Baila
1mo ago
@sansampersamp is an architect. Let's see what he has to say about 'where architecture has gone' since Eisenman.
Philosophical perspectives in architecture have also largely moved on from Eisenman's deconstructive minimalism in the (an) opposite direction somewhat towards Heidegger's object-relational ontology/phenomenology via Harman. See Mark Foster Gage's Killing Simplicity.
Okay. What does Gage say?
It is understandable that Harman would enlist Lovecraft....Lovecraft also frequently enlists architecture and geometry....In "At the Mountains of Madness," Lovecraft writes of a city with "no architecture known to man or to human imagination, with vast aggregations of night-black masonry embodying monstrous perversions of geometrical laws." In "The Call of Cthulhu" he writes of a character who was "swallowed up by an angle of masonry which shouldn't have been there; an angle which was acute, but behaved as if it were obtuse."
...To try to design such a Cyclopean city...would be a lost cause, but to imagine architecture that similarly alludes to a deeper or alternate view of reeality is an appealing opportunity....Harman writes, "illusion and innuendo are the best we can do."
There might be some youngsters or non-english speakers in the audience. Let's double check the essence of Lovecraft:
Lovecraftian horror, also called cosmic horror or eldritch horror, is a subgenre of horror fiction and weird fiction that emphasizes the horror of the unknowable and incomprehensible more than gore or other elements of shock. It is named after American author H. P. Lovecraft (1890–1937). His work emphasizes themes of cosmic dread, forbidden and dangerous knowledge, madness, non-human influences on humanity, religion and superstition, fate and inevitability, and the risks associated with scientific discoveries...
So architecture has moved on from Eisenman to getting as close to emparting "cosmic dread, forbidden and dangerous knowledge, madness, non-human influences on humanity, religion and superstition, fate and inevitability, and the risks associated with scientific discoveries" as they can.
No, no. They're not evil. They're just trying to create buildings that replicate the effect of an alien presence so profoundly dangerous that merely conceptualizing a infinitesimal part of it drives you to madness.
Baila
1mo ago
Eisenman is saying that comfort and harmony do not constitute the totality of either aesthetic preference or human experience, and just like someone might listen to metal or prefer picasso to kinkade, buildings may accommodate and respond to a broader spectrum of experience.
'Another way of knowing' is the primary rhetorical tool used in socialist and gnostic argument. Socialists have the nous and non-socialists do not. Their knowledge has gone through more dialectical aufheben. Its not that the views of others are wrong. Its just that there is another way of knowing. The thing you like is just one part of a spectrum of experience. Where as the socialists can view the whole spectrum. You like Motzart. He likes Metallica. But what if music had more? What if there was an entire other way of viewing and experiencing music? What if music challenged you? What if it made you uncomfortable with the injustices of the world? A view of music that is limited to the order of the notes is such a limited view. And really its harmful, because it excludes the people who view music as a way to do justice.
No thanks, and no thanks.
The new soviet man doesn't actually exist. Buildings meticulously designed to be discordant and harmful don't actually fill a portion of the populous with warmth. Eisenman doesn't feel comfort in his own buildings. He feels discomfort because he is good at what he does. Discomfort is the point. Take him at his word.
I think Marty Robbins has this one handled:
Baila
1mo ago
I appreciate your comment a great deal. I considered this angle as well. Eisenman speaks to it in the talk. He does not say that he seeks a harmony which happens to be diametrically opposed to Alexander's view of harmony. Eisenman makes clear that he specifically seeks disharmony. The buildings he designs are not beautiful and useful, but only to socialists. They are equally horrible and dysfunctional and painful to socialists as well.
I think this is the reason that Shafarevich concludes socialism is ultimately a sort of complex behavior of suicide. The goals they seek are ultimately terminal to themselves. Indeed, remaking man (in the literal physical, biological sense) such that he can only survive under socialist conditions has been a frequent goal of socialist groups. See 'new socialist man' or 'new soviet man.'
That said, I am out of my evolutionary-biological depth at this point. I suppose you could posit a selection mechanism that is selecting only for a group to pass on its genes, and those genes happen to be ones that derive pleasure from anti-harmony. But, I don't think group selection of this type is necessarily proven out; I think it is individual selection all the way down, with group selection as more of a second order phenomenon. I think, But like I said, I'm out of my depth here.
Baila
1mo ago
I think your comment is a bit dismissive of my point (or at least the point I attempted to make). Merely 'ugly' buildings are not at issue here. This communist architecture is not attempting to make buildings which are merely ugly, or buildings which meet a particular aesthetic that all non-communists agree is ugly.
Rather, they are making weapons. Every aspect of the design is specifically selected to cause disharmony and discomfort along all conceivable dimensions. Real factories are designed to maximize output (and ideally safety). Every single aspect of the factory is designed and tested to achieve that goal. The worker has 10 square feet of space, because he needs 10 square feet of space to do his job effectively and safely. Any more or any less and his output decreases or accidents increase. The lighting is such that he can do his job, but its not so much that it damages his eyes or gives him such a headache that he cant work. At least that is the goal.
If Eisenman or other such socialists designed this factory, every single choice would be made based on what caused the greatest degree of disharmony and psychic pain. If they had the data to determine the geometry most likely to create discontent among the workers sufficient to spark a riot or a labor strike, or cause the workers to divorce their wives or leave their churches or abandon their nations, they would build it. As Eisenman said, it is a moral imperative for them to maximize those effects.
Its not 'ugly buildings are bad.' Its 'these people are putting immense resources into harming you and everyone you know and everything you love.'
Baila
1mo ago
I agree about the actual debate at the time in which it happened. I mean to use the debate to raise the larger point that the debate is typical of socialists and socialist communication. And then ask the question of why do people not respond to clearly professed evil.
edit: I also agree that many were aligned.
On Communist Supervillains, Cognitive Dissonance, and IQ.
1 . Communist Supervillains.
Somewhere on the motte I found a link to a 1983 Harvard debate between architects Christopher Alexander and Peter Eisenman. The debate was shocking not only for its content, but for its clarity and its age. It made me do some thinking about communism, cognitive dissonance and IQ. Hence this post.
Alexander and Eisenman are/were eminent architects and professors of architecture. In the debate, Alexander explains his philosophy of architecture. Alexander focuses on harmony. He explains how important it is for the building to accomplish its purpose, for the persons who use the building to literally feel comfortable in whatever that purpose might be. Alexander also explains his process (iteration and full-scale mock up) of achieving that harmony. If the purpose of a square is to provide students a place to relax and feel free from distraction, the square must actually create that mental state. There must be harmony between these things.
Eisenman is a deconstructivist (socialist). Eisenman views the creation of disharmony as a moral imperative. Eisenman explains that architecture is meant to make people psychologically (and sometimes physically) uncomfortable. Buildings must literally impose psychic harm and pain on the people who view and use the building, or it has failed its purpose. An architect has a moral imperative to create such pain among the populous.
This is real supervillain shit. Eisenman is an influential architect, part of a whole school of architecture, who spends his time, and his students time, and untold sums of money, refining their skill at creating buildings that are mathematically ugly, disharmonious, and cause psychological pain to those who view and occupy them. And he explains all of this in absolutely clear and calm language.
Now, for students of socialism, Eisenman's outlook is not noteworthy. Socialists of all stripes are notorious for compulsively committing their thoughts and plans to paper or speeches. However, for me, the Alexander v Eisenman debate highlights the absence of public backlash. At least, not enough to prevent them from making such buildings.
You would think that if an architect responded to a city's call for plans for a new middle school building and said 'my plan is to create this building, which I believe will maximize the amount of discomfort and pain felt by anyone who gazes upon or enters it,' that his plan would be immediately rejected and that he would probably suffer some sort of social consequences. Apparently, that is not the case. Apparently, you can successfully make that pitch without much trouble.
How is that possible?
2 . IQ
My first hypothesis is that a sufficient number of persons are literally incapable of comprehending these words and ideas, even when spoken plainly and directly. However, I am not familiar enough with the IQ literature to validate this hypothesis.
I am familiar with the basics of literacy levels. As you can see, the levels come with clear examples, and explain what a person at a given level can or cannot understand. If Eisenman's statements were written, then we could plug them into the levels, and determine who would understand.
However, I am interested in who could understand Eisenman's plain statements regardless of medium (written, spoken, etc.). What IQ would be necessary to understand the statement 'I am an architect. I build buildings that harm your mind.'? Does anyone have a source which equates IQ scores with conceptual understanding in a manner similar to the literacy levels?
3. Cognitive Dissonance
My second hypothesis is that sufficiently many people do understand what's going on when they encounter socialists like Eisenman extolling their plans to do evil, but that a majority of those people with an IQ sufficient to understand in theory, are in fact blinded by cognitive dissonance. That is to say, most people's minds will not let them take seriously the idea that whole departments of people believe that turning buildings into psychic weapons is a moral imperative. Even when the evil doers state their intentions plainly and have a decades (millennia) long history of success.
Edit: Adding a comment I made downthread. I rest my case.
@sansampersamp is an architect. Let's see what he has to say about 'where architecture has gone' since Eisenman.
Philosophical perspectives in architecture have also largely moved on from Eisenman's deconstructive minimalism in the (an) opposite direction somewhat towards Heidegger's object-relational ontology/phenomenology via Harman. See Mark Foster Gage's Killing Simplicity.
Okay. What does Gage say?
It is understandable that Harman would enlist Lovecraft....Lovecraft also frequently enlists architecture and geometry....In "At the Mountains of Madness," Lovecraft writes of a city with "no architecture known to man or to human imagination, with vast aggregations of night-black masonry embodying monstrous perversions of geometrical laws." In "The Call of Cthulhu" he writes of a character who was "swallowed up by an angle of masonry which shouldn't have been there; an angle which was acute, but behaved as if it were obtuse."
...To try to design such a Cyclopean city...would be a lost cause, but to imagine architecture that similarly alludes to a deeper or alternate view of reeality is an appealing opportunity....Harman writes, "illusion and innuendo are the best we can do."
There might be some youngsters or non-english speakers in the audience. Let's double check the essence of Lovecraft:
Lovecraftian horror, also called cosmic horror or eldritch horror, is a subgenre of horror fiction and weird fiction that emphasizes the horror of the unknowable and incomprehensible more than gore or other elements of shock. It is named after American author H. P. Lovecraft (1890–1937). His work emphasizes themes of cosmic dread, forbidden and dangerous knowledge, madness, non-human influences on humanity, religion and superstition, fate and inevitability, and the risks associated with scientific discoveries...
So architecture has moved on from Eisenman to getting as close to emparting "cosmic dread, forbidden and dangerous knowledge, madness, non-human influences on humanity, religion and superstition, fate and inevitability, and the risks associated with scientific discoveries" as they can.
No, no. They're not evil. They're just trying to create buildings that replicate the effect of an alien presence so profoundly dangerous that merely conceptualizing a infinitesimal part of it drives you to madness.
Baila
1mo ago
Mediterranean may have been a better word.
In any event, I think the socialist religion pre-dates Judaism. I refer to the religious socialists as the Identicals; as the core purpose of their faith is to make everything (thought, matter, etc.) identical, not just with eachother, but with god. The Identicals can be traced before 500BCE, with clearly developed religious and philosophical currents in the OG "mysteries," Thales of Miletus, and also in the century or two after, in Pythagoreanism, general mysticism/syncretism/esotericism in the eastern half of the Med, Gnosticism, early Hermetic writings, etc.
Judaism on the other hand, is just a bit later, but not by much. Somewhere after 500BCE, Yahwism becomes monotheistic and then becomes Second Temple Judaism. However, certain currents of Judaism I think are rather indistinguishable from the Identicals. The more I understand the history of Kabbalah, the less distinction I see between it and any of the other esotericism and gnosticism of the same time and place.
Taking a bit of a tangent, I would like to ask your input on the most effective name for this religion. Socialism? the Identicals? Gnostic Praxis? Political Gnosticism? 'Oh my god, those Egyptian Hermeticists really were up to something!'?
Baila
1mo ago
(this comment is equally relevant to @hydroacetylene and @ChickenOverlord)
There is a surprising amount of literature out there showing the direct, continuous relationship between the modern socialist religion and the ancient one. You can see a previous comment of mine for a partial summary of The Socialist Phenomenon, which discusses the continuity of practice and belief through ancient and medieval groups. There are plenty of more modern, academically rigorous sources (e.g, Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition by Magee; Gnosis and Hermeticism from Antiquity to Modern times by van den Broek and Hanegraaff; etc.)
I wish I could make people read that fucking book (or any of those books). Even just the people here. If I could send mottizens copies without anyone breaking opsec, I would do so free of charge.
I'm not a theist but our society is clearly locked in a religious, spiritual conflict with the latest flavor of that most despicable and ancient of Mesopotamian religions. This conflict has material harms, but they cant be addressed until people recognize it for what it is. I wish there were a way to communicate this fact to the average person but I don't think anyone has cracked the code yet.
Baila
1mo ago
Why is this so difficult for some people to accept?
Socialists argue strenuously on this point primarily for one of three reasons:
A. Cognitive dissonance. One of the central tenets of the socialist religion is the claim that they and only they, by definition, have the nous. Similarly, all others, by definition, lack the nous. Therefore, a socialist literally cannot process a situation where a non-socialist presents facts about socialism because a non-socialist cannot, by definition, have that knowledge. Hence we recently saw:
I'm a Marxist. If [Cultural Marxism] were real I would have heard of it. The first time I heard of it was from ultra-right wing extremely online types. And they continue to be the only ones that talk about it. This leads to at least one of two conclusions
I am in on the conspiracy. And I am lying to you.
Somehow, you and a bunch of other online fascist adjacent types understand Marxism better than me.
In the years I have argued Marx and Socialist stuff I have pretty much never encountered an anti-Marxist that really knew much of anything about Marxism. It really is kind of astounding how ignorant anti-Marxists are about the ideology they profess to hate, actually.
B. Purity spiral. As a rule, there can only be one true socialism, and true socialists are duty-bound to eliminate all pretenders, or else their project will never be completed. Thus, some reactions against the idea are just socialists doing their usual infighting.
C. PR. Since ancient times, literally in the original 'mysteries', socialists have sought absolute message control about themselves and seek to eliminate disfavorable facts. Some socialists view a connection between modern, cultural Marxism and doctrinaire, Marx-and-Engels Marxism as a potential vulnerability, and so attack the association wherever it appears.
Baila
1mo ago
Ok, but, seriously what's the point?
First, naming the beast. Second, denying dishonest actors the rhetorical victory of obfuscating the beast's name.
Baila
4mo ago
Thursday's Presidential debate revealed to the world that President Biden is mentally incompetent and that an unelected and unaccountable group of people is running the country, and likely has been running the country for some time. This unavoidable truth has likely doomed Biden's 2024 campaign. However, it has likely also struck a crippling blow against the Democrat Party's primary value proposition: "Democracy."
The Democrat's have made "Democracy" the party's core identity, its primary rhetoric, and indeed, its very reason for being. The Democrats insist that the right to vote for one's representatives is sacrosanct, that voting is "Democracy," that the country is "Democracy," and that the Democrats are "Democracy." Directly or indirectly preventing or diminishing the right to vote for the representative of one's own choosing is, according to the party, fundamentally anti-democratic. Moreover, they loudly and repeatedly insist that a vote for the Republicans is a vote "against Democracy" and will "end Democracy" in the United States. The rhetoric is existential, black and white, and leaves no room for maneuver.
Thursday's debate transformed the party's "Democracy" rhetoric into a mortal wound. If Joe Biden is mentally incompetent, then the only value of his candidacy lies in the proposition that the party will wield Biden's executive power without his knowledge or control. But, according to the Democrats, being forced to vote for an unnamed, unelected cabal of unaccountable lobbyists, bureaucrats, and special interests is no vote at all. Indeed, it is anti-democratic according to the party's own terms.
The Democrat's only argument is that "if we don't run the country anti-democratically, it will be the end of Democracy!" This is rhetorical checkmate. The Republicans and left-leaning, dissident democrats will turn the Democrat Party's super-weapon against them and there will be no escape. By jettisoning every other value but "Democracy" from the party, the Democrats have left themselves nowhere to retreat. The Republicans will use the last decade of the Democrat's own histrionic statements against them, rightly painting them as tyrants perpetrating a coup. Dissident, left-leaning Democrats will do the same, and claim the mantle of genuine "Democracy" for themselves.
Its actually, literally Joever.
Baila
5mo ago
I agree that America could annex Canada with little to no military effort. I'm more curious about the details of when, how, and under what circumstances that would happen. What are the politics and sentiments of the people? What considerations would the US have to weigh before making such a call? What are the alternatives, and what interests do those alternatives serve? Etc.
Any in depth sources on those matters would be much appreciated.
Baila
5mo ago
He has done so in the link provided, unless you believe Trudeau is himself sovereign. Trudeau's statement that 'Canada is a postnational state' is indistinguishable from the denial of Canadian sovereignty and is in fact a naked argument for Comintern.
Is this rhetoric surprising? It shouldn't be. Its Trudeau, the literal communist heir. And not just any type of communist, the type of international communist who believes that nationhood is a moral evil and that sovereignty and moral righteousness lies only in global communism.
Why?
If Canadian sovereignty has any reference to the people of Canada, discounting any non-integrated individuals, then it must be the case that Trudeau's statement denies Canadian sovereignty.
Why?
What would "postnational" mean without reference to some non-arbitrary, non-"I'm-not-touching-you" definition of Canadians? Who or what is sovereign on Trudeau's definition? Trudeau?
Apparently not Canadians. Trudeau's vision of Canada is "post" all such concerns. Thus, the concept of Canadian sovereignty, on his thinking, is "post" the fact of or concerns of the people who inhabit Canada's borders. If that which is sovereign is "post" Canada, then sovereignty doesn't lie in Canada in any meaningful respect. Therefore, Trudeau's claim that Canada is a postnational state is a denial of Canadian sovereignty.
Trudeau being Trudeau, and not any other person, its clear that his declaration of a "postnational" Canada is little more than an argument for Comintern.
Baila
5mo ago
If "Comintern" was still in the public parlance, you wouldn't have needed to search for such a term. Trudeau clearly sees himself as the General Secretary of the Canadian Union in its temporary position as a state, during its transition to an indivisible part of Communism.
Baila
5mo ago
If anyone knows of real politic assessments of the US-CAN relationship, please send them my way/post them here. I hope that there are at least some plans for dealing with a rump/decrepit/hostile/defunct/failed Canada within US Govt. and policy circles. The increasing importance of the Arctic should increase demand for such thinking, along with the pivot to Asia/China, and a few other factors.
Baila
5mo ago
*Treason in Canada
Background:
- CSIS (intelligence agency) whistleblower leaks that hostile foreign governments have substantial influence in Canada, including influence over MPs, and no one is doing anything about it.
- An inquiry was eventually triggered. The secret report was recently released to certain parties. The report states that multiple MPs willingly assisted hostile foreign governments in actions against the interest of Canadians. The full text of the report is not public and the names of those MPs are not publically known.
- Trudeau is the PM, and his office controls security clearances and classification. CSIS doesn’t have prosecutorial or police power. RCMP (federal law enforcement) has investigative power, but reports directly to the PM. Moreover, much of the info in the report was gained from CSIS intelligence or five-eyes intelligence, which makes the conversion from intelligence to legally admissible evidence very difficult. Regardless, there appears to be no ongoing RCMP investigation.
- The question of whether the facts in the report can become legally admissible evidence in a particular trial are largely irrelevant to the political problem of treasonous MPs.
- It is widely assumed that MPs from multiple parties are involved, but that Liberal MPs likely make up a majority. Everyone expects China to have the most influence, followed by India.
- The other major parties, CPC and NDP, have called for the names to be released.
- Trudeau’s party, the Liberals, refuse to make any of the MPs names public. In one parliamentary exchange over making the issue, a liberal MP said “Boo Hoo! Get over it!”
- Prior to this, Trudeau and the Liberals have been tanking in the polls, and a new election is expected in 2025; a landslide Conservative victory is expected. Now, Canadians are going into an election where they will have to vote for MPs without knowing which MPs are literal traitors.
--
This seems to be a legit constitutional crisis (for lack of a better term) for Canada. If nothing happens and the names don’t get released, I would expect substantial ramifications for Canadian society. I would expect foreign influence to sky rocket and for corruption in the Canadian parliament to become an open market. If the government is willing protect treasonous MPs, even when they are all but publically outed, why would hostile parties not just openly buy as many MPs as possible?
I would also expect this situation to cause faith in the government to plummet and for separatist sentiment in Quebec and the Prairies to increase. Trudeau has publically opposed the concept of Canadian nationhood/sovereignty. For example, he said that there is no such thing as a Canadian identity and that he views Canada is the world’s first “postnational state.” He has also presided over an aggressive immigration policy which has put incredible pressure on the social fabric, on the housing market, and on health care. Now, on top of all this, is an openly treasonous government.
Will this be the straw that breaks the camel’s back? I'm surprised there isn't more news and discussion about this. @KulakRevolt can we get a QRD from the inside?
*As is true of the US, I’m sure there is a technical definition of treason in Canadian law. Whether the actions of any particular MP rise to that level does not change the political implications.
Oh, its much worse than that. The things they are requiring your sister to do are an explicit technique pioneered (but not necessarily invented) by Mao's Communists in the 1950s. The Chinese term is literally translated as 'wash brain,' hence brainwashing. The goal is to have the individual adopt the "peoples' standpoint" and the methods involve group shaming (struggle sessions) and repeated exercises which follow the framework of unity-criticism-unity. In words, text, and discussion, you are required to continuously parrot "the peoples' standpoint" (here, reverse racism can't exist), and then explain how you have suffered or made others to suffer according to that perspective (here, I'm a woman so I'm oppressed, or I'm white so I've oppressed others). Thus, applying the classic dialectical framework to one's own mind.
The western discovery of these techniques is usually credited to Robert Lifton, who was a US navy psychologist on assignment in Hong Kong in the early 50s when the first prisoners of Mao's thought reform prisons were just making their way out of mainland China. Lifton wrote an excellent book on the studies he conducted, titled Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A study of "Brainwashing" in China. Its not perfect, he actually underestimated the lengths to which the CCP were willing to go to achieve their goals as the great leap forward happened almost immediately after he finished writing, but its excellent.
I plan to do some summaries of its content as posts.
Edit: here are the 8 main aspects of thought reform as summarized by wikipedia (i know, i know), take a look at 3-7.
- Milieu Control. The group or its leaders controls information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
- Mystical Manipulation. The group manipulates experiences that appear spontaneous to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows a reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.
- Demand for Purity. The group constantly exhorts members to view the world as black and white, conform to the group ideology, and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
- Confession. The group defines sins that members should confess either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; the leaders discuss and exploit members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults".
- Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
- Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.
- Doctrine over person. Members' personal experiences are subordinate to the sacred science; members must deny or reinterpret any contrary experiences to fit the group ideology.
- Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious, and must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also
Baila
9mo ago
I take your point but secular Judaism arose before the holocost. I'm not really familiar with the details, so I can't speak to how wide-spread or successful it was.
Despite this very strong case for a place on the progressive stack autists have no place whatsoever on it,
Of course not, why would they? Autists don't have a place in it because the progressive stack isn't real. Leftists care about some minorities more than others, but not because they have an a priori commitment to "the stack" or any particular stack. They appear to care about "the stack" because its an effective weapon, both against the outgroup, and against the in group as a purity check.
They don't care about autists in the stack for the same reason you don't see the women's march boycotting Exxon for not having enough women on its roughneck crews. They don't care about the stack, they care about power. Adding autists to the stack doesn't gain them any power, so they don't care.
Further, leftists are not naturally aligned with autists. Leftists care first and foremost about eliminating distinctions, which requires absolute conformity of behavior. If that means insisting that men are literally women, you had better say so. Obviously, Autists are disinclined to play along, assuming they are even able to recognize the game in the first place. As James Damore found out, no one actually wanted serious, scientifically-backed suggestions for improving female participation at Google, even though he was specifically asked to provide such suggestions. They wanted everyone to practice parroting back the party line as part of the humiliation ritual they built into the promotion structure.
Also, I support @somethingsomething on this. Being a part of the stack is not desirable.
Edit: James Lindsay actually just released a piece on the leftist conception of ablism. The academic term for this is Disability Studies. They already consider being abled to be an original sin. They just don't care about autists.
Baila
9mo ago
as I would later find out, to "Crackdonald's".
I think every, or most, major cities in the US have one McDonalds so notorious for violence, and often located in a relatively unassuming place, that it is instantly recognizable and nick named by the locals. NY, Chicago. etc. If you see a social media post about crime and there's a McDonalds in the background, you are sure to find locals in the comments saying "I knew it was Crackdonald's on 5th without even clicking the link. City should have closed it down 10 years ago at least, poor out of towners don't know to avoid it."
Baila
9mo ago
I think the last one is the best option.
Similarly, I think #3 would work particularly well because other red-coded, Anglo-coded, and American-coded thought patterns are so similar. The common law and our natural rights, for example, are a system which Anglos believe to be the best system of law in large part because it evolved with the culture for so many thousand years and thus represents the reality of who Anglos are as Anglos, etc. I think these concepts and sentiments can easily be combined or messaged along side your #3.
Baila
9mo ago
To briefly introduce the concept, compare the quote I provided here and ponder the behavior of people like Pol Pot.
For and in depth answer, with quotes and examples linking the concept cohesively from Plato through to the modern period, see my recent post, which is a summary of a book on the subject..
Baila
9mo ago
Of course, this just moves the question back a step: why is the Blue tribe teaching its kids in such a way as to make them believe this narrative about the evils of the Red tribe? I think that's a result of status games without correction.
I think this is the wrong answer. Your answer should naturally prompt the question 'if its just arbitrary status games across all relevant areas and institutions, why do they all cohere to exactly the same result?'
These people already shared a framework which lead to all of them to arrive at the same conclusion regardless of their subject/position/domain. That should key you in to the fact that its not the competition per se.
As you mention:
And so teachers taught the (then-current) endpoints of these runaway status games to their students under the wholehearted belief that they were teaching something verified to be True.
The end-points were predetermined because they were all competing to do the same thing for the same moral reason. The end points existed before the institutions did. They were always driving towards them.
The academics in question are largely leftists, and leftist have always held that distinctions between things and people is the moral evil and that people who support fundamental distinctions between things are therefore the least moral persons. For example:
We aspire to live and die equal, the way we were born: we want real equality or death; this is what we need....We need not only that equality of rights written into the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen; we want it in our midst, under the roofs of our houses. We consent to everything for it, to make a clean slate so that we hold to it alone. Let all the arts perish, if need be, as long as real equality remains!...We lean towards something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of property!... Let it at last end, this great scandal that our descendants will never believe existed! Disappear at last, revolting distinctions between rich and poor, great and small, masters and servants, rulers and ruled.
Let there no longer be any difference between people than that of age and sex. Since all have the same faculties and the same needs, let there then be for them but one education, but one nourishment. They are satisfied with one sun and one air for all: why then would the same portion and the same quality of food not suffice for each of them?
Already the enemies of the most natural order of things we can imagine raise a clamour against us.
Emphasis mine. Manifesto of the Equals, Gracchus Babeuf and the Conspiracy of the Equals 1796. It goes thousands of years back before this but this quote is the one I had at hand.
Baila
9mo ago
Open to being wrong here, but secular Judaism has threaded this needle; at least somewhat better than American Christians, no? Secular Jews identify as jewish, don't make bones about their non-belief in the literal existence of YHWH, participate in jewish rituals which are fundamentally religious but often carried on in a secular form. Again, I'm not an expert, but if what I said is loosely true, then secular Jews have a sort of belief in the Torah/Talmud, if not a belief in YHWH, and yet they still participate in jewish-coded social activities.
As to the larger body of atheists in America, I think most of them actually do believe in the 10 commandments, but just don't identify their belief with the commandments as such. I think most of them actually do believe that adultery and murder are wrong, etc. However, unlike the Secular Jews, they don't identify as Christian Atheists or associate their belief that murder is wrong with its likely causal origin (from their persepctive) in the 10 commandments.
This is where I think there is room for maneuver. The atheists basically already believe the underlying moral framework of Christianity but don't identify their beliefs and behaviors as such. What they need is the identity (and some supporting rituals, etc.), the attachment to Christian Atheism, not just atheism, in the same way that we can speak of self-identifying Secular Jews.
"Quite lovely."
More options
Context Copy link