The ‘Solway Statement’, revisited

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The Rothbard seems interesting, but does it provide enough inspiration to knife Marxists and smash their skulls in? Or, is it more a polite exposé suitable for improving one's cocktail chatter?

That's all depending on ones love for cocks or tails perhaps. Or mixed beverages and blending in general. As for Marxists, I'd say the book targets Progressivism as cultural or ideological distinct movement. It's a criticism on Statism, if that's a thing even, but certainly state coercion would be the most distinct feature of many national socialist and communist experiments.

Progressivism was, to a great extent, the culmination of the pietist Protestant political impulse, the urger to regulate every aspect of American life, economic and moral--even the most intimate and crucial aspects of family life. But is was also a curious alliance of a technocratic drive for government regulation, the supposed expression of "value-free science," and the pietest religious impulse to save America--and the world--by state coercion.

The book outlines some detailed causes of the American switch to Big Government, digging into the transference of Protestant theology, away from classical theology into postmillennial Christianity (with or without God), helped by "Yankee Women Progressives", to demand and realize a controlled and maintained society with pious values as equality (equal before God and men) and caring for the ill and poor (main Christian value historically) as government tasks; the new Kingdom came.

This is nothing new or shocking but the detail provided is interesting. Where Christianity evolved into. Or devolved. This all points to the ironic, contradicting elements of the Trump-Solway discussion. Where Quinn & Rowden had to defend their atheist version of State and Progress worship against a challenge to it by a heathen like Solway. Earlier agreements despite differing ideologies did not save the connections forged in the past. Spirituality and philosophy can transcend a lot of differences but it's a feeble victory and it's no surprise that when time passed by, underlying contradictions and conflicts surface again--or as the Marxist would agree--have to surface to invite a new transposition, a new synthesis, but only when the old is left to pass.

[Santiago Odo]

I recently began reading The Managerial Revolution which opens with the presentation of a 'problem'. It would I think fit with your comment about 'statism'. Though it is a somewhat reductionist assertion, not that reductions are bad in themselves if they help to visualize a problem, the idea of a revolution in how society is managed and the rise of a manager-class is interesting.

I guess it all depends on what information current one follows, or which ones one does not follow, but I have been focused on getting a grasp of the writing and ideas of America's Ultra-RightWing Critics of American Conservatism because it seems to me that over the last fews years, for reasons that need to be defined, there has arisen a movement of opposition to Liberalism. I see this reaction as 'arising out of the social body' and, as such, in raw form.

I think that we encountered some of this when I seemed to *defend* Chris Cantwell. This was not really my point though. What I find fascinating is to research the home-grown varieties of Ultra-Right Wing American Dissidence. The reason is because, there, one finds (I think) the *real* America. In any case a truer version of it. Now, in our Postwar modernity, we live within a contrived structure of 'progressivism' which is, as I have been able to discern, a top-down phenomenon. This *ideology*, tinged in one degree or another with so-called Cultural Marxism (I accept the terms with special qualifications) was *imposed* from above and was not, and is not now, organic to the population. There is now, as there always has been, a reaction against the Overlords of Culture and the formed or forming managerial-ideological structures.

The 'liberalism that has rotten the soul of the West' (which I think is attributed to Tomislav Sunic) definitely requires research, as does the emerging assertion that it needs to be challenged, modified. It is a view that is shared in varying degrees by a wide range of different -- and all non-Leftist, non-Progressive -- thinkers. As I said months back (that is in a later phase of the original Solway-Quinn thread, after I had been un-banned by your fine, web-weaving self!), it was very surprising to me that Quinn's defense would have been of liberal culture and the status quo when his beloved ideals were, in essence, rigorous, demanding and 'fascistic' (I see acute spiritual discipline as a form of self-imposed 'fascism').

So, it would seem that our present is really a 'managed' present, and this is true even when it comes to an intellectual manager-class installed, as it were, in the Academy. But the manager and the ideology of the manager are less ideological in the traditional sense but reflect and express what is in essence business management. So, the great leveler, and the great unifier, is a sort of managerialist's ideology. The enterprise of America and of Americanism in The Americanopolis is a giant management strategy applied to the rulership of the whole world. Chomsky speaks of those national security documents and the careful, rational planning behind them:

• "Britain kept its position as the dominant world power well into the 20th century despite steady decline. By the end of World War II, dominance had shifted decisively into the hands of the upstart across the sea, the United States, by far the most powerful and wealthy society in world history. Britain could only aspire to be its junior partner as the British foreign office ruefully recognized. At that point, 1945, the United States had literally half the world’s wealth, incredible security, controlled the entire Western Hemisphere, both oceans, the opposite sides of both oceans. There’s nothing — there hasn’t ever been anything like that in history.
  
  "And planners understood it. Roosevelt’s planners were meeting right through the Second World War, designing the post-war world. They were quite sophisticated about it, and their plans were pretty much implemented. They wanted to make sure that the United States would control what they called a “grand area,” which would include, routinely, the entire Western Hemisphere, the entire Far East, the former British Empire, which the U.S. would be taking over, and as much of Eurasia as possible — crucially, its commercial and industrial centers in Western Europe. And within this region, they said, the United States should hold unquestioned power with military and economic supremacy, while ensuring the limitation of any exercise of sovereignty by states that might interfere with these global designs."

My theory about the present crisis in the United States -- which must appear really really strange to foreigners -- is that the original demographic, which is to say the white demographic as it represents the 'social body', is in the first phases of a sort of uprising or reaction against the machinations of, in essence, the ruling elite as enacted by its social and industrial managers. I predict that the State will use all the tools at its disposal to 'turn back the tide' that is rising threateningly to disturb the 'global' scheme, that is, the Grand Area that Chomsky writes about. However, I suggest that *they* do not really have a true sense or understanding of what, exactly, they are rebelling against. But if it is based in the encroachments against their white demographic hegemony, well, that is at least a place to start. But I further suggest that when they come to see and understand the levels of 'social engineering' they have been subject to (as all classes have been subjected to it), their ideological notions will have to mature significantly. Yet a whole apparatus (of the State, of 'statism') will I think be brought out against them, as this is not part of the Grand Plan.

What I also find very interesting is the question and the problem of Interpretation. Interpretation of our present, of *this reality*, of history, of larger meanings, of the trajectory of the present. Obviously I refer to the mythological or the prophetical notions that underpin the Occidental person. When one studies the Ultra-Right groups one finds that they organize their understanding through prophetic metaphysics. The more recent examples of Ruby Ridge, Waco and Oklahoma City clearly point this up. People need hermeneutical tools and they take what is at hand (and employ them). These *tools* are also self-defense equipage against, shall I say, the State and its statism. And this, in rural politics and among *rustics*, extends back to the Civil War crisis and the rise of the American national government with all its designs, now grown large.

So, I think that one can easily understand that the Solway-Quinn spat which was framed by Quinn as a guilt-trip of Kevin's *reactionism* (which was hardly such given that he defines himself as in the very center of progressivism and liberal-left values and politics), is still a rich area for philosophical, political and spiritual research and consideration.

The book outlines some detailed causes of the American switch to Big Government, digging into the transference of Protestant theology, away from classical theology into postmillennial Christianity (with or without God), helped by "Yankee Women Progressives", to demand and realize a controlled and maintained society with pious values as equality (equal before God and men) and caring for the ill and poor (main Christian value historically) as government tasks; the new Kingdom came.

Did he use the term 'Yankee Women Progressives"? :^)

It is interesting to see the Social Justice Warrior as a feminine and female manifestation. If only because so much in it is 'emoted' and 'sentimental', but furiously so, hysterically so. It is a scary and a strange image: the Postmillennial Christian Swamp where the various Zombies are called forth by the Moon and battle each other, each referring to the same millennial interpretive structure! A plethora of Christs as various as Vishnu in His universal manifestation.

I was very intrigued that in one deconstructing presentation on 9/11 in which a man described his *process* in coming to face the mega-event of 9/11 deception -- and it was really quite a good presentation and revealed all the inconsistencies in the *official narrative* -- that the end titles included a quote from Ephesians: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

His presentation, I thought, was honest, and so was what for him amounted to a spiritual conversion as a result of confrontation with the Dark World. For him, I gathered, it turned his focus back to his spiritual self, his spiritual body as it were, as well as that of his family, his community, his personhood really independent of 'the State' and its 'statism'. It made a good deal of sense to me that he would have made this turning, as it were.

So, and perhaps again, one requires an interpretive lens -- hermeneutical tools -- to make sense not only of the immediate, contingent and mutable present, but of existence and one's presence here.

Within this entire context I find it interesting to examine, and to question, your postmodern non-position. That is really what it is (in my excessively humble estimate). You have only ever said, but in millions and millions of words

• I have no idea where I am, what I am doing here, what to do, where to go, I have no map and 'sniff my way to Dover' ...

Nicely put! May I quote you? (with attribution of course!)

You were, I sense, expecting this quote from Milton?

Code: Select all

From Man or Angel the great Architect 
Did wisely to conceal, and not divulge 
His secrets to be scanned by them who ought 
Rather admire; or, if they list to
Conjecture, he his fabrick of the Heavens 
Hath left to their disputes, perhaps to move
His laughter at their quaint opinions wide 
Hereafter; when they come to model Heaven
And calculate the stars, how they will wield
The mighty frame; how build, unbuild, contrive
To save appearances; how gird the sphere
With centrick and eccentrick scribbled o'er,
Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Wow Alex, your entries grow often by the hour. Better for me to look at them once a week, in the hope they are finished fermenting. But here some premature reactions as to keep up with the fast pace of modern life:

I have been focused on getting a grasp of the writing and ideas of America's Ultra-RightWing Critics of American Conservatism because it seems to me that over the last fews years, for reasons that need to be defined, there has arisen a movement of opposition to Liberalism.

The critics you refer to, in their modern, 21st century incarnation appear very clownesque to me. Not sure how else to put it. It's the counterpart of the Liberal hipster but it's hard to see any gravity in it, either.

The reason is because, there, one finds (I think) the *real* America. In any case a truer version of it.

Or just the exposition of the American ugliness becoming unwrapped? That notion seems truer to actual events.

At that point, 1945, the United States had literally half the world’s wealth, incredible security, controlled the entire Western Hemisphere, both oceans, the opposite sides of both oceans. There’s nothing — there hasn’t ever been anything like that in history.

Which makes it also very interesting. What does that amount of power, wealth and illusion-making do with its people, its culture, and its derived cultures? The nature of power is known: it transcends, ascending more and more into the unreal where insanity usually occurs. This disembodying effect of power and its manifestation in wealth, position and beliefs.

My theory about the present crisis in the United States -- which must appear really really strange to foreigners -- is that the original demographic, which is to say the white demographic as it represents the 'social body', is in the first phases of a sort of uprising or reaction against the machinations of, in essence, the ruling elite as enacted by its social and industrial managers.

Perhaps the uprising will be a display first and foremost. There's no coherent thought behind it. And yes, I know many splintered factions are thinking or believing it represents "them" but they are sadly mistaken. It's the other way around: they, the factions, the various "original" demographics, the antiwar voices, the various conservative and libertarian splinter groups, the conspiracy folks, the preppers, they all have been turned into the new political capital, a kind of human commodity (the Liberals already completed this earlier during Obama years). And in Russia, a post-truth society in various ways, it functions like that since a while already, quite openly. Some other countries are adopting these methods as well. Postmodern politics?

Did he [Rothbard] use the term 'Yankee Women Progressives"? :^)

Yes he did!

More later, if you can let it ripen a bit. It's been a dry season.

[Pam Seeback]

jufa: This is also, to me, the difference in Christ and Buddha consciousness. Buddha did not get pass the third eye. He could never comprehend the nature of suffering. Buddha settled for His Nirvana which eased His personal suffering by becoming one with the rhythm of the earth, but He died in time without gaining The Holy Grail, as did Sir Galahad, and ascended as Christ with a glorified body.

Scriptures stating that the Buddha's Nirvana was about becoming one with the rhythm of the earth would be welcome.

See no where in the above quote where I was asked to present Scripture as Pam states here:

I asked jufa for scriptures that gave evidence that the Buddha 'eased his personal suffering by becoming one with the rhythm of the earth' and thus far, none have been produced.

I offer no Scripture, however I offer you http://www.pbs.org/thebuddha/enlightenment/ & http://www.pbs.org/thebuddha/death-and-legacy-part-2/

But I also offer you this analysis, that it was not until after the Buddha has sat under the tree and was bombarded with the temptation that He reached down and gather a handful of the earth (emphasis is here on Gautama becoming aligned with Mother Gaia), "But came one second in time!!!" when Gautama awoke and became the Buddha, yet never overcame suffering and struggling as Jesus the Christ.

You are aware of Buddha's life journey from the videos posted on my website you commented upon a while ago.

This documentary for PBS by award-winning filmmaker David Grubin and narrated by Richard Gere, tells the story of the Buddha’s life can be found @ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/theillu ... p=898#p898

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

There are as many interpretations of the Buddha's enlightenment are there are interpretations of Jesus' enlightenment. You were not there when Gautama sat under the bodhi tree (if there even was a man called Gautama who sat under a bodhi tree), no one was there when Gautama sat under the bodhi tree just as you were not there when Jesus rose from the grave (if there even was a man called Jesus who rose from the grave) so how can you know the truth of what happened to either man/soul/spirit? I asked you for scriptures (yes I did, check again) because scriptures are all we have in the world of debate, but in truth, no scripture you or I can produce either of 'Gautama' or 'Jesus' speaks the truth of either 'man'.

As for words that I posted years ago, they do not apply to now. I have not deleted certain threads on The Illusion of God where I appear as movingalways because they include the posts of others and for me, it is not a righteous act to delete the words of others.

[Santiago Odo]

Code: Select all

Which makes it also very interesting. What does that amount of power, 
wealth and illusion-making do with its people, its culture, 
and its derived cultures?

I have tried to get this through to you a number of times! Were you not listening?

I assume you'll quickly get bored. So here.

[Santiago Odo]

Code: Select all

The 'Help Desk' Guard wrote: "The critics you refer to, in their modern, 
21st century incarnation appear very clownesque to me. 
Not sure how else to put it. 
It's the counterpart of the Liberal hipster 
but it's hard to see any gravity in it, either."

Obviously a number of factors are in play. But if you mean Chris Cantwell, well, there is no much more to say. A greased joke by-and-large. But there is a very wide group of Ultra-Right players who have come forward on the American scene in the last 40-50 years who give expression to nativist sentiments. I am not sure I would call them clowns since that term is usually used to dismiss or to ridicule. There is little in Cantwell that I would call *visceral*. But in some others they really put their heart and soul into their opposition. Louis Beam is a good example. He came back from Vietnam horrified by his experience and *what was done to him* and took up opposition to all that that government seemed to represent. Vietnam, significantly, politicized a generation. And as far as American 'white nationalism' goes, it was given energy by those who opposed the policy choices of the US Government.

But in no sense at all could these people be considered -- as you rather clownishly point out I might say -- as 'clowns'. But defining their rather limited perspectives, their lenses of view as I would say, is not easy. But the important thing to grasp, in my view, is that there is a manager class that seeks to quiet them, direct their energies, or stop them, each as the case may be.

But no, there is not really an oppositional and critical Ultra-Right Party or movement in the US, nor is there much real ideology in American politics as far as I can tell. Yet there is a developing Right-wing party critical of Conservatism, best exemplified by Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents. But if by 'clown' you mean 'one-dimensional' or 'shallow' I will say that, at times, Greg Johnson seems reductionist.

Code: Select all

Or just the exposition of the American ugliness becoming unwrapped? 
That notion seems truer to actual events.

The 'ugliness' you refer to, in my excessively humble opinion, has a good deal to do with the diversity of the American population and the conflicts that develop between various groups. America, therefor, has been a historical trajectory of unfolding ugliness as the various factions have sought to define the other, inhibit their flourishing, hold them in check. But if the nature of the National Regime is to be that of a 'proposition' (adherence to the 'proposition that all men are created equal' as Lincoln said) then you have the additional problem of a National Ideology and how to instil it, how to maintain it, and how to resist those who resist the imposition of this strange value'. There, one must explore 'the tenets of the American civil religion'. And as one takes apart Americanism, one only exposes the natural differences that separate disparate people. America, now, and in my excessively humble opinion, has begun to fracture. This was seen many years ago but now it becomes evident. What can hold it together? A war, a calamity? Or a regime of the socially just?

I think you must look to the behind-the-scenes planners (para-military, para-governmental) who must work to destroy any opposition to the desired status quo of America: the American Walmart.

Code: Select all

Perhaps the uprising will be a display first and foremost. 
There's no coherent thought behind it.

'Display' is an interesting term, Hopping Spider. It is 'display' in the sense that it is mental and emotional. That is, it is being played out in the mind and the imaginations of media-conditioned people. It is a media-imagination event. In this sense it is *unreal* or non-real. It does not really translate either up from specific economic or social issues nor down to them. Much more could be said about this.

I'd say that there is coherent thought but it is non-sophisticated thought, and thought that would not and could not function as ideology in the present 'regime of the manager'. What thought there is is 'raw' -- visceral as I say. However, it is beginning to coalesce and, as I say, Counter-Currents and also Red Ice give examples of a) the evolution of 'raw' thought and b) an example of how it is progressing.

The issue is vast. On the one hand to counter the Liberal Order which requires a very coherent ideological position. On the other a recovery of something that might be termed 'the spiritual' and a genuine regeneration-movement. And one that is centered around *Europe*. That is, as *emblem* and as historical fact and reality.

Very hard to say if *what is developing* will lead to renewal ... or simply another, deeper, phase of nihilism and of destruction.

I admit to -- still -- chuckling as I imagine David in golfing shoes pondering over these strange and unlikely events.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam ask:

Have you ascended Alex? Jufa?

Can't speak for Alex, but of course I have ascended and returned with food for the needy the metaphysician cannot comprehend.

Do you Pam, always live the metaphysical life, or that of mysticism, or do you become the mystic who allow the God within you fire you with ITS Presence?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Just saw this post, and in answering your question about me becoming a mystic who allows the God within me to fire me with ITS Presence, I also answer my own question about ascension.

First, definitions are required -- this does not make me a metaphysician, more about that later -- and I will start with a quote attributed to Jesus for the purposes of using a language that hopefully, both of us understand, and that quote is "I and the Father are One." What is the Father to me? Ultimate Reality. What is the I to me? Conventional or naming or designating consciousness. So for me, when I name things, when I use concepts, I am the Father appearing. Of course, the same truth applies to you and Alex and Diebert, etc.

As for answering the question as to whether or not I have ascended, no, I have not. Why? Because I do not separate the Father from conceptual consciousness. What I used to perceive and no longer perceive is an existence of two separate or parallel worlds, the real world (Word) of the Father, the world of eternal and absolute form and the false world (words) of Man of the dust of the ground, the Cave allegory of Plato comes to mind. And that because of this false perception of two worlds, I also believed that the I had the power to leave the illusory world of words and stand in the eternal, real world (Word). For me, in order to realize the truth of "I and the Father are One", I had to drop all ideas of coming and going, of rising and falling, of ascending and descending, of dividing existence into two worlds. The question that pushed me into the corner of truth was: does the Father ascend or ascend, does the Father rise and fall? I had to answer no. The light went on -- if the Father doesn't move, then the I doesn't move, i.e, they have to be one and the same existence.

To return to your original question, there is no Presence of IT that fires up Pam because Pam is not separate from IT. IT is all Pam is, every time Pam opens her mouth or writes a post, the Father appears. The truth of it is is that Pam cannot become a mystic any more than Pam can become a metaphysician -- the naming Pam, the conceptual Pam is the real Pam. :-)

[jufa]

Did not ask anyone if they were becoming a mystic. My question:

do you become the mystic

which is definitive of Being, not one of evolving. Definitive of Being also defines not two 'I's' speaking from the body of one. E.g. I speak and thus the Father speaks cannot be a reality for two cannot occupy the same time, space, distance and matter as one, when one speaks conceptualizing,

So for me, when I name things, when I use concepts, I am the Father appearing.

And One is all that is, i.e. there isn't anything "all that is" can conceive.

God gives everything to everyone on equal and just terms. What anyone receives, or do not receive, in the arc between their birth and death travels, is because they have accepted, or rejected unconditionally or conditionally, the gifts life gives by not walking the straight and narrow path which the Principled Substance and Patterned Essence of life demand.

What does God not provide for one it does not provode to all? Potential is the provider. As long as one can utilize their mind, what one individual has accomplished is accessible to any individual irrespective of their physical condition. In the reality of creation, it does not matter one iota what any person thinks in this interval of living. If it did, it could change the structure of creation itself, which is saying when one speaks they can changes unchangeable Principles and Patterns of creation intent and purpose. All that an individual can change is the way they think. God is impersonal. Man came from the

unchangeable Principles and Patterns of creation intent and purpose

into Life awareness, and lives Life according to Life's Principles and Pattern of Order. God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. God is everywhere the omniety of Itself. God also does not move. So what is it which is the inertia of God? It is "the law of the Spirit of life," the core essence and substance of man. As long as Spirit, or breath gives man a functioning body and conscious awareness, man cannot claim "I and my Father are one" literally. Creation does not stagnate as the man of skin. Creation is God, and God is the perpetual continuum of Itself as Cause and Effect in the harmony of the One unmovable Unmovable.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But in no sense at all could these people be considered -- as you rather clownishly point out I might say -- as 'clowns'. But defining their rather limited perspectives, their lenses of view as I would say, is not easy. But the important thing to grasp, in my view, is that there is a manager class that seeks to quiet them, direct their energies, or stop them, each as the case may be.

“The clown’s art is now rather terrifying and full of anxiety and apprehension, their suicidal feats, their monstrous gesticulations and frenzied mimicry reminding one of the courtyard of a lunatic asylum.” --Edmond de Goncourt (1876)

Perhaps not as much about funny jesters intending to make a young audience smile. More like the tragic figures whose self-destruct invoked anxiety, hopefully laughter. In modern culture the clown even surfaces more frequently now as killer, as undefined monster, as shadow figure. Stupidity then as the dark mother of the wise? Actually I think you might already understand by now what I meant with clownesque. It's somewhat compatible with what you wrote before in your own lingo.

America, now, and in my excessively humble opinion, has begun to fracture. This was seen many years ago but now it becomes evident. What can hold it together? A war, a calamity? Or a regime of the socially just?

First one should ask if it needs to be kept together as the attempt itself might destroy more than any falling apart into seedlings.

I think you must look to the behind-the-scenes planners (para-military, para-governmental) who must work to destroy any opposition to the desired status quo of America: the American Walmart.

Searching for dark forces behind the scenes... I leave that to the paranoia and religious. Or those desiring to be taken for a ride.

Very hard to say if *what is developing* will lead to renewal ... or simply another, deeper, phase of nihilism and of destruction.

That's vague enough for me to agree with. However I do tend to see the attempts of revival, of the "raw" or "original" this or that as a display, erecting some kind of shrine. It's one other symptom of the crisis although I would not call it that, in the sense of desperation or lack of possibilities. Those which all forms of crisis always have brought, to one or another.

[Pam Seeback]

jufa: Did not ask anyone if they were becoming a mystic. My question:
do you become the mystic
which is definitive of Being, not one of evolving. Definitive of Being also defines not two 'I's' speaking from the body of one. E.g. I speak and thus the Father speaks cannot be a reality for two cannot occupy the same time, space, distance and matter as one, when one speaks conceptualizing,

Becoming is not being. But, no difference, I am not a mystic anymore than I have become or can become or will become a mystic. In order to see things clearly (stand naked in front of the universe, to use your words) all sense of identity must be dropped. Having said this, I concur that identities such as 'mystic', 'Christ', 'Buddha-nature', etc. serve a valuable purpose on the way to dropping all identities.

God gives everything to everyone on equal and just terms. What anyone receives, or do not receive, in the arc between their birth and death travels, is because they have accepted, or rejected unconditionally or conditionally, the gifts life gives by not walking the straight and narrow path which the Principled Substance and Patterned Essence of life demand.

The conscious (the appearance of God) cannot enter the unconscious (the hidden aspect of God) so as to determine intention and nature. Assuming intention and nature of ultimate reality only serves to entangle the conscious deeper into the dualism of subject and/vs. object.

What does God not provide for one it does not provode to all? Potential is the provider. As long as one can utilize their mind, what one individual has accomplished is accessible to any individual irrespective of their physical condition. In the reality of creation, it does not matter one iota what any person thinks in this interval of living. If it did, it could change the structure of creation itself, which is saying when one speaks they can changes unchangeable Principles and Patterns of creation intent and purpose. All that an individual can change is the way they think. God is impersonal. Man came from the unchangeable Principles and Patterns of creation intent and into Life awareness, and lives Life according to Life's Principles and Pattern of Order. God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. God is everywhere the omniety of Itself. God also does not move. So what is it which is the inertia of God? It is "the law of the Spirit of life," the core essence and substance of man. As long as Spirit, or breath gives man a functioning body and conscious awareness, man cannot claim "I and my Father are one" literally. Creation does not stagnate as the man of skin. Creation is God, and God is the perpetual continuum of Itself as Cause and Effect in the harmony of the One unmovable Unmovable.

For me, simplicity and clarity is important in getting the word out about the cause of ignorance and suffering: attachment to idea(s) -- perhaps you don't agree -- so religious and spiritual concepts, which I understand to be a helpful path for those who need them, have been dropped. If you do agree that attachment to idea(s) is the cause of ignorance and suffering, I place this question before you for your consideration: is it possible that the attachment to the idea of God is the greatest/final hindrance on the way to freedom from idea attachment?

[Pam Seeback]

Santiago Odo: At that point, 1945, the United States had literally half the world’s wealth, incredible security, controlled the entire Western Hemisphere, both oceans, the opposite sides of both oceans. There’s nothing — there hasn’t ever been anything like that in history.

Economics and Politics 101: The Neverending Story of The Rise AND The Fall.

Mr. and Mrs. Hoofer whirl around the room throwing Junior until they drop from exhaustion. They get up, rinse and repeat. Surely there exists a middle way...

[Santiago Odo]

Code: Select all

Perhaps not as much about funny jesters intending to make a young audience smile. More like the tragic figures whose self-destruct invoked anxiety, hopefully laughter. In modern culture the clown even surfaces more frequently now as killer, as undefined monster, as shadow figure.

Not to mention, of course, as Dutch postmodernist nihilist with philosophical pretensions.

With each statement you make you give more evidence of your peculiar quandary. You can define no values; you have no object; you can ally yourself with no cultural movement nor find any grounding for self-oriented activism in yourself nor anywhere. This: a perfect example of the postmodern condition. Further: all your discourse boils out to the same thing: an expansive and non-ending effort to support your philsophical neurosis.

Code: Select all

First one should ask if it needs to be kept together as the attempt itself might destroy more than any falling apart into seedlings.

You may have missed my point and one I thought obvious. That point has to do with the militant structures of hyper-liberalism and the economic structures of our present that are directed by and enforced by para-governmental operatives. Put simple, it would be the Manager's Model of Postwar governance. At this peculiar stage the liberal structure teams up, as it necessarily must, to wage a war against those who oppose it.

As to 'seedlings', this is nonsense coming from you. You have no idea about any *seeds* of any sort. They are beyond and outside of your nihilistic, self-defeated conception. Your *philosophy* disempowers you nearly completely, but yes, you can yack on with complex prose about meaningless things which amount to discourse lifted into the wind.

Code: Select all

Searching for dark forces behind the scenes... I leave that to the paranoia and religious. Or those desiring to be taken for a ride.

But of course! This is a formulaic statement and flows from your *philosophy*. You function within *surface* that pretends to *depth*, but under your own surface there is ... nihilistic self-defeat. Mind-fucked through your own effort, you uphold your construct and succeed, constantly, to shoot down any movement toward tangible progress in any sphere.

Code: Select all

However I do tend to see the attempts of revival, of the "raw" or "original" this or that as a display, erecting some kind of shrine. It's one other symptom of the crisis although I would not call it that, in the sense of desperation or lack of possibilities. Those which all forms of crisis always have brought, to one or another.

Perfectly stated, Hopping Spider! But this rather hopeless condition you find yourself in, and which you have created, and which you strive to uphold, is not necessarily true nor real. But it is the condition you find yourself in, that much is plain.

[Santiago Odo]

Surely there exists a middle way...

Well, yes! Now Hear This!

"Don't be an odd-ball and don't be a fake..."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Not to mention, of course, as Dutch postmodernist nihilist with philosophical pretensions.

Just the real deal, a living philosopher! No wonder all of your attraction and ridicule! Whatever I have (it's all or nothing) must appear to your soul as the most desirable and detestable at the same time. Or a nice projection screen at least as whatever I'm relating to, it's not different from what you already know and live from wholeheartedly.

With each statement you make you give more evidence of your peculiar quandary. You can define no values; you have no object; you can ally yourself with no cultural movement nor find any grounding for self-oriented activism in yourself nor anywhere. This: a perfect example of the postmodern condition. Further: all your discourse boils out to the same thing: an expansive and non-ending effort to support your philsophical neurosis.

The great Catholic-Irish pope sang it better today:

And I have no compass. And I have no map. And I have no reasons. No reasons to get back
And I have no religion. And I don't know what's what. And I don't know the limit
The limit of what we've got -- clip

Actually I'd recommend the whole U2 Zooropa album to understand a poets struggle with postmodernism; it's in the music, lyrics and obscene live shows in that creative period. Totally self-referential and deliberate stuff from them (and me too). That is, if you want to learn about postmodernism instead of living in ones own universe of self-imposed definitions.

That point has to do with the militant structures of hyper-liberalism and the economic structures of our present that are directed by and enforced by para-governmental operatives. Put simple, it would be the Manager's Model of Postwar governance. At this peculiar stage the liberal structure teams up, as it necessarily must, to wage a war against those who oppose it.

It's not just the "liberal structure" that teams up in defense of its holy pink π in the sky. Try to look at it broader: it's statehood, the latest ideological self-structure fending off forces of nihilism and chaos. And yes, the ones some think are "suppressed" include many critters thriving on chaos, disconnected from the meanings they have written on their banners or just complete idiots. Like people thinking that kicking Alex Jones from a platform amounts to "censorship", while the claim itself is typically nihilistic: hollowing out all the context and meaning such a word has historically. At the same time I do see Alex Jones as one of the biggest clowns, fully enacting the destructive shadow, and yes, he does represent a serious threat to current organization of reason, order, morality and truth by simply firing up the alienated masses. And as such any system holding on to that. Once you understand this, dear numb skull, the most interesting part of the Quinn-Solway standoff becomes all too clear.

Code: Select all

Searching for dark forces behind the scenes... I leave that to the paranoia and religious. Or those desiring to be taken for a ride.

But of course! This is a formulaic statement and flows from your *philosophy*. You function within *surface* that pretends to *depth*, but under your own surface there is ... nihilistic self-defeat. Mind-fucked through your own effort, you uphold your construct and succeed, constantly, to shoot down any movement toward tangible progress in any sphere.

So you are searching and naming dark forces behind the scenes, like some bitter European old wife hiding in the cellar.

Code: Select all

However I do tend to see the attempts of revival, of the "raw" or "original" this or that as a display, erecting some kind of shrine. It's one other symptom of the crisis although I would not call it that, in the sense of desperation or lack of possibilities. Those which all forms of crisis always have brought, to one or another.

Perfectly stated, Hopping Spider! But this rather hopeless condition you find yourself in, and which you have created, and which you strive to uphold, is not necessarily true nor real. But it is the condition you find yourself in, that much is plain.

Lets look at that a bit more detached and logically, then ask the question: how can the condition I would have created at the same time be "not necessarily true nor real" and yet the condition I find myself in plainly? In any case, did I exclude myself from it anywhere? Of course not, every good philosopher talks only about universal conditions: the ones everyone in his age is caught in, or everyone ever existing, or ideally, everyone all the time.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: every good philosopher talks only about universal conditions: the ones everyone in his age is caught in, or everyone ever existing, or ideally, everyone all the time.

Ultimately, a single condition forms all conditions -- the paradox of the appearance of a self that ultimately does not exist. What do you say Alex? Are you ready to experience the living paradox of Alex-not Alex? I emphasized 'experience' and 'living' because your usual Alex-appearance is intellectual rather than philosophical.

I'm going out on a limb to suggest that until you experience the condition of self, you will not understand your own suffering, never mind the suffering of anyone on this board/in the world at large. You told me you desire salvation but know not how to find it. It's waiting for you but only when you're ready to not look away, i.e., name it post-modernism, nihilism, etc.

[Santiago Odo]

Just the real deal, a living philosopher! No wonder all of your attraction and ridicule! Whatever I have (it's all or nothing) must appear to your soul as the most desirable and detestable at the same time. Or a nice projection screen at least as whatever I'm relating to, it's not different from what you already know and live from wholeheartedly.

And I have no compass. And I have no map. And I have no reasons. No reasons to get back
And I have no religion. And I don't know what's what. And I don't know the limit
The limit of what we've got

Actually I'd recommend the whole U2 Zooropa album to understand a poets struggle with postmodernism; it's in the music, lyrics and obscene live shows in that creative period. Totally self-referential and deliberate stuff from them (and me too). That is, if you want to learn about postmodernism instead of living in ones own universe of self-imposed definitions.

It's not just the "liberal structure" that teams up in defense of its holy pink π in the sky. Try to look at it broader: it's statehood, the latest ideological self-structure fending off forces of nihilism and chaos. And yes, the ones some think are "suppressed" include many critters thriving on chaos, disconnected from the meanings they have written on their banners or just complete idiots. Like people thinking that kicking Alex Jones from a platform amounts to "censorship", while the claim itself is typically nihilistic: hollowing out all the context and meaning such a word has historically. At the same time I do see Alex Jones as one of the biggest clowns, fully enacting the destructive shadow, and yes, he does represent a serious threat to current organization of reason, order, morality and truth by simply firing up the alienated masses. And as such any system holding on to that. Once you understand this, dear numb skull, the most interesting part of the Quinn-Solway standoff becomes all too clear.

So you are searching and naming dark forces behind the scenes, like some bitter European old wife hiding in the cellar.

All of this will be answered in due time, and as the thoughts ferment. Though it has been a *dry season* there is enough moisture for things to rot wonderfully!

[Santiago Odo]

What do you say Alex? Are you ready to experience the living paradox of Alex-not Alex?

I may get there by and by ... But don't push me!

[Santiago Odo]

Just the real deal, a living philosopher! No wonder all of your attraction and ridicule! Whatever I have (it's all or nothing) must appear to your soul as the most desirable and detestable at the same time. Or a nice projection screen at least as whatever I'm relating to, it's not different from what you already know and live from wholeheartedly.

Those are, I guess, possibilities in a multiplex universe! But in fact I see your *philosophy* as not much more than a joke. It is a labyrinth constructed by a fool. A complex one with many passages and inner chambers, but in the largest sense a waste of time. Not worthy of exploration. Empty. Vapid. Narcissistic really. Just as you like it!

Once this understanding coalesced -- and this is not a critique of your person or personality as you are a person of quality and integrity -- things became clear. My hope is that you will progress from these barren zones. And I know that you will.