causticus: trees (Default)
Well, this random internet comment explains a lot, doesn't it?

The execution of Charles I was at the hands of the same Calvinist/Puritan/Manichean dichotomy of good/evil that runs through American history and motivates elites and populace alike. It is so ingrained in the American psyche, if we can generalize here, that any attempt to analyze a situation and find root causes, such as group narcissism or profit motive, is overlooked if it doesn’t yield evil geniuses with the conscious intent to do harm. The dichotomy is alive and well in group narcissism, for which innocence and purity require an absolute, metaphysical evil beseiging them--unified and conspiring against them.


It seems that we see this fundamental mentality shows up on all sides/stripes of the political spectrum here in the US. I'd say it's rooted in the human condition, but this tendency was greatly amplified by the spread and mass adoption of dualistic religions. Get rid of the big centralizing institution (the Catholic Church) that mostly kept these behaviors under wraps, and all of a sudden watch the phenomena of "holiness spiraling" and blaming all misfortune on a personified "big bad" become facts of everyday life.
causticus: trees (Default)
I keep going back and forth between deactivating and reactivating my Facebook. I honestly hate the platform in that seething kind of way, yet I find myself periodically having to reactive my account to temporarily re-connect with this or that person or FB group, or to simply see what's going on with a tiny handful of people on there I still have some modicum of common interest with. Then after a couple months I get totally disgusted and remember quite acutely why I deactivated my profile the last time around.

Anyway, without further adieu, here's some choice random internet comments on why people have deactivated or deleted their FB accounts. I chose the quotes which best illustrate why FB is just so damn evil.

“The roaring dumpster fire that people call a news feed was too much for me. I like my friends, but I never wanna know their political views on things.”

***

“Facebook I like to call Fakebook.

You aren’t ‘keeping in touch with your friends.’ You are keeping in touch with the image of the friend that said person wants to project. You only get what they give you, and it’s all fake shit.

Also not to mention how self-centered it is. It’s the reason people have to take selfies with their face in it for everything they do… So they can post it and say ‘LOOK AT ME! I AM IMPORTANT.’”

***

“Everything was a political fight. It turned into scrolling down and just thinking ‘That’s wrong,’ ‘That’s a stupid opinion,’ and various other negative disagreeing statements. That much negativity, even though I know was all on my part, became tiring and affected the rest of my mindset. I was over the ‘debates’ and everyone, including me, posting their crap political stances.

That and the creepy government intrusion, listening via Facebook to everything you say and do. Having federal agents use what you said to others in ‘“privacy’ and they picked up via your phone in court made me realize how this will all be happening in the future. I’d get rid of my cell phone if that was a viable option.”

***

“When I was starting to base my self-worth on the number of (likes) my so-called life got.”

***

“I got fired from my job over my political leanings that were seen on my Facebook page. I decided I didn’t need Facebook after that.”

***

“I had it for two weeks in 2009. Started getting friend requests from people who hated me in high school. Thought ‘Fuck this shit’ and deleted it. My profile resurrected five years later and started messaging everyone about Ray-Bans. Had a quick look, saw absolutely nothing to draw me back. DRAHMAHS.”

***

“Woke up one morning with 14 notifications about people and things I realized I really didn’t care about. Deleted my account and went straight back to sleep. Best decision I have ever made.”

***

“Other people’s fake happiness started to make me jealous. (I’m a horrible person, I know.)”

***

“My mom died and waves of condolences I neither needed or wanted started flooding in from people for whom I didn’t give a shit.”

Editor's note: Fake well-wishes and condolences from people who don't actually give a damn about me (nor do I give a damn about them back) is why I nearly always have my account deactivated during the month of my birthday. See the next quote below.

***

"Every year I deactivate my Facebook account on [my birthday] and it's sort of become a tradition. Come to think of it, I've never bothered to check if I can just hide my birthday but I've basically been doing this for almost ten years now (provided it isn't already deactivated).

Why do I do this? Fear. Fear of people wishing me a Happy Birthday and fear of people not saying it. If people did say something I'd just get sad or angry and think "why does it have to be my birthday for you talk to me?". If they didn't say anything then it'd be even worse.

I was the type of person who never celebrated their birthday because they knew no one would come. And so rather than deal with superficial messages delivered because of a notification system I decided to pretend it doesn't exist. I guess it sounds a bit selfish or arrogant, but I'd rather spend it alone and no one knowing instead of with people that needed to be reminded."

***

“I never socialized with any of my 300 friends other than my sister and 4 friends. All the pages that I got memes from started posting stupid shit and those godawful minion memes. But the worst part was when the pages that gave me news about movies and stuff started posting clickbait. That pushed me to my limit and I deleted my account.”

***

“I found that Facebook would make me really sad. I have an obsessive nature so I would spend hours stalking people, their friends, etc., and comparing their lives to mine. My life seemed really boring in comparison.

It took a few deactivate-reactivate cycles to realize this, and I fully deleted my profile a year ago. I now don’t miss Facebook a bit, and looking at friends on it, I don’t think I will ever go back. It just seems weird to me now.

I prefer to catch up with people every few months; there is often a lot to talk about since I don’t get to see every detail of their lives in real time anymore!”

***

“I’m just so fed up with the people who post nothing but one-sided political propaganda all day every day. I thought it would die off after the election, but they just keep going. They do absolutely zero research, don’t read anything longer than a Twitter comment or stupid meme, and pass it along as fact which leads to the next dipshit following suit.”

***

"Privacy: I didn’t like the idea that I was putting my life on display for the entire world, nor did I like the idea that weirdos and exes could just idly stalk me and my family whenever they felt like it.

Manipulation: I don’t like the power Facebook has over its users. It’s a simple matter of steering emotionally charged imagery and opinion towards people to manipulate how they think, act, and believe. I also see it as an extremely polarizing; it’s very easy to get caught up in believing you and all these strangers know THE TRUTH, while the shadowy others that disagree with you are TERRIBLE HITLERS. You never talk to someone who disagrees with you, you simply preach to the choir and circle-jerk each other’s likes. I half-joke that I got rid of FB because I got tired of hating my friends and family.

Isolation: Social media gives the appearance of social interaction, while eliminating as much social interaction as possible. I found myself viewing friends’ pages, liking their pictures, but rarely actually visiting them or calling them up. At a certain point, lifelong friends were as real to me as celebrities or memes. That’s bizarre and horrifying.

Shady business practices: Even though I know that it was laid out to me in the contract, etc. I got more and more uncomfortable with the fact that my thoughts, communications, and images were legally owned by FB and whoever FB decided to sell them to. I didn’t like the idea that my life experiences were commodified, and I started thinking how weird it was that this is so normalized. Tell any mother to leave a box of her baby’s pictures on a park bench for anyone to take, and she’d likely be horrified…but she’ll post every baby pic she ever takes on FB.

Balanced against the things I hate about FB, there’s…what, exactly? I tried to think about what I actually gained from FB, and I came up short. Keeping in touch with people? Email, phones and meeting up did that better. Status signaling? I don’t think surrendering all privacy for a minor ego stroke was a good deal.
There’s nothing for me in that fucking trap. I’m willing to bet there’s nothing there for you, either.”

***

“Seeing pics of my (ex)-gf at a house party drunk and half-naked when she told me she was at her mother’s all weekend….”

***

"I hate pretty much all social media tbh. I think it takes valuable time from people’s lives, takes them away from the present and their friends, and takes them to another place they don’t need to be. I know I’m that annoying person that says ‘will you get off your phone’, but I’d rather be that than the dead-eyed person staring at their screen 24/7.”

***

“A picture from an obviously fake account (pictures didn’t match and showed up on a reverse image search) of an obviously attractive young woman in a wheelchair with the caption ‘my friends say I’m ugly and nobody will share this’…

It was shared 80,000 times with everyone telling her how beautiful she was blah blah blah. One guy even said he would take her out on a date and publicly gave out his phone number.

I just can’t stand how naive and stupid people are anymore.

I know I sound like an elitist snob, but it’s mind-boggling what people believe on Facebook. The ads, constant bragging, game requests, and attention whoring…it just got to me.”

***

“I lasted about 3 weeks. Just found it to be a heaving pit of narcissistic wannabes either relishing in a false life and sense of achievement through status likes, or droning on about how bad the world is. The worst type are the bandwagon-hoppers—every time there are atrocities they are straight on it changing profile pics updating status to #prayforparis or some shit (no offense meant Parisians just an example) like they gave a flying in the first place. Guys with no tops, girls with the arch back and fish face, some pricks snotty brat whose face hasn’t been wiped in a week, all the selfie stick addicts, mugs who spend more time showing off where they are in the world rather than actually enjoying their holiday, the MOTHERFUCKERS who think they know you well enough to disrespectfully spam you day and night with Farmville. Let me tell you this from the bottom of my heart—fuck you and everything you stand for.”

***

"The irrational demand to be acknowledged just for the sake of it. You know, the whole, ‘Since most of you don’t care about me I’m just going to start deleting friends unless you say something.’ Go hug a fucking relative, you depraved brat."

***

“Crazy ex. My current SO and I were together for a while, then we weren’t for about a year, that’s when I was with the Crazy, and since then we’re back together and for good. Crazy was convinced we were somehow fated to be together and got awfully stalkery and disruptive and dealing with that kind of shit made me realize that there isn’t anyone I wanted to interact with on a regular basis that required me to use Facebook to do so. So I shit-canned the whole thing and haven’t looked back.”

***

“When I realized that I not only wasn’t really interested in what anyone was posting, but also that they actively irritated me. I had over 500 ‘friends,’ but only one or two people were posting anything worth even glancing at, and even those were hit or miss. Then the political crap started. By February 2016, I had enough. When my birthday hit in April, and NOBODY messaged me, I realized that those ‘friends’ were ephemeral at best. Facebook makes you feel better about yourself at first, because it gives you a sense of community, a sense that you belong to something greater, but then the cold reality sets in and you realize that everyone is self-absorbed and just want everyone to think that THEIR life is better than yours. I still hear my wife complaining about all the people that have such great lives, posting wonderful family pictures, but I don’t believe most of them. There were bribes, fights, and tears involved before that final postable photo.”

***

“It’s such a waste of time. Really. And it’s a breeding ground for vile conversations and debates, political and otherwise. Social media in general has dehumanized everyone to the point that nobody has tact or patience, and they’ll say whatever, whenever. Honesty is awesome, but whatever happened to ‘if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all’? I digress. I still have a Facebook account, but only to manage my music page. I very seldom check my newsfeed anymore."

***

"Everybody becoming a political pundit while citing clickbait articles to fuel their political activism."

***

“I just got tired of all the tailored BS with the fake news and fake people. The fake people made me predisposed to depression and reading the ‘news articles’ that were extremely polarized (I was friends with both liberals and conservatives) made me realize that it’s all fake and biased. The real reward was a few months after I deleted fb and my veteran cousin with PTSD and strong/caustic opinions went off on my sister because she posted something about not standing for the National Anthem. I heard about it from my sister and my first reaction was ‘holy crap, that’s messed up’ followed closely by the realization that I avoided all of that drama. It was a pretty nice feeling.”

***

“Ads started coming up in my FB feed for things referring to a condition I recently got diagnosed with. I had not googled the condition or anything like that. I had only write about it in my phone text messaging telling my sister about the diagnose. I felt surveilled and got out.”

***

“I got sick of my girlfriend, who uses Facebook like 25 times a day, always looking over my shoulder to see if other girls were messaging me. I’m just scrolling just like she is! I deleted mine and started hacking into her FB messenger to find other guys she’s been talking to. TL;DR Deleting Facebook helped me dump my guilty ex-GF basically.”

***

“My best friend was killed in a work accident. I’m 35. It was mind-blowing to see all the people who sort of exploited it for ‘likes.’ He didn’t have many friends, but after he died, people who barely knew him were getting tribute tattoos. Those seemed like pretty expensive FB posts, or some sort of grieving-chic thing.

At the end of the day, Facebook is like the game The Sims, or some sort of weird arms race. People parade their poor kids and pets around for daily photoshoots. The addiction is in the constant need to be validated. People get trapped in these personas. It’s very, very sad. People sort of ‘focus test’ their entire lives now, and that’s not how good things rise to the top.”

***

“Influx of baby boomers that ruin it like they ruin everything else.”

***

“I was getting extremely annoyed with people sharing clickbait articles with their deranged opinions, but that was technically the first straw. Final straw was every family member commenting on every status ever.

‘Just went out and bought Childish Gambino’s new album, hope it’s good!’

Grandma comments – I don’t know who that is but I love you! Mom comments – are you still listening to that Devil music? Aunt comments – did that sweater I bought you last Christmas fit? Friend with similar taste in music comments – JK he doesn’t comment because my family can’t just text me.”

***

“I’m a negative enough person as it is, and seeing the worst side of everyone else did not help matters. On top of that, I found myself looking at endless BuzzFeed links and horribly uninformed political opinions.”

***

“I deleted Facebook because I found myself on the verge of hating people I genuinely care about. People are not who they are on Facebook, or at least, that’s what I want to believe. Beyond that I started to hate how I would constantly go back to the app like a rat to the feeder bar. A few days after deleting it I found myself using the time that would have been spent on Facebook doing far more productive things.”

***

I realized that Facebook is just a black hole where your time goes. You have nothing to show for it and get nothing for it. I deleted my Facebook and I really don’t miss it, I feel like my time is now going to better use.”

***

“People are way too dramatic, and everyone is always fighting. I also found out the average IQ of my friends was around 4, and it just hurt talking to them.”

***

“The last straw was a quote from Mark Zuckerburg that implied people were idiots for giving their personal information to his company for free. Prior to that however, it was clear that Facebook was a popularity contest – people who are attractive or sociable got likes for posting anything whereas good content would go ignored if it wasn’t from one of these types.”

***

And last but not least...

“The news feed is 99.99% pure cancer.”
causticus: trees (Default)
I came across a rather interesting comment discussion thread on this very topic. A person who is presumably-left-leaning asserted in the thread that one can be a "Leftist" and Traditionalist (in the spiritual/religious sense) and at the same time. And of course the replies challenging this assertion came pouring in right away. Below, I shall highlight the reply I found to be the most insightful. But first things first:

I must say that over the years I've become less and less interested in whatever "-ism" or ideological orientation people claim to be affiliated with. The reason why is because what a person professes to be ideologically or religiously often has very little to do with how they behave in mundane, everyday life. By this, a person's stated ideological or religious affiliation becomes little more than an act of flag-waving; or shall we say "virtue-signalling" in today's internet culture parlance. So my best guess regarding the motivations of the above commenter, is that he might be suffering from a sense of conflicted identity, which is quite normal for young people (yeah, I'm guessing he's young). Here is the comment, MB states:


I disagree with those on this thread who argue that leftism and traditionalism are necessarily opposed. I would cite in this regard the works of Erich Fromm and Fritz Schumacher, who both challenged capitalism. Fromm did so from a traditional Jewish perspective on the grounds that capitalism is a form of idolatry, because capitalists worship the dead product of labour and do not appreciate living, creative labour itself.

Although he was Catholic, Schumacher’s critique comes from a Buddhist perspective as he too argues that the value of labour can be massively increased by focussing on the experience and conditions of the worker rather than narrowly on the end product.


I believe that MB's primary thinking error here is conflating opposition to modern capitalism with support of leftism. In other words, the mere belief that modern capitalism is problematic does not automatically make that person a leftist. This is a sort of, "Great, you don't like X, therefore you are in our Y-camp!" fallacy. When in fact, most Traditionalists do indeed realize the shortcomings of modern capitalism and the sort of nihilism and cultural degeneracy it breeds. This leads me to believe MB is likely not very well read on the authors he is claiming to be compatible to whatever his own pre-existing ideological beliefs are. He goes on:


I think there can be ‘right’ and ‘left’ views of traditionalism just as there are ‘right’ and ‘left’ views of modernism. Leftist traditionalism would typically emphasise the egalitarianism of the religions and their breaking down of previous hierarchies. Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam all have strong narratives in this regard. (Brahminism less so, but it is important to remember many other egalitarian movements within the Hindu fold, and many Indian spiritual teachers who saw past caste).


I think this might actually clue us into an inherent weakness in the Perennialist ideology I'm about to get at below. What I mean is that including Abrahamic religions and thus the inherently-egalitarian tendencies of Christianity and Islam, might undermine the premise that these religions are perfect expressions of some notion of eternal spiritual tradition. BTW, I think MB is wrong here about Buddhism, as in its most orthodox form, it's a religion for renunciate monks; the scriptures say very little on the topic of social structures; historically, Buddhists have never been in the business of undermining established social hierarchies, much less devoting much attention to those topics.

But yes, I must state that this whole thread I'm bringing up makes reference to the Rene Guenon brand of Traditionalism, which is the most well known modern-day take on the Perennial Philosophy. This is the small cultist intellectual circle that calls itself "The Traditionalist School" and is centered around Guenon and the other intellectuals of his time period who followed his lead; authors like Julius Evola and Frithjof Schuon. And I must state that I do not buy into Guenon's criteria of what constitutes and does not constitute a proper religious tradition. But that's something for a different post, or shall I say series of posts. Anyway, here's the response from JR:


Sorry, but you literally, and I mean literally, a priori, cannot have leftist traditionalism. And this can't, in principle, be up for debate. It is a contradiction in terms. It is like saying "liquid ice" or "a married bachelor." This isn't a rightist claim to Traditionalism, this is simply the definition and formulation of Traditionalism given by Guenon and Evola. It is an absolute mistake - one that reveals a trenchant modernism - to think that any critique of capitalism must come from the left, and if you don't believe me, I simply direct you to the aforementioned authors. Capitalism is the civilization of the Third Estate, of liberal democracy, the civilization of the merchant, by the merchant, and for the merchant. Traditionalism opposes this not from the base, irrationalist proletarian side, but from above, restoring to society the proper dominance of the warrior-aristocratic ideal and the sacred above that. Traditionalist critiques don't degrade the worker; they lament the enslavement of the worker to the materialist ends of capitalist society and bemoan the subsequent loss of his dignity (they don't support a workers' state, of course, since it is not in the worker's nature to rule). Any Traditionalist agrees to the subhuman nature of consumerism/capitalism.

There can be "right" and "left" views of Tradition, yes. The rightist views of Tradition will cohere it to the extent that "right-wing" doesn't merely mean the bourgeois capitalist "conservatism" of today. The left-wing, by definition the forces of progress and change, cannot even in theory comport with an ounce of positive Traditionalist doctrine. This isn't to say they can't agree with Traditionalists about an abstract fact like "capitalism is degrading," but that their metaphysical presuppositions absolutely preclude any possibility whatsoever that they could agree as regards how to solve the problems or society or what an ideal society even looks like. Progress, mass society, egalitarianism, class conflict, humanism, democracy, etc. are all fundamentally opposed to Tradition.


The takeaway here is that egalitarian presuppositions about human nature (and thus how to properly order society) are utterly incompatible with the world's deep religious traditions. And I can't think of a single world tradition that considers progress-for-the-sake-of-progress (progress here meaning forward motion change) to be an inherently-positive value. Any honest Leftist who knows their stuff will unequivocally declare religious traditions to be a reactionary force and at odds with the sort of materialist utopian aspirations which underpin all forms of Leftist thought.

And I'd say the grand takeaway here is that people should spend more time acquiring knowledge and having internal dialogues about what they learn, before going around and loudly declaring themselves to be proponents/allies/supporters of this-or-that big idea.
causticus: trees (Default)
From D:

There are several critical factors here that are allowing this Maoist purging to happen, and I’ll try to parse them in no particular order.

1. As Hamlet said, “I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself king of infinite space…” Academia has become more & more bound in its own nutshell as people are self-selecting joining. When I was contemplating academia in the 1980s, I was fortunate to see the writing on the walls already. I’d planned on getting my PhD in English, but when researching for my Honors Undergrad thesis, I kept reading article after article of petty, small-minded back-stabbing hyper-focused gobbledygook. I already knew how bitter & mean some academics could be. I left. And that was in the 1980s. I can only imagine how it is now. Only a certain type of person will accept this nutshell. Someone of limited intelligence–smart, but not nearly as smart as they believe. Given to cruelty & petty bureaucratic meanness. In short, party apparatchiks.

The hard sciences thought they were immune and were not too long ago. Alas, they too have been swept up as the nutshell encases them.

2. Administrator bloat. Administrators have an entirely different function from academics. Their function is as a giant HR/PR machine for the organization and to enrich their own jobs. IN the age of social media, it is a no brainer that they’d toss out a professor if their company’s image and/or their own jobs are at stake. Negative publicity, even minor, terrifies them. They want to operate in the shadows; the last thing they need is a spotlight, any spotlight.

3. Student as consumer, university as service. The vision is not to educate students, but to please them, and, as one Yale student put it, roughly, “to give them a safe home.” This is now being interpreted as a sort of nursery where scary images are in abeyance.

4. The relatively low pay & non-glory of professors - who have given of themselves 4 years of college, 6 years of grad schools, several years of post-doc in some fields, very crappy $10/hour type jobs in adjunct positions for most, 7 years toward tenured professorship if they’re lucky, then finally, at least, Tenured Professor for $70K or less - leads to a person who is a) heavily invested in the system in a sunk-cost way and b) very bitter and insecure at being invisible (many papers are never read, their ‘enlightened’ brilliant thoughts are read nowhere), & paid less than their plumber and electrician. They therefore tell themselves they are Brilliant & Important, far more wise than mere plumbers or doctors, the true Philosopher Kings. They teach students as a king teaches its subjects. It feels good.

5. The seduction of Soviet thinking for these weak and bitter minds. Lust for power for people who thought they’d be far more powerful than it turns out they are.

6. Fear and cowardice and each thinking, “If I lie low, at least i can research my dream topic I’ve given my whole life for.” This is for the non embittered, modest intellectual, the ‘bystanders.’
causticus: trees (Default)
Here is a thought-provoking comment I came across recently. From ZN:

The reason I think the Hindu scriptures are frankly superior to those from the Abrahamic faiths is because they provide the keys to the actual meanings of the ideas involved. They are esoteric as opposed to the jumble of exoteric phrases one finds in the Bible - which I'm sure you would agree can lead to so many different interpretations & with more of an emphasis on the outer form of a teaching. One example I came across just the other day was a passage in the Vedas which spoke of the 'body being the temple of God (Shiva). As you know that's where the Bible leaves it, whereas the Vedas expand on the concept speaking of Shiva being the Oversoul, The Self within all beings etc. The quotes you posted in this video likewise give greater insight into the real meanings of spiritual truths.


Countless layers of priestly and scribal interpolations and redactions have indeed rendered much of the Abrahamic scriptural collection almost useless in terms of being a potent tool for enlightenment. In fact, these scriptures have proven to be a source of so much fanaticism, schizophrenic conceptions of religion, and mind-control ideologies/dogmas over the course of many centuries. Whereas, Eastern scriptures tend to get right to the point and provide clear and practical enlightenment teachings; no confusing obscurantism or fuzzy parables required.
causticus: trees (Default)
Great little comment I just spotted today:

The Bible from creation to the crowning of Solomon is a grand cosmic myth, a story book of the constellations. YHWH is the moon god. The Akkadians deified their kings, combined them with gods and placed them in the constellations. The text was expanded like the Gilgamesh epic through expansion by parallelism and resumptive repetition. Scholars have yet to figure out the original text and it is not that hard to do. The stories went from Akkadia to the Amorites, Hittites, and finally the Assyrians who changed the name from Sin to YHWH, Marduk to Moses.


I will have to look more into the Sin/Yahweh association. But let's run with it for now, if just for the purpose of hypothetical games. Sin was an old Akkadian moon god that became especially revered by the Imperial Assyrian regime that dominated the Iron Age Near East. The Egyptian name for Moon was "Iah" (pronounced, "Yah" and of course one of the top Sumerian-Akkadian gods was "Ea" (also pronounced "Yah"). Yahweh as a major Hebrew god may have came about as a play on words, so to speak.

It seems as if the Jerusalem priesthood the came to be during the Persian period (right after the fall of the Assyrians and Babylonians) created a new national god that in function was an amalgamation of other gods of the time. It would have made much sense to use a god-name that was familiar in the broader region. As evidenced by the Elephantine papyri, the Persian rulers may have stationed a group of Semitic-speaking scribes in Egypt to assist with administering the newly-annexed territory. These scribes may have been the founding element of the later Jerusalem priesthood. If these scribes were Sin-worshippers they may have adapted the local (in this case Egyptian) Iah for their moon-worship.

If the proto-Jewish priests were indeed Sin worshipers then their origins may have been among the scribal ruling element of the old Assyrian regime! The Persians were quite known for their mercy and tolerance, in sharp contrast to their Assyrian predecessors. So instead of wholesale- massacring the old regime, they may have very well retained the useful elements (like scribes) and relocated them to a faraway part of the empire where they wouldn't have the opportunity to stir up any local revolts or be a general nuisance. Egypt would have been quite a safe distance from Northern Mesopotamia. But the Persians weren't able to hold Egypt for very long after the initial conquest due to a series of local revolts. The Persian administration would have been bounced right out of there and the southern Levant would have been the closest Persian-run area to Egypt to resettle in, where their next job would have been helping the Persian crown conduct administrative affairs over groups of Phoenician/Canaanite subjects. Jerusalem would have been the new abode for the Sin/Iah scribes. The peoples to the area to the north of them, in Israel/Samaria would have been following the old Canaanite pantheon, i.e. the pantheon of El, known as the Elohim. Yah(weh) would have been a minor or nonexistent god to these people. Eventually, through a series of events we don't really know the true nature of yet, the Yahweh priests in Jerusalem eventually came to dominate the religious affairs of the whole region all the way from northern limits of the Sinai border up the border with Phoenicia proper.

I'll have to further explore this thought-stream in more detail in the future.
causticus: trees (Default)
Insightful comment today from SS:
Gnosis is understanding, but it is understanding through direct experience. The literal understanding of religion/spiritual texts, is the lowest understanding. It also breeds elitism. People who become pious and righteous. They begin to believe that only literal understandings are important. And if you don't follow the rules, well then, bad things will happen. And as history has shown, Righteousness has caused humans to make other humans suffer. The Romans killed people of different religions because they threatened the religious stability of the nation. If people refused to worship the gods, they were inciting a calamity upon the city. It was a crime similar to treason.

Theology is a construct of religion. Those with gnosis are beyond that. They have symbology and mythology. When you have Gnosis, there is no way to concretely talk about it. Words do not do Gnosis justice. That is why Gnosis is an individual experience which may be spoken of to those who have it.

Jung believed that the things he experienced and talked about were real. Just not in a literal way. That is the point of Gnosticism; Gnosis.


This lends some credence to the notion that ordinary language more often than not obscures and confuses our understanding of higher concepts.

I do believe there there may be something akin to a "language of the gods" and that influential humans in times past (and probably today too) have actively work to confuse this language, namely members of powerful priestly castes who have gained much power from obscuring spiritual concepts so the common rabble has no hopes of comprehending the "secrets" of their arcane priest-craft. This is no different than what modern academics do today when they use nearly-incomprehensible jargon to discourse on topics that really aren't all that difficult for the common person to grasp at a basic level. Lawyers do the same thing with legalese. By nature, humans form occupational guilds and do whatever they can to guard the "secret sauce" from the competition.

Lets go back and look at the Biblical Tower of Babel myth. What I glean from that is that the forces of nature or "the fates" (which the Jewish authors/editors re-branded as their 'God') have seen to it that human knowledge and mutual understanding must be fractured and confused so that petty, egocentric, short-sighted rulers can continue to oppress and tyrannize the people. Of course, these priestly scribes inverted the narrative and made this confusion a "good" thing. But that's a whole different topic for a different day.
causticus: trees (Default)
Great summary on this colossally stupid idea [Marx's Labor Theory of Value] that just can't seem to die. From Z:
The idea is garbage. It's a waste of time. If I paint something and it takes me eight weeks to paint it and complete it, should it be worth the same as something that Da Vinci painted in an eight week span, when we used the same materials? Well, no. Because my painting would not be nearly as great. He might have used the same amount of labor as I did, but his product is undoubtedly superior. The Labor Theory of Value completely ignores the quality of the product. I won't pay an apprentice plumber at the same rate as I'd pay a master plumber - because the master plumber would do the job in a shorter amount of time and with a greater success rate. He shouldn't earn less because he is more capable. To the contrary, he should earn significantly more because he is competent.

This same criticism of Marxism can be made all over. People are individually different. They have different skill sets, and each of them will produce a different quantity or quality of something in a different amount of time. To ignore this is to ignore the fact that we are working with living beings. Marxism assumes that the individual is equal to any other individual in terms of capability. This is simple not true. Go look at some sports stats and it is clear as day. In 28 minutes Stephen Curry can score 47 points on 15/26 from the field, 8/14 from three, 9/9 from the free throw line, with 7 assists, 4 rebounds, 3 steals and two turnovers. In those same 28 minutes Lu Williams might score 26 points on 10/26 from the field, 3/9 from three, 3/4 from the free throw line, 0 assists, 4 rebounds, 0 steals, and four turnovers. Should these players labor be paid the same? They took the same amount of shots. Perhaps they possessed the ball for the same amount of time.

The fact is people are different. Some people are better at things than others. To ignore that is to be ignorant, and to ignore that on a large scale it to be self destructively ignorant. Supply and Demand is flawed, but it certainly is not this flawed. Because, at least with supply and demand, the people demanding get what they want at a price they are consentualy willing to pay and the people supplying are consenting to a price point that they too feel is far judging by the market. In a LToV "market", people have no idea what they will get, just how much work went into it. And, people have no reason to improve at what they're doing, because if they do they will not benefit from it.


Any ideology that blindly assumes that everyone is the same is plain evil and an affront to Natural Law. Nothing but terrible things happen from very the moment there is any serious effort to implement Socialism/Communism in the real world.
causticus: trees (Default)
I'm much in agreement with this analysis. The OT/Tanakh contains many supremely skewed accounts of the histories. cultural and folkloric practices of various Near Eastern peoples. The book (more like a sprawling corpus) altogether is a political narrative, not an objective study of anything. From TC:
I do not recommend using the Bible for reference when trying to learn about ancient worship practice. The Bible is a mixture of false histories and plagerized [sic] scripture from other civilizations. And the Bible perverts most of what was stolen. Baal is a title not a Gods name, but so you will see many references to Baal because they simply site him by title. So Baal can be different Gods depending on source and context. Even the alleged Yahweh of the Hebrew has seven different names in the old testament and may not always be the same God. The ancient Hebrews were not monotheistic as is commonly taught.

Good point on Baal, which was just a title among the Northwest Semitic peoples (Canaanites) of antiquity; there were a number of deities which contained the name Baal. It translates as something along the lines of "Lord." In other words, it was something rather generic. We find a similar word, "Bel" in Akkadian, which was another ancient Semitic tongue. Idiot conspiracy nuts, usually of the fundamentalists evangelical Protestant persuasion, like to throw around "Baal" as being a name for Satan or whatever. Actually, they believe anything that isn't 100% their version of "God" or Jesus to be Satan. These mouth-breathing sorts know absolutely zilch about history, comparitive religion, philosophy or really anything that's intellectually a single notch above believing in their Bible in the most literal, word-by-word manner.
causticus: trees (Default)
A Q+A comment exchange from T and M:

Q: How in the hell is there a PhD's worth of things to learn in gender studies ?

A: There isn’t. The departments exist for universities to buy diversity without the work of real social improvement. Rather than support minorities/women and build to where there’s equal representation in serious fields, they create jobs in nonsense and leave the real fields as-is.


IMHO, this statement gets at the crux of the issue. No nefarious "Cultural Marxist" infiltration grand conspiracy is needed to explain why the humanities branch of Western academia has so thoroughly gone to hell over the past 40 years or so.

The existence and proliferation of various nonsensical ___[insert grievance here] studies___ departments at countless well-accredited universities is easily explained by bureaucratic corruption and laziness. A university administration can score quick and easy "diversity points" by simply allowing a a few unhinged radicals the opportunity to spew their ideological bile under the guise of scholarship. On the surface this is great PR for useless, overpaid administrators who are always looking to put on a "forward-thinking" face to deep-pocked donors and prospective debt serfs students. The main goal of university administrators and tenured professors is to keep the money, and thus their cushy salaries, flowing in for as long as possible.

However, on the topic of PR, it's not until now that these radical non-disciplines have gone viral and have seen their intellect-free content filter down to the general public and influence mainstream ideology. And all the regular folk are now noticing and are quite shocked about what has up until recent been lingering under the academia hood.
causticus: trees (Default)
Are the progressive fanatics who run most of the major Silicon Valley tech companies in self-destruct mode? From P:

It's almost beyond comprehension the seismic [expletive]-storm that Jack and his band of social justice idiots at Patreon unleashed on their own dumb asses. Just another reminder that the lunatics on the left will always wind their way to utter self-destruction if left unchecked. Consider yourself checked (and checkmated) all you [expletives] at Patreon, Facebook, Twitter and beyond. You've issued your last shadowbanning denial, and you [expletive-verb'd] your company and your employees over in the process.


Some finer analysis here may hearken back to the "Social Threefolding" concept I laid out in the previous post. I think what we're seeing now regarding the cumulative effects from last 3 years or so of hyper-progressive ideological fervor, is the Cultural Sphere beginning to assert itself over both the Political and Economic Spheres. And this is not necessarily by top-down conspiratorial design. What we are seeing is a cultural movement that's become consumed by a moral panic, or rather a cluster[expletive] of interlocking moral panics. These are storms not so different from weather systems; they gain momentum, wreak their havoc and then eventually exhaust themselves of energy and die down. Anyone remotely schooled in esoteric might understand the idea that emotions are just like weather patterns.



Silicon Valley has been collectively engaging in precisely the type of cathartic emotional outburst we can see in the video above. Their progressive ideology is little different in character from that of a religion; in this case a very dogmatic, evangelical, and fanatical one. Low-T Left Coast bugman tech CEOs like Jack Conte of Patreon are men of deep faith; we're now at the point where the deep religiosity of such people supercede their pragmatic or even economic concerns. From a business perspective this spells nothing but ruin; one cannot run a for-profit business when their religious motives are in the driver's seat. Of course, many of these tech companies don't even break even on their balance sheets; they stay alive as long as their billionaire investors are pumping money into the company coffers. A deep-pocked investor may have motives that go beyond simple profitability, but only so much. In the media business there have been plenty of examples of publications that never managed to make any money, yet the investor(s) kept the media outlet alive for vanity or propagandistic purposes. I'm not sure this "business" model will work for tech companies in the long run however. A company that keeps making dumb financial decisions and losing money/customers, will eventually find itself in the corporate graveyard. I predict that when the moral panic(s) die down, many of these hyped-up tech companies will be history and we'll be seeing a sizable group of hyper-religious tech workers and entrepreneurs grovelling for jobs at companies that are actually solvent and have a reliable, realistic business model.

At the end of the day, the Cultural Sphere can only run the Economic sphere in a Theocratic system. When the people are allowed to choose what to believe and not believe, it's impossible for Theocratic system to assert any kind of monopolistic power over the general public. This whole mess we're seeing now is going to crash and burn sooner or later.

This is yet another example of: Get Woke, Go Broke.
causticus: trees (Default)
This comment from a youtube user regarding Tim Cook's recent virtue-signalling storm where he bleated on about his amazing powers of censorship:

Being lectured to on ethics by a Silicon Valley billionaire who makes his products using Third World labour and is unanswerable to anyone is such a joy.


This one sentence beautifully sums of the sheer absurdity of the obnoxious moralizing behavior we're starting to see more and more from the heads of Silicon Valley tech behemoths. These statements, usually steeped in the sort of vapid virute-signalling that totally insults the intelligence of anyone who isn't a brainwashed progressive ideologue. It does take a hefty dose of cognitive dissonance and doublethink to unironically believe that giant corporations are anything more than sociopathic money-grabbing machines, much less organizations that act on anything resembling ethical motives.

As Sargon of Akkad (Carl Benjamin) stated in the summary of the video he just uploaded on Patreon's totally arbitrary banning of his account, "The Great White Saviours of Silicon Valley are actively looking for ways to deplatform anyone who is not politically correct, as Patreon did to me."

causticus: trees (Default)
An interesting one today from JS:

90% of my friends and extended family are intelligent, educated left leaning, and its scary to me how little they are even willing to engage in respectful debate, and how blindly they believe everything left, without so much as minimal due diligence. And any disagreement is considered personal, so all options are allowed in response. It stems from not being able to tell the difference between disagreement on facts/reason and evil. Its like a religion or a cult.

---Reply: "Disagreement is personal because their politics are part of their identity, it would be like mocking a Christian's "invisible sky father. Although Christians would still probably act more civil to you even after that."---

Yes, really sad. How does one get along with those that believe their righteousness is derived from their political affiliation instead of values? I wish I had some solution. Maybe we just need to focus on not letting kids be brainwashed. Sadly, left has control of education.


Yeah...I for one can't wait for that Faustian (W. European) pseudomorphosis to wash out back into the Atlantic from whence it came. Many of us have had quite enough of that whole righteousness = public declaration of the "right" dogma sort of deal.
causticus: trees (Default)
The is the first installment in a new Comment Of The Day (COTD) series. These will be comments I find posted in various placed around the internet, usually from topic-specific message boards. It shall be known that the comments I quote here are not my wholesale endorsement of the content within, but rather just an indication of what I find to be very thought-provoking and relevant to the overall theme of topics I talk about on this journal. Anyway.....

Today, OH says:

"Monotheism is a vulgar exoteric version, one might say, of transcendental monism, ready packaged for the masses. That is the main fundamental problem of the Abrahamic faiths and that was, more or less, the main argument of pagan philosophers of late Antiquity against Christianity - that it vulgarizes the deep truths of the Mysteries and in trying to bring to the masses that which has ever been hidden in the Mystery Schools, it denigrates those Mysteries.

The best system in this regard, truth be told, is Sanatana Dharma of Hindu India. It follows what once was common to the Aryan primal Faith of the [Indo-European] Urheimat - the multiple levels of religious reality - from the very basic animistic and fetishistic notions, through popular cults of the gods (popular polytheism), through polytheism of the higher classes, through various henotheistic (and in some interpretational frames even "monotheistic") currents (that define the three main branches of current Hinduism - Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism) up to the Monism of the Upanishads that is beyond any exoteric trappings."
Page generated Dec. 24th, 2025 12:26 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios