Thursday 22nd of August 2019

a gift from the mad evolution of life...


First a few points made by some other people about societies...

Filippo Tommaso Emilio Marinetti (Italian: [fiˈlippo tomˈmaːzo mariˈnetti]; 22 December 1876 – 2 December 1944) was an Italian poet, editor, art theorist, and founder of the Futurist movement. He was associated with the utopian and Symbolist artistic and literary community Abbaye de Créteil between 1907 and 1908. Marinetti is best known as the author of the first Futurist Manifesto, which was written and published in 1909; and also of the Fascist Manifesto.


Cardinal Robert Sarah is publishing the third of his book-length interviews with Nicolas Diat: The Day is Far Spent. An unflinching diagnosis, but one full of hope in the midst of the spiritual and moral crisis of the West.

1) In the first part of your book, you describe “a spiritual and religious collapse.” How does this collapse manifest itself? Does it only affect the West or are other regions of the world, such as Africa, also affected by it?

The spiritual crisis involves the entire world. But its source is in Europe. People in the West are guilty of rejecting God. They have not only rejected God. Friedrich Nietzsche, who may be considered the spokesman of the West, has claimed: “God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him…” We have murdered God. In view of God’s death among men, Nietzsche would replace him with a prophetic “Superman.”

The spiritual collapse thus has a very Western character. In particular, I would like to emphasize the rejection of fatherhood. Our contemporaries are convinced that, in order to be free, one must not depend on anybody. There is a tragic error in this. Western people are convinced that receiving is contrary to the dignity of human persons. But civilized man is fundamentally an heir, he receives a history, a culture, a language, a name, a family. This is what distinguishes him from the barbarian. To refuse to be inscribed within a network of dependence, heritage, and filiation condemns us to go back naked into the jungle of a competitive economy left to its own devices. Because he refuses to acknowledge himself as an heir, man is condemned to the hell of liberal globalization in which individual interests confront one another without any law to govern them besides profit at any price. 

In this book, however, I want to suggest to Western people that the real cause of this refusal to claim their inheritance and this refusal of fatherhood is the rejection of God. From Him we receive our nature as man and woman. This is intolerable to modern minds. Gender ideology is a Luciferian refusal to receive a sexual nature from God. Thus some rebel against God and pointlessly mutilate themselves in order to change their sex. But in reality they do not fundamentally change anything of their structure as man or woman. The West refuses to receive, and will accept only what it constructs for itself. Transhumanism is the ultimate avatar of this movement. Because it is a gift from God, human nature itself becomes unbearable for western man.



Third: While JP [Jordan Peterson] might not have a lot to say about the actual ideal society in Maps of Meaning, there are several things that he knows society should NOT be: He knows, and has a theoretical foundation to back it up, that the Principle of Order should never have absolute dominion over the thoughts and actions of the citizens. He knows, and has a theoretical foundation to back it up, that The Principle of Chaos should never remove all boundaries on human behavior and limits on human desires. He has a theoretical foundation to make a SECULAR case that men and women are complementary, and that their union is among the most fundamental, and most perilous, of human endeavors. Anyone who objects to thought control by the so-called PC police (whoever “they” are), anyone who thinks that abandoning certain traditional moral standards is going to have bad consequences, anyone who thinks that heterosexual marriage is both normal and requires the societal support of traditional structures, anyone who thinks that traditional gender roles aren’t solely the result of the Evil Patriarchy, should find a kindred spirit in Jordan Peterson, one who is articulate, theoretical, practical, and willing and able to talk in a secular way. 

Does that answer your questions? No…but I’ve never heard anything JP say about love or romance or relations between the sexes, that wasn’t somehow informed by this schema, and to get mad about what he says without understanding it is to throw out a potential resource without understanding it.

Is Jordan Peterson SAFE? Of course not. But considering how much damage has been done throughout history from misinterpreting Jesus’ words, Jesus Himself isn’t exactly “safe” either. “You are over the edge of the wild, and you are in for all kinds of fun wherever you go.”

Read more:

Jordan Peterson is using the traditional prop of traditional religion, without the religious beliefs, to support his attack on the weak and on the oppressed, including women, who have tried to de-shackle themselves from the religious dogmas. Often their only option has been through human rights and other ways, such as PC, to limit the shit coming from people who think that free speech is a right to insult the poor and trodden.
Beyond this, Peterson's lack of romanticism mirrors the religious dogma of Islam. "Wherever we go", priests are the least equipped to deal with committed love between people, by holding pre-conceived ideas about the process… Romanticism is not as straight forward as it seems. Depending on your class, it would have been most likely that your marriage be either arranged, corralled or masterminded through lust. It was in the 19th century that Romanticism came to the fore with the imaginative arts — somewhat in opposition to the developing mechanisation/urbanisation of societies. 
And yes, Jesus is not safe in a changing world where sciences allied with humanism can make a far better human world than what it has been so far with the religious decrees used by self-deluded psychos to lure us to self-destruction and some dangerous delusions of sins and hell. Some modern philosophers have tried to tackle the issue of the godless social and humanistic construct, with much opposition from the various mobs who run the business of Abrahamic religions. The arguments always presented by these mobs are the lack of rules and morals "away from them". As if.
The alliance of sciences and humanism should become our primary understanding where sciences shows life being a mad (weird) yet precisely constructed battle between proteins in evolution, while humanism should elevate this truism to a higher stylistic level of compassion, in which we moderate the madness of life and make it enjoyable — without killing someone, robbing someone and without destroying the planet. And this does not become a moral position, in the fear of hell or whatever, but a relative duty of care.
Thus no matter what the cardinal, the priest writing to Rod Dreher or Jordan Peterson think or do, we have to care for the planet, resent the self-appointed ruling classes and protect the poor, even if we get nothing personal in return.

the tricks and the hats of cardinals...




In little more than a century, ­sociology has devolved from a world of scholars cognizant of the fundamental role religion plays in human social order to a world of anti-­religious scholars practicing an ersatz religion of activism. They misconstrue the nature of society because they can’t gauge the power of the sacred at work in their own discipline. In his sublime “Science as a Vocation,” which once served as a kind of holy writ of sociology’s calling, Weber scorns the “academic prophe[ts]” who have turned their politics into a substitute for the religion they lost, and foisted their ideological foolishness on students under the guise of scholarship. The spirit of the academic prophets Weber loathed is now ascendant. Sociology will not survive their reign, for it is a discipline born to observe, analyze, and reflect upon religion’s power and influence—not to serve as its unwitting surrogate. 

Read more:





nixon's two enemies: the antiwar left and the black people...

There is a trend that seems to have been going on in the world for a pretty long time now. Rulers in the world have been actively suppressing a particular kind of social movement whenever and wherever it appears. These movements vary in name and in scale, but they are united in principle. In principle, what they all have in common is they are inspired by and founded upon principles of cooperation among people.

Consider for example the United States’ long standing anti-socialist policies toward Latin America. These have led the overthrow of one socialist government after another all throughout Latin America and for many years. Even now this policy has not changed, an overthrow attempt in Venezuela is ongoing. Commenting on the subject publicly in mid February Trump tweeted, “We are here to proclaim that a new day is coming in Latin America. In Venezuela and across the Western Hemisphere, Socialism is DYING…”.

Even more, as documented by Wayne Madsen for the Strategic Culture Foundation, a number of right wing leaders throughout south and central america have recently come together to form an official coalition whose purpose is to, essentially, combat socialist movements in the region. They seek to, “eradicate all vestiges of Venezuela’s late president, Hugo Chavez, and Brazil’s wrongfully-imprisoned past president, Inacio Lula da Silva.”

Another example is the hippy movement of the sixties. This was a movement that, somewhat unexpectedly it seems, grew up right in our own backyard. This movement was also rooted in principles of peaceful cooperation among people, and it too was ruthlessly stamped out by our own government. As Richard Nixon’s chief of domestic policy stated in an interview with Dan Baum for Harpers Magazine:

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”


There are many many more examples of this type of thing occurring throughout history, this fight against cooperative movements goes back ages. The real question is, why do they keep having to stamp these movements out? Why do they need policies aimed at combatting these kinds of cooperative movements? And why do these movements keep coming back?

It’s almost like, to them anyway, the world has contracted some kind of disease that keeps breaking out all over the place. Whenever they take their eye off some place, people start cooperating again, and they have to hurry in and smash those communities to bits before the cooperative ideas start to spread.


Read moe:


Read also:

celebrating the madness of life...

Read from top.