to be audited

How can you have a "free market" when governments gives subsidies to any given industries they see fit, constantly manipulate the import/export tax and tariffs, meddle and control resources... the list goes on and on

Explain to me how someone can go to New York and buy something that is made in Italy and pay less than they would have had they purchased it in Italy.

Or how I can cross the border and buy beer imported from Canada in the US at nearly 1/2 the price.

A car assembled in Canada gets transported to the US and somehow costs $5000-$10,000 less than it would in Canada.

North America along with the rest of the "common wealth" consumed, consumed and consumed some more and now everyone is fat and broke while the rest of the world is out of work.

What you call "regulation" and "control"... I call check and balance.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

Not to take anything away from a free market system since the concept sounds great on paper.... but since there are power hungry people involved, chances are it's not really free.

Here is a chart that shows how the Fed controlled the interest rates on the money that it circulated between 2001 and 2008.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/fed...rest-rates.asp


The fed's fund rate is the interest rate banks charge each other for loans.


The prime rate is usually 3 percentage points above fed fund's rate. This is the rate of interest at which banks lent to favored customers (people with high credibility, wink, wink)


This chart shows how overpriced the real estate market was due to the availability of "easy" money.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1240...%3Dinteractive


Factor in what happened in september of 2001 and draw your own conclusions.....

Now imagine that you signed to a mortgage that was 3 times the actual worth of the house. You are making payments (with interest) for something that is depreciating so fast, you might as well have never bothered working in the first place.

[Haykakan]

Re: Traditional man and country

This is incorrect and quite misinformed. No doubt many of the views you, and to a lesser extent, KanadaHye hold, reflect a one-sided exposure to 'economics' or a reading of economic literature or analysis of the opposing side. It's far too easier to hold the views you do, because that's what is heard by majority of academics, politicians and media of all stripes. Can you name 10 books on economics you have read? And if you have read 10 books on economics, they will presumably all be one-sided and within the realm of the typical politics of envy, always casting blame on "greed" and "free markets".

Your assertion that "there is reason why every society on earth tries to controll the free market to some degree" highlights one sided viewpoint, and the inability to distinguish the division between politics and economics. All societies have realized that absolute control of the free market is impossible. The Soviet Union proved this to it's extreme. All communist and socialistic nations as of this moment are floundering and lagging behind in development.

In fact, the greatest point in human history and developed was ushered in precisely because of the freedoms from the restraints of the feudal system. Feudal society was bound up in rules, regulations, guilds and restraints on alienation of property and information. The greatest human revolution was indeed the capitalist revolution, ushered in by what is popularly known as the "Industrial Revolution." The shift from a feudal society to an allodial society is a shift in the idea of how much freedom of information and exchange are private people allowed to have.

Thus, your whole misconception of "Free market" is in line with the misconception of most politicians, bureaucrats and other talking heads who have no idea what this means. This is not a reference to some corporate transaction or NYSE stock exchange; it goes much beyond that. Thus, contrary to your ignorant assertion that all societies have sought to reign in the "free market," most have settled for what we have currently, i.e., the "mixed-economy." History and time have only shown that when restraints on information and trade have been relaxed and lifted by governments, the natural order of things have prevailed, and people have always prospered, knowledge has expanded, and development has taken to new heights. In other words, if left to themselves, there is "order in chaos."



That is untrue. In fact, the unsubstantiated assertions you state are much in line with the what many politicians, bureaucrats, liberals, leftists, egalitarians and others state.

The "Free market" isn't a "consept created by humans." There is this prolific and lazy mindset that likes to charge and indict things that don't jive and co-exist with their ideologies as a "consept created by humans," or a "intellectual construction," or a "social construct," and any other stupid and nonsensical phrase similar to those which can be used to eternally indict things they don't agree with. In the process, this seems to explain everything yet explain\s nothing. Also, this serves as a comfortable way to deal with something akin to brushing the dirt underneath the carpet - a way around having to deal with uncomfortable ideas that logically crack the fundamentals of our cherished belief systems.

So, in the sense that we humans subjectively perceive the world and have to attach labels, words, and language to things in which we experience, in an effort to communicate, then yes, all things by that definition are "social constructs." But in the sense that these are phenomenon and states of existence and processes we live through and experience, they cannot possibly be "social constructs."

It's also interesting that you state: "it was very interesting to see that the economic cycle has not changed since it was first observed thousends of years ago.The cycle exists because of human nature" This seems to contradict your earlier statement that money changes "human nature," and human nature is in fact malleable and a reflection of our environment (much like Marx) and referenced some natives you saw on the Discovery Channel. Yet, here you are, making yet other bold assertions that "human nature" indeed has not changed for "thousands of years." Which is it?

Part of the reason for the current economic mess is indeed due to "human nature," but your allegation of human nature is too broad. Human nature as it relates to politics and the political class is applicable. But blaming the current economic mess on "greed" and the "free-market" in your larger charge of "human nature," is misinformed and highlights that one does not really pay much attention to political and economic news, shifts and currents.



This is partly correct and partly incorrect. Economic cycles have not been the same at all for "thousands of years" as you claim without any substantiation. In fact, if anything, the economic boom and bust has grown more volatile the more government has intervened into the private sphere. In fact, in America alone, the boom and bust cycle has grown worse and more volatile ever since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913 in an attempt to "reign in the market" which is the rationale you stated in the opening, above, in your post because "there must be a reason," why they want to control the market, right? So in an attempt by the government to "control" the market, the Federal Reserve via government legislation, has created a bigger problem than it set out to address, and here we are currently.

In fact, this is all reflected in the value of the greenback. Since the Federal Reserve System began operating in 1913, right up until today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that the dollar has declined in purchasing power by 95%. [Go to to their website here: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl and use their inflation calculator to enter any amount from as far back as 1913, until the present to verify this.]



I'm sorry, but sometimes, the things I read from many people are so simplistic, it's just nonsensical. If you believe that such simplistic explanations can explain away the current economic woes, then I don't have anything else left to say.



More misinformed and unsubstantiated assertions. It's a typical charge by politicians in Washington, talking heads on the media, all sorts of Republicans and Democrats, and mostly leftists, liberals, egalitarians, socialists, who like to charge that the current crisis is a result of government deregulation.

These and other baseless arguments have been thoroughly debunked by people who actually know what's going on and who also predicted this exact economic crisis many years ago; people like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Bill Bonner, anyone at the Mises Institute or Cato Institute or Reason. Not that you will read these, but if you care to confront the other side of the debate and expose your mind to that here they are:

Did Lack of Regulation Cause the Financial Crisis?

The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis

The Crisis in 10 Points

Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse

Dude you sure do like to ramble on and on endlessly while putting people into catagories like you have been doing since the begining. I would like to hear about some of your own scholarly reasearch regarding this or any other issue (let me guess you have non?). You attack people without provocation and will label them leftist if they suck in more air through the left nostril then the right one. Most sources in my research regarding economic cycles was taken from legitimate scholarly articles and journals and it was a actually evaluated by a PHD instructor who actually graded the thing.In your earlier posts you display such hostility to anything progressive and you actually attack learning itself. You reason that since people are by nature limited, they have no business questioning things or exploring the outer regions of these limitations.I do not know why you are such a dark hearted individual or what fuels your hostility and i much less care. You actually want me to disregard what scientific research done by expert scientists in their field on the grounds that so and so politition said this or that. Look man my class started and i am going to be doing some more learning and research so i won't have time to bullxxxx with you but i am sure you will be sharpening your own skills and arguments while listening to rush limbau or some other clown stooge. I realy did try to be nonhostile and reasonable with you but you are the very limited person you define all of us to be, like a self fullfilling prophecy you become what you believe, while i am trying to learn through research, you are preaching limitations(limitations which exist mostly in your own mind). As you can see you are not the only one who can be hostile and i am tired of your crap.I know who Ron Paul and Peter Sciff are and i agree with much (not all)of what they say(omg i thought he was a leftists, marxists red commy) but you disregard the fact that niether of these two people are scolars in any way(one is a politition and the other a investment advisor).I am sorry the cold war was not enoughf for you and i know you really wanted to kill some left wing commies but for the sake of all the people you label and catagorise like get a life and leave us alone.

Re: Traditional man and country

rational mind

Well, we're in the "traditional man" thread, not in the modernist thread!
To a "traditional man", being is the measure of all things.
And the preponderance of intellect is a sure sign of spiritual decay.

Ideologies, systems... nothing may be further from the "traditional man"'s cosmic view. And why is that? because ideologies (as the name suggests) are intellectual constructions forced upon others by either physical coercion or propaganda or both. No transcendence, no spirituality whatsoever.

I'm not interested in understanding or changing the grand scheme of things.
I am no God and I don't intend to play God either.
But it is not primitiveness that is behind man's greatest achievements but rather elevation of spirit beyond mere animality.

Listen to some Bach when you get the chance.
So long,
Gabriel

Re: Traditional man and country

What you can reap off this stuff is more of an individual ethic although sometimes questionable (I, for one, wouldn't advocate "riding the tiger"/active nihilism) rather than something which may translate to society as a whole. In fact, later followers of this school of thought (Alain de Benoist & cie) have slipped into the meta-historical precisely because of their inability to have an impact on the historical front.

Christian orthodoxy is traditional btw. Why look anywhere else?
Still, if you are looking for God, you may only find Him in your heart. This requires humility though, a virtue our elitist "primordial tradition" intellectuals almost always lack.

"a true warrior caste, such as the SS"

This is pathetic statement really. Get some documentation and reconsider.

There is nothing traditional in nazism.
In nazism as in all ideologies, propaganda is the key.
How far from tradition/spiritual awakening can it get?
Evola got it all wrong, as other dilletantes in this period (take the example of Drieu la Rochelle for instance. He realized, but too late)
Not all "conservatives" fell in the trap though.
I know people such as Möller van den Bruck or Ernst Jünger despised nazis if only for their primitiveness. Evola himself later realized biological racism was a primitive conception (cf Revolt against the modern world).

I am not willing to engage in a conversation.
Still I hope this will make you think a bit. Maybe later.

[jgk3]

Re: Traditional man and country

Integral tradition would say, Christ. Just because Guenon and Evola attack Christianity's social effect of democratization and inverting the natural hierarchy of a society (where a figure who is the archetypal warrior-leader-priest at the head) does not mean they disagree with the solar virility of Christ seen in an esoteric perspective. I know well how savagely Evola's attacks can be on Christ and Christianity, yet at the same time, he explains how a society which is more "enlightened" in being able to interpret Christianity as a solar religion (Such as the Germanic tribes who still embraced their warrior, and soon, imperial spirit even though they embraced Christianity as their official religion) could disregard certain aspects that are decreed in their religion (especially ideals of pacifism and egalitarianism) in order to maintain their traditional order. A give and take if you will, embrace the esoteric, limit the exoteric commandments of the religion.

Further, not all the authors in this school express the same interest in surveying all the same religions when they try to discuss "the integral/primordial tradition". They each make insights in the ways they feel fit to do so, analyzing either the esoteric (spiritual/transcendental/internally realized doctrines) and exoteric (less divine inspired social laws and morality, organization of religious society. Often more inspired by a preponderance towards human relationships with each other and the Earth rather than the Supra-natural/God) aspects, or both. If you want an author who shows Christianity's solar esotericism in plain light with several other religious traditions, this book might interest you: http://forum.hyeclub.com/showthread.php?t=16669

This school aims to put cultural/religious traditions in perspective so that readers can have a chance to reconnect with them, distilling them from the values of modernity. If a reader gets carried away and makes a cult out of a given author and his ideas, that's another story altogether. You could say the same thing about any "intellectual" with a following. It is evident that man must go beyond the views of any author, he must see for himself what comes off as truth, and what does not, and be sensitive to changes in his knowledge and thinking which call for a reanalysis of what he has previously held to be true. Just by reading the different authors within this one genre of traditionalism, you sometimes have to re-evaluate what the other one has said. The same is true with any genre, and between different genres.

Authors are still human, they do not necessarily live up to all the laws of their theories on man and society, however in the case of Guenon, Schuon and Evola, I think they very much set their respective examples in how to live with Hermeticism, reject modernity seriously and embrace a spiritual life that seeks to connect with the divine. In the case of Evola, he participated greatly in making his theories known in official Fascist, Nazi and other far-right circles during the 30s until the end of WWII, after which he continued to speak about Fascism, both its strengths and weaknesses. He saw WWII as a chance for mankind to harken back to a traditional social structure lead by a true warrior caste, such as the SS, a structure based on loyalty to hierarchical principles of tradition, rather than the economy. Once hierarchy would be firmly re-estabilished, National Socialism could be properly dismantled, as it has become a useless and inferior form of social organization. It's worthy to note that this appeal towards showing how political movements can be used as a means (but never as ends) to achieve a revival of traditionalism in society was heavily critiqued upon by Guenon, who was firmly against any appeal whatsoever to political structures.

Just because these men work with theories does not mean they do not live in the realm of "deeds" as you described. You could in fact say that their theories, published, are their "deeds", and that is all they can offer with their lives to be considered by the rest of society/mankind. Other men could pick up their work and adhere to it in ways which the author might've felt limited in. In the case of the Traditionalist genre however, I personally don't feel that the authors had much trouble in adhering to their mostly spiritual ideals which can only be manifested internally and require no other individual to be accomplished.

Thank you for the link btw, it is a good one.