Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Alexis Jacobi]

If morality, for example, is not an absolute rule a universal rule, or not created by an absolutist god, then it must be absolutely nothing, absolute nonsense, a human fabrication.

Values are not without value simply because a universal rule doesn't mandate it; that was never the function of a universal rule in the first place. Morality in whatever format, which can never be absolute or universal, is guided by the rules it creates for itself. Universal ones are not required, the application of which, is more likely to result in nihilism and paralysis.

Morality is an active, organic entity subject to transformation; not a dead zone.

What Dubious has done here is to have demonstrated his personal impasse. It could take the form of this post (pseudo-reasoned and pseudo-reasonable) or any number of his posts, but it always amounts to the same.

Once the intellectual (or is it spiritual?) capacity to recognize and respond to universals conceptually has been undermined (in a man) the structure and platform upholding that man disintegrates. Maybe subtly, maybe acutely, but disintegrate it does.

And when an entire culture — and civilization — loses its grounding, it degenerates. Men can never agree and agreements fall apart.

Here, on this forum, you can directly witness disintegrating men. But they will fight to the death to prove they are right!

More or less personal performances that are repeated weekly, monthly, yearly in ever-repeating rehearsals.

[Harbal]

Evola is a vampire?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib2vAwM ... x=6&t=736s

[promethean75]

More like Mr. Rogers on day four of a crystal meth binge.

[Lorikeet]

Like everything existent.... all is dynamic and interactive.

Yet, morality's utility is always adjusting group dynamics to environment, necessitating the limitation of individual actions.

Morality is not universal, but it is objective.... independent from subjective perspectives.
It's how environment imposes limits on life.

We must distinguish the acts men named - converted into language.
When we speak of morality we speak about certain actions or their suppression.
These actions are good or bad, not because men declare them so, or because some imagined 'god' said so, but because they've proven to offer an advantage or a disadvantage to the collective - whether you call it herd, species, or tribe, ideology, nation, ethnicity.

No god necessary.
Only the processes of natural selection.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No cooperation will be forthcoming from Promethean I gather.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Morality is not universal, but it is objective.... independent from subjective perspectives. It's how environment imposes limits on life.

This is a •naturalistic• perspective and I would contrast it with a •supernaturalistic• perspective.

In the supernaturalist’s perspective man realizes the logic of an order or discipline on an inner plane (realization, revelation) and then imposes that realization on his creations.

But this is different from believing (perceiving, interpreting) that “environment imposes limits”.

Environment, in the naturalistic sense, cannot and does not impose any order other than that of biological and ecological systems. There is certainly •order• there, and certainly it is •imposed• but it does not determine all that is human — when man is understood to be a metaphysical creature.

There is, I suppose, a type of morality in nature — as in animal families or in ecological relations between different animals. But human morality in our developed civilizational sense is of an incomparably different order.

The naturalistic and anti-supernaturalistic philosopher cannot allow a •higher metaphysical order• because (I guess) it implies and demands intellectual assent to rules, restrictions, disciplines — all that we understood to be the foundation of education (in the classical sense).

My present understanding of many denizens of this forum, as modernity’s extrusions, is that they define, in different ways, rebellious positions in regard to that (supernatural) sense or realness of Metaphysical Order.

But really, that is the philosophical essence of our own traditions and the actual foundations of our civilization.

[Lorikeet]

I do not believe in absolutes
Existence is ordered and chaotic.
Organisms can only perceive order and assume that all is so.

Absolute = indivisible, immutable, singularity.
Order = repeating, consistent, predictable...pattern.

Nature is a word used in many ways....one way is as a representation of order - natural order.
Another is as a representation of what is perceived.
Another is as a representation of all that lives - has intentionality, will.

I use it as a synonym of cosmos, world, existence.... which would include that which is chaotic = unpredictable, inconsistent, lacking pattern.

"Our civilization"?
Yours, perhaps, not mine.
I gather you mean the dominant worldview, associated with Americanism or what is called "western," when it has distinct eastern foundations.

I begin with what has already been stated by better men than I:
Spengler: culture is the foundation, birthing multiple civilizations.
Americanism may have begun as a New Rome but has become a New Jerusalem.
This is what all minds born and raised under its dominion call "civilization"...associating Abrahamic ethics with universal ethics.
These have been exposed by Nietzsche as what they really are.
He, of course, limited himself to critiquing Christianity, but the same applies to all three Abrahamic variants.

The term "supernatural" is like the term non-existence......it do not exist.....implying a realm "outside", or beyond, or concealed.
Nurture conceals nothing.....life lacks the sensory organs and the mind to perceive.

Men take the perceived and invert it - fabricating nihilistic alternatives - or they multiply it - fabricating supernatural, idealized, alternatives.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I do not believe in absolutes Existence is ordered and chaotic. Organisms can only perceive order and assume that all is so.

You would not have needed to specify this since it is evident and clearly expressed in what you wrote and write. The view you have, according to my interpretations, is somewhat typical in the Occident (and likely spreading). All I want to do is acknowledge it. It is a view with its own logic and tenets.

"Our civilization"? Yours, perhaps, not mine. I gather you mean the dominant worldview, associated with Americanism or what is called "western," when it has distinct eastern foundations

Yes, I definitely mean civilization and of course Occidental civilization. Occidental = Western are largely synonymous. European civilization is a general term. But I do not mean *Americanism* and I recognize Americanism as a substantial error.

The term "supernatural" is like the term non-existence......it do not exist.....implying a realm "outside", or beyond, or concealed. Nurture conceals nothing.....life lacks the sensory organs and the mind to perceive.

This is, naturally, consistent with a 'naturalistic' perspective. And I understand that in your case you will repeat, in different ways and with different phraseology, what it is that you believe is true and real. No problem there.

Myself, I do certainly *believe in* a supernatural realm that is outside of nature. And man is the being that is supernaturalism's receptor. There is no need to hash and rehash these core differences though.

The point I make is that, here on this forum, and speaking generally (there are a few exceptions) the operative ideology you have is shared. It is common, it pervades the Occident (and spreads), it has a certain power and forcefulness, and in my view it is thoroughly false and also deeply mistaken.

(You wrote *nurture* and I think you meant *nature*).

when it has distinct eastern foundations

I refer to the melding and synthesis between 4 notable poles: Greece, Rome, Judea and the crucible of *Alexandria*. There is a 5th pole which is the Northern European tribes which, through so many means and processes, received/integrated all that is referred to in the first four.

[Lorikeet]

You would not have needed to specify this since it is evident and clearly expressed in what you wrote and write. The view you have, according to my interpretations, is somewhat typical in the Occident (and likely spreading). All I want to do is acknowledge it. It is a view with its own logic and tenets.

Then do not complain about my repeating of what is clear to you, but not for the average mind.

Yes, I definitely mean civilization and of course Occidental civilization. Occidental = Western are largely synonymous. European civilization is a general term. But I do not mean *Americanism* and I recognize Americanism as a substantial error.

Americanism has indoctrinated millions....
most here associate it with Europe, when it is not.
Americanism is not western, not European, not Helelnic.....it is Abrahamic to its core.

This is, naturally, consistent with a 'naturalistic' perspective. And I understand that in your case you will repeat, in different ways and with different phraseology, what it is that you believe is true and real. No problem there.

All insinuation....and on substance.
Your need to stand apart, is duly noted.

Myself, I do certainly *believe in* a supernatural realm that is outside of nature. And man is the being that is supernaturalism's receptor. There is no need to hash and rehash these core differences though.

Then you are one of them.
Why do you, then, challenge their "logic" when you share it?
Transgenderism, for example, is based on Abrahamism's division of an immortal, eternal, mind and a mortal ephemeral body.
Goes back to Gnosticism.

The point I make is that, here on this forum, and speaking generally (there are a few exceptions) the operative ideology you have is shared. It is common, it pervades the Occident (and spreads), it has a certain power and forcefulness, and in my view it is thoroughly false and also deeply mistaken.

After following, for a while, I dispute this claim.
The prevailing ideology, here, as in most forums, is Americanism.
Most being anglophones, born and raised under the American dominion.
Indoctrinated into is mythologies.

Ask them what they think of race or gender, or to position themselves in regard to homosexuality, and transexuality, and feminism.
Ask them what they think of free-will.
This is your crowd, and this is why you've been here for so long.

I know you want to be exceptional, but belief in the supernatural says otherwise.

[promethean75]

"No cooperation will be forthcoming from Promethean I gather."

Evola's way is a theoretically good way and there is a long solid history of aristocratically minded political thought that backs the ideas presented. It's just plato, aristotle and nietzsche ethics in the modern industrial world. Tryna structure a modern machine world of digitial technology like the old roman empire or sumthin. Evola is what happens when pride in one's anglo-saxon history becomes the philosophical urge (almost a right for italians) to intellectually dominate. To recognize and declare the supremacy of the institutions and traditions of anglo-saxon orgin and consider them the organizing force in global politics.

Evola is essentially saying the grandiose nature of the civilizations and societies created by european ancestry through the ages (but especially the roman empire age and the industrial revolution), when in comparison to those of other cutlures, clearly proves the superiority of that type of people and so on.

He basically sees italy and germany and france and greece the same way an italian mofiosa guy sees a group of made men. Evola's whole philosophical ethos is mafiosa style. Machiavellian elitist who believes the noble races have a vested right and obligation to preserve their racial homogeneity to some degree and their traditions. European monogamy, good education and strong discipline. A meritocratic pseudo-free market where white folks can compete for jobs and stuff. Great reservation in dealing with other nationalities. Trade only, u can't come in. No migrants. You'll never get our women. fahgettaboutit, omar. U wanna do business, let's talk, but we ain't interested in nuthin else about u and ain't tryna hang out with people of the lesser metals.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Americanism has indoctrinated millions.... most here associate it with Europe, when it is not. Americanism is not Western, not European, not Hellenic ... it is Abrahamic to its core.

While I understand the logic of your proposition here, it would have to be modified a bit to make it *more true*. I do note the "manifest destiny" thrust of Americanism -- God's gift to the world and an advancing, relentless, determined lived ideology. Where I disagree is in saying it is *Abrahamic to its core". There is surely that element but there are other elements as well. To say it is not Western, not Hellenic, is therefore a false statement. It is many different things.

Then you are one of them. Why do you, then, challenge their "logic" when you share it?

Wait. I am unsure in what sense you mean to insinuate that I am *one of them*. I certainly respect and admire the Greco-Christian foundations of Occidental culture. And I also definitely respect and admire the metaphysical definitions. But I do not see this as necessarily 'Abrahamic'. It is greco-philosophical as much as it is anything else. For that reason I referred to the Alexandrian synthesis" Rome, Greece, Judea form a 'body' and that body, and the spirit of it, informed Europe. Because this is *my tradition*, yes, I a, definitely *one of them*. But not in the sense that you propose.

After following, for a while, I dispute this claim. The prevailing ideology, here, as in most forums, is Americanism. Most being anglophones, born and raised under the American dominion. Indoctrinated into is mythologies.

I do not deny that the Americanism you refer to, usually unconsciously, definitely informs the Americans who write here. I cannot say myself if that is so for the Europeans. However, Europe is in many ways "America's bitch". If you explain more of what you see I am interested to know.

Ask them what they think of race or gender, or to position themselves in regard to homosexuality, and transsexuality, and feminism. Ask them what they think of free-will. This is your crowd, and this is why you've been here for so long.

No one that I am aware of dares to offer any idea or opinion about the question of *race* that I am aware of. The way your phrased your comment indicates that you on the other hand have unconventional views of race and race-difference.

It does not follow that because I have been here for *so long* that anyone here is of *my crowd*. In fact the ideas that I do present in respect to race, gender and woman, no one of these is accepted.

I know you want to be exceptional, but belief in the supernatural says otherwise.

A perspective that incorporates supernaturalism is neither exceptional nor unexceptional. And if I have different ideas it is not simply to appear "exceptional".

In my view what is *supernatural* and what is *metaphysical* express the same thing more or less. And what is supernatural and metaphysical is, in fact, as real as anything else in the tangible, sensual world. In fact what it is, and what it does, defines everything that we are at the point where we are not simply advantaged ape-oids. Man is a metaphysical creature.

[Alexis Jacobi]

He basically sees italy and germany and france and greece the same way an italian mofiosa guy sees a group of made men. Evola's whole philosophical ethos is mafiosa style. Machiavellian elitist who believes the noble races have a vested right and obligation to preserve their racial homogeneity to some degree and their traditions. European monogamy, good education and strong discipline. A meritocratic pseudo-free market where white folks can compete for jobs and stuff. Great reservation in dealing with other nationalities. Trade only, u can't come in. No migrants. You'll never get our women. fahgettaboutit, omar. U wanna do business, let's talk, but we ain't interested in nuthin else about u and ain't tryna hang out with people of the lesser metals.

I think you have made a good analysis here. What I most admire about Evola is his sense of commitment to ideals and especially for those men "standing among the ruins". He reaches people through that sense of adamancy and inspires a sense of needing to define values.

Once can take his spiritedness, his decisiveness, to arrive at sharply defined positions which contrast with *the world* is what I admire about him.

As is often the case I think you have a good deal of insight into what animates this particular man.

[Dubious]

If morality, for example, is not an absolute rule a universal rule, or not created by an absolutist god, then it must be absolutely nothing, absolute nonsense, a human fabrication.

Values are not without value simply because a universal rule doesn't mandate it; that was never the function of a universal rule in the first place. Morality in whatever format, which can never be absolute or universal, is guided by the rules it creates for itself. Universal ones are not required, the application of which, is more likely to result in nihilism and paralysis.

Morality is an active, organic entity subject to transformation; not a dead zone.

What Dubious has done here is to have demonstrated his personal impasse. It could take the form of this post (pseudo-reasoned and pseudo-reasonable) or any number of his posts, but it always amounts to the same.

Once the intellectual (or is it spiritual?) capacity to recognize and respond to universals conceptually has been undermined (in a man) the structure and platform upholding that man disintegrates. Maybe subtly, maybe acutely, but disintegrate it does.

And when an entire culture — and civilization — loses its grounding, it degenerates. Men can never agree and agreements fall apart.

Here, on this forum, you can directly witness disintegrating men. But they will fight to the death to prove they are right!

More or less personal performances that are repeated weekly, monthly, yearly in ever-repeating rehearsals.

Grow up! All this has been repeated throughout the generations in one form or another. All you're doing is continuing the same-old in more modern terms and nothing more. You haven't a single universal in your pocket to declare which wasn't invented by humans.

[Lorikeet]

While I understand the logic of your proposition here, it would have to be modified a bit to make it *more true*. I do note the "manifest destiny" thrust of Americanism -- God's gift to the world and an advancing, relentless, determined lived ideology. Where I disagree is in saying it is *Abrahamic to its core". There is surely that element but there are other elements as well. To say it is not Western, not Hellenic, is therefore a false statement. It is many different things.

Ideologies evolve.
Messianism is only one part of Americanism. Its self-righteousness and underlying victim psychosis is another.
Its Global agenda is another.
Americanism is Globalism.
Its universality.
Its binary worldview, good vs. evil.
It's anti-nature - rejecting all biological identifier.
Its worship of freedom, replacing salvation - Tikkun Olam - they will "heal the world" returning it to its uniform origins.
Its Protestant rejection of all earthly authorities.

Wait. I am unsure in what sense you mean to insinuate that I am *one of them*. I certainly respect and admire the Greco-Christian foundations of Occidental culture. And I also definitely respect and admire the metaphysical definitions. But I do not see this as necessarily 'Abrahamic'. It is greco-philosophical as much as it is anything else. For that reason I referred to the Alexandrian synthesis" Rome, Greece, Judea form a 'body' and that body, and the spirit of it, informed Europe. Because this is *my tradition*, yes, I a, definitely *one of them*. But not in the sense that you propose.

your inclusion of Judea is the source of your supernatural superstitions.
Judaism and Hellenism are incompatible.

Your Judeo-Christianity cannot harmonize with Indo-Euroepan Hellenism.
It wears the mantle of Rome but has the spirit of Israel.....a lie.
The US is this lie.

I do not deny that the Americanism you refer to, usually unconsciously, definitely informs the Americans who write here. I cannot say myself if that is so for the Europeans. However, Europe is in many ways "America's bitch". If you explain more of what you see I am interested to know.

Such things will unfold, gradually.
Suffice it to say that western Europe has been Americanised since the end of WWII.
We see this in countries like Poland, Hungary, Russia, Belarus, that were behind the Iron Curtain and protected from decades of American propaganda.
We see it in relation to Wokism - postmodernism that has infected Americanism through the Frankfurt School.
Neo-Cons are ex-Troskyites, children of (((immigrants from eastern Europe))) that moved to the states in two waves, the first setting up the propaganda machine we know as Hollywood.

No one that I am aware of dares to offer any idea or opinion about the question of *race* that I am aware of. The way your phrased your comment indicates that you on the other hand have unconventional views of race and race-difference.

When lies dominate, one does not doubt them
Americanism is anti-nature. The myth of the self-made man, rather than man in god's image.
It rejects all biological identifiers. We see it currently in tis rejection of biological sex, identified physically and applied socially as gender.
Abrahamic "immortal soul", Judaism's "sparks trapped in kellipots" have become identities trapped in the "wrong bodies" or bodies nothing more than superficial prisons of raceless, sexless spirits that must be "released" - liberated - to choose their true identity.
Liberty = salvation.
Salvation from the corporeal.

It does not follow that because I have been here for *so long* that anyone here is of *my crowd*. In fact the ideas that I do present in respect to race, gender and woman, no one of these is accepted.

It is more likely that your assertions that most here are followers of my "Occidental" worldviews.
Survey the members to find out how many share your supernatural beliefs - though they may call it by another name or vary in how they define it.

A perspective that incorporates supernaturalism is neither exceptional nor unexceptional. And if I have different ideas it is not simply to appear "exceptional".

Supernatural is always a psychological expression of dissatisfaction towards what is natural.

In my view what is *supernatural* and what is *metaphysical* express the same thing more or less. And what is supernatural and metaphysical is, in fact, as real as anything else in the tangible, sensual world. In fact what it is, and what it does, defines everything that we are at the point where we are not simply advantaged ape-oids. Man is a metaphysical creature.

Granted, the supernatural always sought refuge in metaphysics....another connection to Abrahamism.

For me, metaphysis must be aligned with physis.....like a structures foundations (metaphysis) must support its structure (physis), extending upward towards the heavens (ideology).

Past/Presence/Future
Presence is existence.
Past made present.
The metaphysical cannot contradict the physical.
If we tolerate this we open ourselves to any absurdity the human mind can fabricate, judging it by its self-referential consistencies and its emotional justifications.

Tolkien's Middle Earth is a beautiful, cohesive, consistent fantasy, reflecting Abrahamic supernatural absolutist binaries of good vs evil.....yet it is entirely unreal.
Emotionally apealing....but entirely of the mind.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Grow up! All this has been repeated throughout the generations in one form or another. All you're doing is continuing the same-old in more modern terms and nothing more. You haven't a single universal in your pocket to declare which wasn't invented by humans.

Another facet of your discourse (quote/unquote) is this particular accusation based in a cloudy suggestion that •the old• that you refer to depreciatively has been replaced and renewed by some view, stance or perspective that you must claim as your own.

This is all falsely-premised. Things true in the past, and things true now or in the future, are not superseded by this boyish novelty. You seem stoned on yourself.

The notion of •being invented by humans• is rhetorically unsound. The notion behind recognition of Universals and metaphysical realness is expressed in the assertion that along with the created world — manifest reality — a metaphysical order was inherent in it. It was known then (at whatever point back in time you care to locate it) and it will still be there at any time in all futures.

You could say “discovered by humanness” and I think that would be more sound.

Revelation (in my view) is alignment with an ever-existing current of intelligence (again intellectus in the Latin sense of the word).