The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Open Thread 139
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This week’s open thread.

 
• Tags: Open Thread 
Hide 652 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This is the current Open Thread, where anything goes – within reason.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

    Commenting rules. Please note that anonymous comments are not allowed.

  2. Humor for the Open Thread.

    Guess who is #1 in Chinese Biographies according to Amazon?

    PEACE 😇
     

    • LOL: songbird
    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @A123



    https://i.redd.it/bt6pom6rnft51.jpg

    https://i.redd.it/3mdes4p5x6f51.jpg

    https://i.redd.it/xo9ujw2qmlc61.png

    , @tyrone
    @A123

    Pay-offs via "book deal "…..that one way to git-ur done.

  3. For anyone interested in auto racing that includes RIGHT turns.

    The full race 24 Hours of Daytona replay is now available for streaming. Much more civilized than trying to stay up for 24 hours non-stop.

    PEACE 😇

    • Thanks: mal
    • Replies: @Morton's toes
    @A123

    Why the preference to counterclockwise motion? At the park next to my apartment where I run around the track a few times a week I see somebody going around it clockwise perhaps one time a month. It is noticeable. I always run counterclockwise and I do not have a clue why this happens to be.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @A123, @Philip Owen, @prime noticer

  4. That guy in the bottom right at the first glance looks as if he’s dragging a dead drunk comrade by the hair.

    [MORE]

    (Until you notice the bench, that is)

    • Agree: songbird
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Haruto Rat

    Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

  5. @A123
    Humor for the Open Thread.

    Guess who is #1 in Chinese Biographies according to Amazon?

    PEACE 😇
     

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/hunter_biden_chinese_biography_02-05-2021-2.jpg

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @tyrone

    [MORE]

  6. What are the some of the most mainstream movies that show a Jewish fingerprint? (Without having Jewish characters, valorizing the Other, or obviously trying to move the Overton window, or being deeply subversive)

    I think this is an interesting question for film buffs. I’m not very knowledgeable about films, but I shall give a few mainstream films that I think show a Jewish fingerprint:

    [MORE]

    Indiana Jones: Raiders and Last Crusade. It is easy to see them as a revenge fantasy, though they are still very mainstream movies. Though, perhaps, anything with Nazis should be disregarded as too obvious.

    The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (1947) I thought this one was very Jewish, even before I knew that the star Danny Kaye was Jewish.

    Amadeus (1984) Biography about Mozart. This is the most interesting one that I can think of. Many Jews are involved in classical orchestras. And I once knew one that wrote some weird political essay about the movie, which I struggled to understand. It seems to me that there is a genuine admiration for Mozart in the film, though perhaps, leavened by a wistful envy. It’s a good film, I think. Though its crass depiction of Mozart is influenced by true life, I still admit I find it a bit distasteful.

    I still struggle with trying to figure out the hidden themes of this movie. One view of it might be that it is secretly environmentalist, and promoting the idea that Mozart was made into a prodigy by the careful attention of his father, while Salieri was a loser because he didn’t have the same early attention. But, IRL, Salieri was more successful than Mozart, at the time.

    I’ve also thought that the genre of superhero movies has a Jewish character. Part of the reason is how they often promote big cities, whereas, I think Gentiles, especially in America, are more inclined towards suburbs or rural settings. And I believe a lot of the superheroes were created by Jews. IMO, Westerns are really the genre that shows a Gentile fingerprint.

  7. Is 9mm really such a weak calibre?

    3 dead in murder-suicide over snow removal dispute, prosecutors say

    One of the strangest videos I have seen in a while. People are so angry these days…

    • Replies: @songbird
    @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    I came close to witnessing a shooting once. It was a road rage incident, in a place with practically no traffic. Rural area. Didn't see or hear it, but they shut down the road.

    On a note related to the story, I wonder how many people are killed by recycling trucks and recycling in general. Probably quite a few, if you added it up. Probably more than nuclear energy, I'd suppose.

    Replies: @Marshal Marlow

    , @Blinky Bill
    @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    May I ask which website is this video hosted on?

    Replies: @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    , @Sick of Orcs
    @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    Even .22LR can be sufficient in to save a life.

    It's no fun being shot with anything.

    , @prime noticer
  8. @A123
    For anyone interested in auto racing that includes RIGHT turns.

    The full race 24 Hours of Daytona replay is now available for streaming. Much more civilized than trying to stay up for 24 hours non-stop.

    PEACE 😇


    https://youtu.be/bxenoSjQodE

    Replies: @Morton's toes

    Why the preference to counterclockwise motion? At the park next to my apartment where I run around the track a few times a week I see somebody going around it clockwise perhaps one time a month. It is noticeable. I always run counterclockwise and I do not have a clue why this happens to be.

    • LOL: AltanBakshi
    • Replies: @SafeNow
    @Morton's toes

    Why counter-clockwise around the track? Runners World writes:

    “Just about every circular sport runs counterclockwise-horse racing, NASCAR, baseball. Why? Who knows? Though most believe it was probably an arbitrary decision and tradition that started with the chariot races at Rome's Circus Maximus stadium in the sixth century BC, experts in biomechanics think there also may be some coincidental physiological benefits. Most people are right-leg dominant, so they use their left leg more for support. When running counterclockwise, you'll take longer strides with your right leg-which allows for more propulsion and speed on the turns.”

    Regarding the runner you observed who runs clockwise, I suspect that this contrarian, oppositional, contentious running predilection is not limited to his running.

    , @A123
    @Morton's toes


    Why the preference to counterclockwise motion?
     
    My reference to right turns was a not so subtle jab at NASCAR. To be honest, modern stock car drivers have a substantial skill set. NASCAR ran the Daytona Road Course last year. And, a number of NASCAR drivers, such as Chase Elliott, have successfully run in IMSA races.
    ____

    There are both clockwise and counterclockwise auto racing circuits. However, almost all of them are one way only for safety reasons.

    Gaps in the walls allow emergency crews quick track access. The marshal's station below is fairly safe with the flow of traffic "Left to Right" and would be very dangerous for cars moving "Right to Left".
     

    https://miro.medium.com/max/8064/1*_5YVadFEIfIUsX6RVXc44g.jpeg
     

    PEACE 😇

     
    https://hg1.funnyjunk.com/pictures/Nascar_1eff40_768895.jpg
     

    https://youtu.be/uSVDyc1aKT4?t=70

    Replies: @Morton's toes

    , @Philip Owen
    @Morton's toes

    Amateurs run anti clockwise. Professionals, there were some once, ran clockwise. The change of direction was meant to keep professionals out of amateur races.

    , @prime noticer
    @Morton's toes

    because most people are right handed. in boxing you lead with the left, just as you would in baseball batting or running around a track. the left limb is the guide limb and the right limb is the power limb. not every person that is right handed is right footed too, but most of them are.

    harder to explain is why all football quarterbacks are right handed. for years, 32 out of 32 NFL starters were right handed. must be something about the left hand spiral being harder to catch. or all the left handed throwers are in baseball. left footed punters also produce a left spiral that is harder to catch. so you want a right spiral for passes, but a left spiral for punts.

  9. @Morton's toes
    @A123

    Why the preference to counterclockwise motion? At the park next to my apartment where I run around the track a few times a week I see somebody going around it clockwise perhaps one time a month. It is noticeable. I always run counterclockwise and I do not have a clue why this happens to be.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @A123, @Philip Owen, @prime noticer

    Why counter-clockwise around the track? Runners World writes:

    “Just about every circular sport runs counterclockwise-horse racing, NASCAR, baseball. Why? Who knows? Though most believe it was probably an arbitrary decision and tradition that started with the chariot races at Rome’s Circus Maximus stadium in the sixth century BC, experts in biomechanics think there also may be some coincidental physiological benefits. Most people are right-leg dominant, so they use their left leg more for support. When running counterclockwise, you’ll take longer strides with your right leg-which allows for more propulsion and speed on the turns.”

    Regarding the runner you observed who runs clockwise, I suspect that this contrarian, oppositional, contentious running predilection is not limited to his running.

  10. @The Spirit of Enoch Powell
    Is 9mm really such a weak calibre?

    3 dead in murder-suicide over snow removal dispute, prosecutors say

    https://thumbsnap.com/i/Fz3FgmrR.mp4

    One of the strangest videos I have seen in a while. People are so angry these days...

    Replies: @songbird, @Blinky Bill, @Sick of Orcs, @prime noticer

    I came close to witnessing a shooting once. It was a road rage incident, in a place with practically no traffic. Rural area. Didn’t see or hear it, but they shut down the road.

    On a note related to the story, I wonder how many people are killed by recycling trucks and recycling in general. Probably quite a few, if you added it up. Probably more than nuclear energy, I’d suppose.

    • Replies: @Marshal Marlow
    @songbird


    In Adamstown, Maryland, a 64-year-old man died after a recycling services truck he was riding on the back of overturned on an icy roadway around noon Monday, the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office said.

     

    Kinda tragic that a 64yo is having to ride the back of a garbage truck in freezing conditions to (presumably) put bread on the table.
  11. Saakashvili urged Ukraine to prepare for the loss of Mariupol and Kherson.

    • Replies: @AnonfromTN
    @Shortsword


    Saakashvili urged Ukraine to prepare for the loss of Mariupol and Kherson.
     
    Even failed Georgian president Saakashvili sometimes has lucid moments. In 2015 he said that if Ukraine develops successfully, in 10 years people would live like under Yanuk.

    It appears that Ukraine did not develop successfully, though. Those who “love” Ukraine from afar would tell you about wages in US dollar rising. Those who actually live in Ukraine would tell you that all utility costs (electricity, heating, water, natural gas, etc.) have risen manifold since 2013. Protest against rising prices of utilities are happening all over the country. Most of my relatives have left that sinking ship, but my cousin is too old to move. She lives in Kiev, and she tells me that her monthly heating bill in winter exceeds her pension.

    So, losing Mariupol and Kherson should not worry Ukrainian government too much. Losing the country should.
  12. @Morton's toes
    @A123

    Why the preference to counterclockwise motion? At the park next to my apartment where I run around the track a few times a week I see somebody going around it clockwise perhaps one time a month. It is noticeable. I always run counterclockwise and I do not have a clue why this happens to be.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @A123, @Philip Owen, @prime noticer

    Why the preference to counterclockwise motion?

    My reference to right turns was a not so subtle jab at NASCAR. To be honest, modern stock car drivers have a substantial skill set. NASCAR ran the Daytona Road Course last year. And, a number of NASCAR drivers, such as Chase Elliott, have successfully run in IMSA races.
    ____

    There are both clockwise and counterclockwise auto racing circuits. However, almost all of them are one way only for safety reasons.

    Gaps in the walls allow emergency crews quick track access. The marshal’s station below is fairly safe with the flow of traffic “Left to Right” and would be very dangerous for cars moving “Right to Left”.
     
     

    PEACE 😇

    [MORE]

      

    • Replies: @Morton's toes
    @A123

    I wonder if the clockwise racing circuits might have some correlation with countries where they drive on the left side of the street with the steering wheel on the right side of the car.

    I notice on twisty roads in my own cars that they corner very very slightly better in left turns and I am guessing the suspension is balanced and then I sit on the left side of the car my measly little 150 pounds of additional weight presses the left side of the car ever so slightly more tightly against the pavement. This is one data point and I would be curious if anybody has a similar experience with driver's-side-right cars and maybe they corner very very slightly better going to the right?

    Or I could be imagining this!

    Replies: @Down Force, @reiner Tor

  13. • Replies: @Europe Europa
    @Passer by

    You phrase that as if Russia gives it away for free or subsidises it in some way for the needy across Europe. It's the basis of their economy and they sell it at the going rate.

    Replies: @Passer by, @Mitleser

  14. Regarding the idea that men and women had a different ratio of reproductive success throughout history:

    At least in Europe, I would suppose that most of that isn’t explained by harems, but by women dying in childbirth and widowers remarrying. Often men were motivated to remarry in order to have a woman to look after the children they already had. So, it might be that the chad was really already the dad.

    Perhaps, men who were already dads were more responsible, or children were a form of wealth that increased a man’s reproductive success. Or they were helped by the focus of the society, looking to find a new mother.

    • Replies: @info
    @songbird

    Bad Hygiene killed many,many mothers in historic Europe:
    https://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth/why-women-used-to-die-during-childbirth/

    Doctors not washing their hands killed many of them.

    , @jay
    @songbird

    Bad Hygiene killed many,many mothers in historic Europe:
    https://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth/why-women-used-to-die-during-childbirth/

    Doctors not washing their hands killed many of them.

    , @jay
    @songbird

    Bad Hygiene killed many,many mothers in historic Europe:
    https://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth/why-women-used-to-die-during-childbirth/

    Doctors not washing their hands killed many of them.

  15. There’s been a surprising lack of condemnations against Russia the last few days. Expected more “Release Navalny or NS2 gets cancelled!” statements.

    • Replies: @Svevlad
    @Shortsword

    They realized it's futile

  16. @Haruto Rat
    That guy in the bottom right at the first glance looks as if he's dragging a dead drunk comrade by the hair.
    (Until you notice the bench, that is)

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

  17. I wonder if the reluctance of early American TV shows to depict pregnancy was really a covert attack on natalism, wrapped in the costume of priggish moralism about sex.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    @songbird

    I Love Lucy apparently broke this taboo when the actress Lucille Ball became pregnant in real life.

    , @Indiana Jack
    @songbird

    The reluctance of early American TV shows to depict pregnancy was simply a reflection of norms of American society of the time. For much of American history, it was considered improper for a woman who was obviously pregnant to be seen in public. I remember hearing this from some older acquaintances and being surprised by it, but it seems to have been a widespread attitude in America in the past:


    One should recall that pregnant women, in
    some social circles, rarely showed themselves in public. A
    pregnant woman-an obviously pregnant woman-was one
    who in a sense was wearing a large bodily sign that said:
    look, I've had sexual intercourse, and this is the result. It
    was not that there was anything shameful about pregnancy
    (just as there is nothing shameful about sex between
    married couples); but it was shameful to talk about it, or
    show it, or the like. Sex was supposed to be a purely private
    affair.
     
    https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=law_faculty

    Replies: @songbird

  18. @A123
    @Morton's toes


    Why the preference to counterclockwise motion?
     
    My reference to right turns was a not so subtle jab at NASCAR. To be honest, modern stock car drivers have a substantial skill set. NASCAR ran the Daytona Road Course last year. And, a number of NASCAR drivers, such as Chase Elliott, have successfully run in IMSA races.
    ____

    There are both clockwise and counterclockwise auto racing circuits. However, almost all of them are one way only for safety reasons.

    Gaps in the walls allow emergency crews quick track access. The marshal's station below is fairly safe with the flow of traffic "Left to Right" and would be very dangerous for cars moving "Right to Left".
     

    https://miro.medium.com/max/8064/1*_5YVadFEIfIUsX6RVXc44g.jpeg
     

    PEACE 😇

     
    https://hg1.funnyjunk.com/pictures/Nascar_1eff40_768895.jpg
     

    https://youtu.be/uSVDyc1aKT4?t=70

    Replies: @Morton's toes

    I wonder if the clockwise racing circuits might have some correlation with countries where they drive on the left side of the street with the steering wheel on the right side of the car.

    I notice on twisty roads in my own cars that they corner very very slightly better in left turns and I am guessing the suspension is balanced and then I sit on the left side of the car my measly little 150 pounds of additional weight presses the left side of the car ever so slightly more tightly against the pavement. This is one data point and I would be curious if anybody has a similar experience with driver’s-side-right cars and maybe they corner very very slightly better going to the right?

    Or I could be imagining this!

    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
    • Replies: @Down Force
    @Morton's toes


    I wonder if the clockwise racing circuits might have some correlation with countries where they drive on the left side of the street with the steering wheel on the right side of the car.
     
    Most if not all oval tracks are counterclockwise (IMS, Daytona, Pocono, Texas Motor Speedway, et al.) while many (most?) road courses run clockwise (Road America, Watkins Glen, Mid-Ohio, Laguna Seca, et al.)

    But it doesn’t matter in open-wheel racing— F1, Indy Car, et al.— where the driver is situated in the center of the car. Same with sports car racing. In IMSA in the three fastest classes, where lateral force is much greater— Daytona Prototype International (DPi), Le Mans Prototype 2 (LMP2), Le Mans Prototype 3 (LMP3)— the driver is positioned in the center of the car.

    I notice on twisty roads in my own cars that they corner very very slightly better in left turns and I am guessing the suspension is balanced and then I sit on the left side of the car my measly little 150 pounds of additional weight presses the left side of the car ever so slightly more tightly against the pavement.
     
    You need to tell your mechanic you’re having problems hitting the apex and he needs to adjust the camber and caster settings on your car to handle the offset static load. But he might first send you over to your tire shop to figure out the slip angle of your tires which will affect the lateral force. Also be sure to ask your mechanic if he thinks you need weight jacker device* to adjust the diagonal load. 😀 🏎

    * https://racer.com/2020/08/14/an-inside-look-at-indy-weight-jacker-tricks/

    Replies: @Down Force, @A123

    , @reiner Tor
    @Morton's toes

    Your right turns are much sharper than your left turns, so the tires don’t wear off the same rate both directions. That could be part of the explanation.

    As for the race tracks, I think it’s easier to see other cars to the left of you than to the right, simply because that’s the side you are at. Hence the counter-clockwise races.

  19. @A123
    Humor for the Open Thread.

    Guess who is #1 in Chinese Biographies according to Amazon?

    PEACE 😇
     

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/hunter_biden_chinese_biography_02-05-2021-2.jpg

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @tyrone

    Pay-offs via “book deal “…..that one way to git-ur done.

  20. Most effective Covid-19 vaccine on the market! Works in -1000 seconds (that’s right it goes BACK in time and cures your pussy-like ailments):

    [MORE]

    As for Putin… his lack of personal ownership of a computer (be it smartphone, laptop, desktop, or secret KGB intranet terminal)… gotta hand it to the guy that’s some serious dedication to OPSEC. His past regimentation must have been strict. I guess being a foreign agent in Germany all those years, dealing with SIGINT and EW.

    Of course, as a public figure there is a benefit staying offline. Not cheapen your words for one. Musk, Trump… all they do is spam, 98.26% of which is utter jibberish.

    To be a god-emperor one must act like a god-emperor. God seldom speaks and when he does always in commandants. You know in the back of your mind Putin doesn’t waste his time twiddling his thumbs on pleb-tech. I know “guys” (read: fags) who can’t “work” (read: waste time) unless they have a $1,500 monitor for their computer (to play minecraft no less). Putin can govern a state without a personal computer of any kind. Must have a team of Mentats or an abacus in his pocket or something.

    What I want to know is how exactly did Putin manage to purge the Chosen(tm) oligarchs that entrenched themselves in the belly of the Russian deepstate.

    Post soviet Russia was a breeding ground for scum and villainy. If I was a RuJussian and some short ass ex-KGB goyim was threatening my hard-scammed rubles I would be bribing corrupt federal/military officials left-right-and-center, hiring ruthless russian gangs to tear up political opposition, paying off whole commie-blocks to vote “Yes for Israel”, maybe even fund hairy scary mohammedans to make noise along the borders, whatever.. anything to prevent Putin and his so called Russian government stealing back my rubles.

    So it seems either these oligarchs are really REALLY retarded (like Djibouti retarded) or Putin had some extreme deepstate support. Putin doesn’t seem like someone who is leaning on the illiteracy of communism, the retardation of religion, or the fervour of militarism to remain and maintain power.

    I wonder how many disconnected (offline) loyalist he commands in the shadows. The untallied diehards.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Max Payne

    Putin was an accidental leader, that's how he snuck in. He is bold and competent, but for some reason misses the big picture: neo-liberalism is on its last legs. His inability to see it, or unwillingness to do something about it, is a weakness. He may still do ok by being slightly better than everyone else. That is not hard these days with Vice-President Biden (he doesn't strike me as presidential), the clown in Britain, old lady in Germany, deviant in France, and a gayish Pope. Not much of a contest.


    even fund hairy scary mohammedans to make noise along the borders
     
    The hairiest people in the world are Armenians, Georgians and Greeks - all Christians. Something to do with Caucasus heritage tens of thousands of years ago. Most Semites can be swarthy, but have less hair.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    , @Bashibuzuk
    @Max Payne

    https://youtu.be/R6aYZLXH35I

  21. @Morton's toes
    @A123

    I wonder if the clockwise racing circuits might have some correlation with countries where they drive on the left side of the street with the steering wheel on the right side of the car.

    I notice on twisty roads in my own cars that they corner very very slightly better in left turns and I am guessing the suspension is balanced and then I sit on the left side of the car my measly little 150 pounds of additional weight presses the left side of the car ever so slightly more tightly against the pavement. This is one data point and I would be curious if anybody has a similar experience with driver's-side-right cars and maybe they corner very very slightly better going to the right?

    Or I could be imagining this!

    Replies: @Down Force, @reiner Tor

    I wonder if the clockwise racing circuits might have some correlation with countries where they drive on the left side of the street with the steering wheel on the right side of the car.

    Most if not all oval tracks are counterclockwise (IMS, Daytona, Pocono, Texas Motor Speedway, et al.) while many (most?) road courses run clockwise (Road America, Watkins Glen, Mid-Ohio, Laguna Seca, et al.)

    But it doesn’t matter in open-wheel racing— F1, Indy Car, et al.— where the driver is situated in the center of the car. Same with sports car racing. In IMSA in the three fastest classes, where lateral force is much greater— Daytona Prototype International (DPi), Le Mans Prototype 2 (LMP2), Le Mans Prototype 3 (LMP3)— the driver is positioned in the center of the car.

    I notice on twisty roads in my own cars that they corner very very slightly better in left turns and I am guessing the suspension is balanced and then I sit on the left side of the car my measly little 150 pounds of additional weight presses the left side of the car ever so slightly more tightly against the pavement.

    You need to tell your mechanic you’re having problems hitting the apex and he needs to adjust the camber and caster settings on your car to handle the offset static load. But he might first send you over to your tire shop to figure out the slip angle of your tires which will affect the lateral force. Also be sure to ask your mechanic if he thinks you need weight jacker device* to adjust the diagonal load. 😀 🏎

    * https://racer.com/2020/08/14/an-inside-look-at-indy-weight-jacker-tricks/

    • Replies: @Down Force
    @Down Force

    Correction: quasi-static not static

    , @A123
    @Down Force


    many (most?) road courses run clockwise (Road America, Watkins Glen, Mid-Ohio, Laguna Seca, et al.)
     
    Most U.S. Road Circuits run Clockwise [CW]. However, Laguna Seca is CounterClockWise [CCW]. The split is much more even in other parts of the globe.

    A great deal of racing takes place in support classes that have U.S. standard left hand seating in the vehicle. CW circuits are much easier for driver changes because the driver door does not open towards a wall. On a CCW circuit, a Bronze rated driver can vastly complicate (and thus slow) the pit stop by positioning the car to close to the wall.

    Morton: I notice on twisty roads in my own cars that they corner very very slightly better in left turns
     
    Non-professional drivers to tend to place the car more accurately when turning towards the driver's side. This makes the corner feel better. The larger angle (and huge hoods on some models) leads to more variation including missing the corner apex, or worse yet impacting it.

    Some mechanical aids may help. However, I would recommend training & practice for the fleshy bits behind the wheel.

    PEACE 😇
  22. @Max Payne
    Most effective Covid-19 vaccine on the market! Works in -1000 seconds (that's right it goes BACK in time and cures your pussy-like ailments):



    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yy_RdzkCKLY/YB4XabFwBgI/AAAAAAAAHH0/XKG60iuvGss_lmPRvrvGQVJY7bRu_beeQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/GROWACET.jpg

    As for Putin... his lack of personal ownership of a computer (be it smartphone, laptop, desktop, or secret KGB intranet terminal)... gotta hand it to the guy that's some serious dedication to OPSEC. His past regimentation must have been strict. I guess being a foreign agent in Germany all those years, dealing with SIGINT and EW.

    Of course, as a public figure there is a benefit staying offline. Not cheapen your words for one. Musk, Trump... all they do is spam, 98.26% of which is utter jibberish.

    To be a god-emperor one must act like a god-emperor. God seldom speaks and when he does always in commandants. You know in the back of your mind Putin doesn't waste his time twiddling his thumbs on pleb-tech. I know "guys" (read: fags) who can't "work" (read: waste time) unless they have a $1,500 monitor for their computer (to play minecraft no less). Putin can govern a state without a personal computer of any kind. Must have a team of Mentats or an abacus in his pocket or something.

    What I want to know is how exactly did Putin manage to purge the Chosen(tm) oligarchs that entrenched themselves in the belly of the Russian deepstate.

    Post soviet Russia was a breeding ground for scum and villainy. If I was a RuJussian and some short ass ex-KGB goyim was threatening my hard-scammed rubles I would be bribing corrupt federal/military officials left-right-and-center, hiring ruthless russian gangs to tear up political opposition, paying off whole commie-blocks to vote "Yes for Israel", maybe even fund hairy scary mohammedans to make noise along the borders, whatever.. anything to prevent Putin and his so called Russian government stealing back my rubles.

    So it seems either these oligarchs are really REALLY retarded (like Djibouti retarded) or Putin had some extreme deepstate support. Putin doesn't seem like someone who is leaning on the illiteracy of communism, the retardation of religion, or the fervour of militarism to remain and maintain power.

    I wonder how many disconnected (offline) loyalist he commands in the shadows. The untallied diehards.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Bashibuzuk

    Putin was an accidental leader, that’s how he snuck in. He is bold and competent, but for some reason misses the big picture: neo-liberalism is on its last legs. His inability to see it, or unwillingness to do something about it, is a weakness. He may still do ok by being slightly better than everyone else. That is not hard these days with Vice-President Biden (he doesn’t strike me as presidential), the clown in Britain, old lady in Germany, deviant in France, and a gayish Pope. Not much of a contest.

    even fund hairy scary mohammedans to make noise along the borders

    The hairiest people in the world are Armenians, Georgians and Greeks – all Christians. Something to do with Caucasus heritage tens of thousands of years ago. Most Semites can be swarthy, but have less hair.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @Beckow


    Putin was an accidental leader, that’s how he snuck in.
     


    https://kor.ill.in.ua/m/610x0/1924102.jpg?v=636172587226641266

    https://icdn.lenta.ru/images/2018/05/13/19/20180513191657742/wide_5815a8b3863e093b023e70be0a5de918.jpg

    https://echo.msk.ru/files/2941634.jpg

    https://aif-s3.aif.ru/images/018/618/6c1cd21af891d45599728c1fa4661145.jpg

    https://avatars.mds.yandex.net/get-zen_doc/1860870/pub_5da1f673a3f6e400b272f865_5da1f684118d7f00ae94bcbe/scale_1200
    https://gdb.voanews.com/D0947285-3D2C-4B2E-81C9-5157C8F463BE_cx0_cy2_cw0_w1200_r1.jpg

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/0lga_marple/21608012/1525521/1525521_original.jpg

    We might call it a "graphic resume "...
  23. @Max Payne
    Most effective Covid-19 vaccine on the market! Works in -1000 seconds (that's right it goes BACK in time and cures your pussy-like ailments):



    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yy_RdzkCKLY/YB4XabFwBgI/AAAAAAAAHH0/XKG60iuvGss_lmPRvrvGQVJY7bRu_beeQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/GROWACET.jpg

    As for Putin... his lack of personal ownership of a computer (be it smartphone, laptop, desktop, or secret KGB intranet terminal)... gotta hand it to the guy that's some serious dedication to OPSEC. His past regimentation must have been strict. I guess being a foreign agent in Germany all those years, dealing with SIGINT and EW.

    Of course, as a public figure there is a benefit staying offline. Not cheapen your words for one. Musk, Trump... all they do is spam, 98.26% of which is utter jibberish.

    To be a god-emperor one must act like a god-emperor. God seldom speaks and when he does always in commandants. You know in the back of your mind Putin doesn't waste his time twiddling his thumbs on pleb-tech. I know "guys" (read: fags) who can't "work" (read: waste time) unless they have a $1,500 monitor for their computer (to play minecraft no less). Putin can govern a state without a personal computer of any kind. Must have a team of Mentats or an abacus in his pocket or something.

    What I want to know is how exactly did Putin manage to purge the Chosen(tm) oligarchs that entrenched themselves in the belly of the Russian deepstate.

    Post soviet Russia was a breeding ground for scum and villainy. If I was a RuJussian and some short ass ex-KGB goyim was threatening my hard-scammed rubles I would be bribing corrupt federal/military officials left-right-and-center, hiring ruthless russian gangs to tear up political opposition, paying off whole commie-blocks to vote "Yes for Israel", maybe even fund hairy scary mohammedans to make noise along the borders, whatever.. anything to prevent Putin and his so called Russian government stealing back my rubles.

    So it seems either these oligarchs are really REALLY retarded (like Djibouti retarded) or Putin had some extreme deepstate support. Putin doesn't seem like someone who is leaning on the illiteracy of communism, the retardation of religion, or the fervour of militarism to remain and maintain power.

    I wonder how many disconnected (offline) loyalist he commands in the shadows. The untallied diehards.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Bashibuzuk

  24. @Beckow
    @Max Payne

    Putin was an accidental leader, that's how he snuck in. He is bold and competent, but for some reason misses the big picture: neo-liberalism is on its last legs. His inability to see it, or unwillingness to do something about it, is a weakness. He may still do ok by being slightly better than everyone else. That is not hard these days with Vice-President Biden (he doesn't strike me as presidential), the clown in Britain, old lady in Germany, deviant in France, and a gayish Pope. Not much of a contest.


    even fund hairy scary mohammedans to make noise along the borders
     
    The hairiest people in the world are Armenians, Georgians and Greeks - all Christians. Something to do with Caucasus heritage tens of thousands of years ago. Most Semites can be swarthy, but have less hair.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    Putin was an accidental leader, that’s how he snuck in.

  25. @Down Force
    @Morton's toes


    I wonder if the clockwise racing circuits might have some correlation with countries where they drive on the left side of the street with the steering wheel on the right side of the car.
     
    Most if not all oval tracks are counterclockwise (IMS, Daytona, Pocono, Texas Motor Speedway, et al.) while many (most?) road courses run clockwise (Road America, Watkins Glen, Mid-Ohio, Laguna Seca, et al.)

    But it doesn’t matter in open-wheel racing— F1, Indy Car, et al.— where the driver is situated in the center of the car. Same with sports car racing. In IMSA in the three fastest classes, where lateral force is much greater— Daytona Prototype International (DPi), Le Mans Prototype 2 (LMP2), Le Mans Prototype 3 (LMP3)— the driver is positioned in the center of the car.

    I notice on twisty roads in my own cars that they corner very very slightly better in left turns and I am guessing the suspension is balanced and then I sit on the left side of the car my measly little 150 pounds of additional weight presses the left side of the car ever so slightly more tightly against the pavement.
     
    You need to tell your mechanic you’re having problems hitting the apex and he needs to adjust the camber and caster settings on your car to handle the offset static load. But he might first send you over to your tire shop to figure out the slip angle of your tires which will affect the lateral force. Also be sure to ask your mechanic if he thinks you need weight jacker device* to adjust the diagonal load. 😀 🏎

    * https://racer.com/2020/08/14/an-inside-look-at-indy-weight-jacker-tricks/

    Replies: @Down Force, @A123

    Correction: quasi-static not static

  26. @Morton's toes
    @A123

    I wonder if the clockwise racing circuits might have some correlation with countries where they drive on the left side of the street with the steering wheel on the right side of the car.

    I notice on twisty roads in my own cars that they corner very very slightly better in left turns and I am guessing the suspension is balanced and then I sit on the left side of the car my measly little 150 pounds of additional weight presses the left side of the car ever so slightly more tightly against the pavement. This is one data point and I would be curious if anybody has a similar experience with driver's-side-right cars and maybe they corner very very slightly better going to the right?

    Or I could be imagining this!

    Replies: @Down Force, @reiner Tor

    Your right turns are much sharper than your left turns, so the tires don’t wear off the same rate both directions. That could be part of the explanation.

    As for the race tracks, I think it’s easier to see other cars to the left of you than to the right, simply because that’s the side you are at. Hence the counter-clockwise races.

  27. Bringing over the very important discussion about the Russian aviation industry.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-138/#comment-4454628

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @reiner Tor

    The serial production of the PD-14 and especially the PD-35 engines will be a momentous development for the Russian aviation industry.

    Replies: @Shortsword

  28. What do you think of this video analyzing China’s chances of becoming the next world power? Some of his arguments are that China will experience massive aging in the next generation similar to that of Japan, which will cripple Chinese prospects for world domination. He also argues that the Chinese are lying about their fertility rate, and the actual Chinese fertility rate is closer to 1.0. He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.

    • Replies: @Malenfant
    @ImmortalRationalist


    > China will experience massive aging in the next generation similar to that of Japan, which will cripple Chinese prospects for world domination.

     

    No.

    Check out China's population pyramid: https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2020/

    Then compare it to America's, and Japan's. China is not at a structural disadvantage per se -- and this goes double when you consider the fact that China's population is about 4x larger than the USA's. They have many, many more young people than America does, and this isn't going to change any time soon.

    They're also not quite so burdened with structural catastrophes like American pension systems, out of control medical and legal/regulatory costs, etc. There are still strong family bonds. Old people are not a lead anchor in such a society.


    > He also argues that the Chinese are lying about their fertility rate, and the actual Chinese fertility rate is closer to 1.0.
     
    Even if that's true -- and it probably isn't -- the white American TFR isn't terribly far from 1.0. It's probably around 1.5 right now. And the USA has a much smaller population reservoir.

    > He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.

     

    This is evidence of ignorance and bias. The West has been an "atheistic society" de jure since roughly the late 18th century. This has become culturally apparent since roughly the middle 19th.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @AltanBakshi, @Not Only Wrathful

    , @advancedatheist
    @ImmortalRationalist


    He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.
     
    Which is a non sequitur. Nihilism is not an atheistic belief. Nihilism is a Christian belief about atheism, and that is an important distinction.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    , @Passer by
    @ImmortalRationalist

    He has some really stupid takes, for example that the US will soon stop immigration. The Dems taking over the US, and effectively turning it into a one party state, really blew up his prediction. The US elite will never allow that to happen.

    , @Nancy O'Brien Simpson
    @ImmortalRationalist

    I am an agnostic and I have a magnificent purpose in life. My agnostic friends are also purpose-driven people. We all want to make the earth a better place. We take this very seriously and we volunteer and give of ourselves in the ways we can, especially to the poor and disenfranchised. We are also politically involved.

    I have visited China twice. I do not speak Chinese however the Chinese are hugely motivated by their children and by taking care of their aging parents. They are also very driven by education. These two factors give purpose to their lives in a profound way that may be missing in Western Christians.

    , @Daniel Chieh
    @ImmortalRationalist

    The fact that he believes that China and Russia are going to war over Siberia because of global warming gives you everything you need to know about his accuracy of prediction, or lack of thereof.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    , @Abelard Lindsey
    @ImmortalRationalist

    Simply put, economic growth is population growth times productivity increase. Since China is now an aging country, future economic growth will be based solely on productivity increases. I think there is enough "room" for productivity increase in China's economy that they have another 10-15 years of growth built in it until they enter a Japan-like stagnation (perhaps around 2035).

    Replies: @Passer by

  29. @ImmortalRationalist
    What do you think of this video analyzing China's chances of becoming the next world power? Some of his arguments are that China will experience massive aging in the next generation similar to that of Japan, which will cripple Chinese prospects for world domination. He also argues that the Chinese are lying about their fertility rate, and the actual Chinese fertility rate is closer to 1.0. He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7wZOGtsOWg

    Replies: @Malenfant, @advancedatheist, @Passer by, @Nancy O'Brien Simpson, @Daniel Chieh, @Abelard Lindsey

    > China will experience massive aging in the next generation similar to that of Japan, which will cripple Chinese prospects for world domination.

    No.

    Check out China’s population pyramid: https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2020/

    Then compare it to America’s, and Japan’s. China is not at a structural disadvantage per se — and this goes double when you consider the fact that China’s population is about 4x larger than the USA’s. They have many, many more young people than America does, and this isn’t going to change any time soon.

    They’re also not quite so burdened with structural catastrophes like American pension systems, out of control medical and legal/regulatory costs, etc. There are still strong family bonds. Old people are not a lead anchor in such a society.

    > He also argues that the Chinese are lying about their fertility rate, and the actual Chinese fertility rate is closer to 1.0.

    Even if that’s true — and it probably isn’t — the white American TFR isn’t terribly far from 1.0. It’s probably around 1.5 right now. And the USA has a much smaller population reservoir.

    > He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.

    This is evidence of ignorance and bias. The West has been an “atheistic society” de jure since roughly the late 18th century. This has become culturally apparent since roughly the middle 19th.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Malenfant

    I don’t think European societies were truly atheistic until the 20th century. It’s also important to note the huge differences between urban and rural populations, between different countries, and different times, because the same society could and sometimes did become more religious over a few decades even during a secular trend of secularization (pun unintended).

    , @AltanBakshi
    @Malenfant

    Germanic countries and Eastern Europe were de jure religious societies till 20th century.

    Even French were quite religious before their Third Republic and secularization law of 1905.

    , @Not Only Wrathful
    @Malenfant


    Even if that’s true — and it probably isn’t — the white American TFR isn’t terribly far from 1.0. It’s probably around 1.5 right now
     
    The difference between 1 and 1.5 is big. The latter is literally 50% more children.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill

  30. @Malenfant
    @ImmortalRationalist


    > China will experience massive aging in the next generation similar to that of Japan, which will cripple Chinese prospects for world domination.

     

    No.

    Check out China's population pyramid: https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2020/

    Then compare it to America's, and Japan's. China is not at a structural disadvantage per se -- and this goes double when you consider the fact that China's population is about 4x larger than the USA's. They have many, many more young people than America does, and this isn't going to change any time soon.

    They're also not quite so burdened with structural catastrophes like American pension systems, out of control medical and legal/regulatory costs, etc. There are still strong family bonds. Old people are not a lead anchor in such a society.


    > He also argues that the Chinese are lying about their fertility rate, and the actual Chinese fertility rate is closer to 1.0.
     
    Even if that's true -- and it probably isn't -- the white American TFR isn't terribly far from 1.0. It's probably around 1.5 right now. And the USA has a much smaller population reservoir.

    > He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.

     

    This is evidence of ignorance and bias. The West has been an "atheistic society" de jure since roughly the late 18th century. This has become culturally apparent since roughly the middle 19th.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @AltanBakshi, @Not Only Wrathful

    I don’t think European societies were truly atheistic until the 20th century. It’s also important to note the huge differences between urban and rural populations, between different countries, and different times, because the same society could and sometimes did become more religious over a few decades even during a secular trend of secularization (pun unintended).

    • Agree: AltanBakshi
  31. @reiner Tor
    Bringing over the very important discussion about the Russian aviation industry.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-138/#comment-4454628

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    The serial production of the PD-14 and especially the PD-35 engines will be a momentous development for the Russian aviation industry.

    • Replies: @Shortsword
    @reiner Tor

    There's PD-8 as well. In general it seems like Russia is getting back on track on engines. Last year Russia finally managed to complete new engines for naval ships too.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  32. @Malenfant
    @ImmortalRationalist


    > China will experience massive aging in the next generation similar to that of Japan, which will cripple Chinese prospects for world domination.

     

    No.

    Check out China's population pyramid: https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2020/

    Then compare it to America's, and Japan's. China is not at a structural disadvantage per se -- and this goes double when you consider the fact that China's population is about 4x larger than the USA's. They have many, many more young people than America does, and this isn't going to change any time soon.

    They're also not quite so burdened with structural catastrophes like American pension systems, out of control medical and legal/regulatory costs, etc. There are still strong family bonds. Old people are not a lead anchor in such a society.


    > He also argues that the Chinese are lying about their fertility rate, and the actual Chinese fertility rate is closer to 1.0.
     
    Even if that's true -- and it probably isn't -- the white American TFR isn't terribly far from 1.0. It's probably around 1.5 right now. And the USA has a much smaller population reservoir.

    > He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.

     

    This is evidence of ignorance and bias. The West has been an "atheistic society" de jure since roughly the late 18th century. This has become culturally apparent since roughly the middle 19th.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @AltanBakshi, @Not Only Wrathful

    Germanic countries and Eastern Europe were de jure religious societies till 20th century.

    Even French were quite religious before their Third Republic and secularization law of 1905.

  33. @songbird
    I wonder if the reluctance of early American TV shows to depict pregnancy was really a covert attack on natalism, wrapped in the costume of priggish moralism about sex.

    Replies: @advancedatheist, @Indiana Jack

    I Love Lucy apparently broke this taboo when the actress Lucille Ball became pregnant in real life.

    • Agree: songbird
  34. @ImmortalRationalist
    What do you think of this video analyzing China's chances of becoming the next world power? Some of his arguments are that China will experience massive aging in the next generation similar to that of Japan, which will cripple Chinese prospects for world domination. He also argues that the Chinese are lying about their fertility rate, and the actual Chinese fertility rate is closer to 1.0. He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7wZOGtsOWg

    Replies: @Malenfant, @advancedatheist, @Passer by, @Nancy O'Brien Simpson, @Daniel Chieh, @Abelard Lindsey

    He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.

    Which is a non sequitur. Nihilism is not an atheistic belief. Nihilism is a Christian belief about atheism, and that is an important distinction.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @advancedatheist

    I remember very well the late Soviet Union, which was a supposedly 90% atheistic. It tried to lead the masses with a quasi-religious ideology of progress.

    https://www.vipgeo.ru/uploads/Showplace/large/137673.jpg

    It failed.

    https://varlamov.me/img/buran/05.jpg

    https://b1.m24.ru/c/1398175.jpg

    The immense majority of people need a transcendent dimension to their lives to continue having and raising children. The hope of economic growth and social betterment is not enough.

    People need something to believe in to build a strong society. That is why if you want to cull an ethnic group, a nation, a culture or a civilization, you first subvert religion and "kill" their gods.

    This is a very ancient and tried tool of psychological warfare...

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @mal, @Dmitry

    , @AltanBakshi
    @advancedatheist

    Not all atheists are nihilists, but some are. You probably agree that atheist can be a nihilist, but nihilism is an impossibility for a Christian.

    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @advancedatheist

    It's the belief of naive Christians that atheists will tend to be consistent and thus be nihilists, as that is the obvious conclusion of their belief system which rules out the possibility of metaphysical meaning.

    Of course this is a false belief, because atheists are allergic to consistency, and so are very attracted to extremist utopian ideologies like progressivism, anti-racism, or else the opposite pole of bizarre racial mysticism (these are actually similar, as progressivism is basically just a xenophilic racial mysticism).

  35. @reiner Tor
    @reiner Tor

    The serial production of the PD-14 and especially the PD-35 engines will be a momentous development for the Russian aviation industry.

    Replies: @Shortsword

    There’s PD-8 as well. In general it seems like Russia is getting back on track on engines. Last year Russia finally managed to complete new engines for naval ships too.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Shortsword

    I just realized that the first MC-21 with the PD-14 engine has already had its maiden flight in December. So it’s actually in a more advanced stage than I believed.

    I had thought that that flight was actually with the American engines.

    Replies: @Shortsword, @Mitleser

  36. @advancedatheist
    @ImmortalRationalist


    He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.
     
    Which is a non sequitur. Nihilism is not an atheistic belief. Nihilism is a Christian belief about atheism, and that is an important distinction.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    I remember very well the late Soviet Union, which was a supposedly 90% atheistic. It tried to lead the masses with a quasi-religious ideology of progress.

    It failed.

    The immense majority of people need a transcendent dimension to their lives to continue having and raising children. The hope of economic growth and social betterment is not enough.

    People need something to believe in to build a strong society. That is why if you want to cull an ethnic group, a nation, a culture or a civilization, you first subvert religion and “kill” their gods.

    This is a very ancient and tried tool of psychological warfare…

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Bashibuzuk

    Your examples in the photographs are impressive. - Thanks.


    The immense majority of people need a transcendent dimension to their lives
     
    Our lives don't fit perfectly well in - with what we know about our existence and about the world. There are holes - and people instinctively shy away from them. Religion allows us to encounter those rather frightening holes and - the insecurities they cause.

    Progress can't fill them, because they are eternal - death and birth and death and birth and death and birth. The structural insufficiency of progress with regard to our existential problems is being reflected in the poor aesthetic quality the monument of progress above shows. - Whereas the church - is looking good!

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Bashibuzuk

    , @mal
    @Bashibuzuk

    To be fair, Buran was an amazing technological achievement, just way ahead of its time. Similar to Space Shuttle.

    To the overall point, I'm an atheist and I agree. In my view, a successful society requires a "frontier spirit", curiosity and desire to look over the horizon. To that end, people need to believe that there is something over the horizon, and that they somehow belong there in the big picture. Obviously, for me it's about exploring the secrets of the universe, and carrying the evolutionary process to the stars. But to people not dreaming about interstellar biological empires and ecosystems, religion can be a suitable substitute.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Simpleguest, @songbird, @Svevlad

    , @Dmitry
    @Bashibuzuk


    Soviet Union, which was a supposedly 90% atheistic
     
    But mostly, not more than 2-3 generations from very God-fearing, often illiterate, people, and at which stage the secular concepts can be translations from the religious ones of a generation earlier.

    In the 19th century, this was a process evident still even in the most sophisticated people. Marx was grandchild of a Jewish Rabbi, and the fact that two generations was not sufficient to prevent hum programming "software architecture" in the style of messianic Biblical prophecies. (Which was also in Hegel, whose teenage years were in the Evangelical Lutheran theological seminary).

    Similarly, Nietzsche was a son of a Lutheran pastor, and despite his brilliant education in Ancient Greek and Latin; we find within Nietzsche writing style there can be felt still an exhortatory voice of a protestant preacher.

    The exhortatory preacher in Nietzsche's writing, is probably partly why reading Nietzsche is so popular today with American teenager, whose mainstream culture is still habituated to this dramatic Evangelist style millions hear in the Church every Sunday.


    immense majority of people need a transcendent dimension to their lives to continue having and raising children. The hope of economic growth and social betterment is not enough.
     
    In all our human and non-human ancestors, there was no "need of a transcendent dimension" to have children. Having children was not a choice, but a result of having sex, which is an instinct hardwired into endocrinologically normal mammals. Nature has made sex enjoyable to man, for the reason of children as a byproduct.

    It's only in the last few generations, where man has become technologically sophisticated enough to conveniently separate sex from having children, that having children has become a voluntary choice - which is an unprecedented situation, which was historically usually only made by nuns or monks who could suppress their sexual impulses.

    When having children becomes a choice, the vast majority of people still choose to have children. For example, only 9% of Russians today do not have children in their life. The social and economic problem is that a large proportion of people have one child, instead of two children.

    As for the influence of religion on having children - mainly when the religion bans the use of contraception, and therefore undoes the voluntary choice in the consequences of having sex that had emerged in the 20th century. This is most evident in groups like Amish and Haredim, which ban the use of contraception, as well as many other aspects of the 20th and even 19th century.


    People need something to believe in to build a strong society. That is why if you want to cull an ethnic group, a nation, a culture or a civilization, you first subvert religion and “kill” their gods
     
    This modern (i.e. 20th century and 19th century) Max Weber sounding perspective is already more or less an admission of post-religion, as the definition of a God for believing people, is that its existence is not dependent on people believing in it, but that it actually exists.

    For God-fearing people, the point is that God exists regardless of human political and cultural history, and created the world before he created humans. God may be pleased or displeased with men, but he certainly cannot be killed by them.

    Today, passionate atheists are often mentally closer to God-fearing religious people, than those who act like religion is a lifestyle or sociological phenomenon; as the atheists who are one generation from God-fearing religion, might view the religious claims as having real ontological implications, while the "religious lifestyle" people seem to view religion as a sociological phenomenon, that is a product of particular peoples and cultures.

    When religion becomes a kind of cultural and lifestyle decoration, or fashion accessory, it's a sign that we are so far from God-fearing people, that we do not even understand the idea of fearing religion anymore. 19th century atheists like Nietzsche, who was only one generation from his God-fearing pastor father, still could not view mildly religious claims, as being less than ontological ones.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  37. @advancedatheist
    @ImmortalRationalist


    He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.
     
    Which is a non sequitur. Nihilism is not an atheistic belief. Nihilism is a Christian belief about atheism, and that is an important distinction.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Not all atheists are nihilists, but some are. You probably agree that atheist can be a nihilist, but nihilism is an impossibility for a Christian.

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk
  38. @Shortsword
    @reiner Tor

    There's PD-8 as well. In general it seems like Russia is getting back on track on engines. Last year Russia finally managed to complete new engines for naval ships too.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    I just realized that the first MC-21 with the PD-14 engine has already had its maiden flight in December. So it’s actually in a more advanced stage than I believed.

    I had thought that that flight was actually with the American engines.

    • Replies: @Shortsword
    @reiner Tor

    It's been doing flight tests since 2017 with foreign engines. One of the delays has been that sanctions prevented Russia from buying composite material for the plane. Luckily Rosatom develops composite material so they were able to produce it instead.

    , @Mitleser
    @reiner Tor

    PD-14 certified by ICAO

    https://rostec.ru/news/dvigatel-pd-14-poluchil-sertifikat-ikao/

    https://www.defenseworld.net/news/28922/Russian_PD_14_Engine_for_MC_21_Airliner_passes_ICAO_Emission_Certification_Test#.YCFNqku2KUk

  39. Ok, does anyone know studies or books that talk about the differences between driven people and not so successful people? The only know that I know is “the secret lives of driven kids”, it was very interesting and open my curiosity about it, does exist a book like “secret lives of driven aduts?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @streethotdogseller

    The secret lives of driven autists would be the most interesting to me.

  40. @reiner Tor
    @Shortsword

    I just realized that the first MC-21 with the PD-14 engine has already had its maiden flight in December. So it’s actually in a more advanced stage than I believed.

    I had thought that that flight was actually with the American engines.

    Replies: @Shortsword, @Mitleser

    It’s been doing flight tests since 2017 with foreign engines. One of the delays has been that sanctions prevented Russia from buying composite material for the plane. Luckily Rosatom develops composite material so they were able to produce it instead.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  41. @streethotdogseller
    Ok, does anyone know studies or books that talk about the differences between driven people and not so successful people? The only know that I know is "the secret lives of driven kids", it was very interesting and open my curiosity about it, does exist a book like "secret lives of driven aduts?

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    The secret lives of driven autists would be the most interesting to me.

  42. @The Spirit of Enoch Powell
    Is 9mm really such a weak calibre?

    3 dead in murder-suicide over snow removal dispute, prosecutors say

    https://thumbsnap.com/i/Fz3FgmrR.mp4

    One of the strangest videos I have seen in a while. People are so angry these days...

    Replies: @songbird, @Blinky Bill, @Sick of Orcs, @prime noticer

    May I ask which website is this video hosted on?

    • Replies: @The Spirit of Enoch Powell
    @Blinky Bill

    https://thumbsnap.com

  43. @Shortsword
    There's been a surprising lack of condemnations against Russia the last few days. Expected more "Release Navalny or NS2 gets cancelled!" statements.

    Replies: @Svevlad

    They realized it’s futile

  44. @Bashibuzuk
    @advancedatheist

    I remember very well the late Soviet Union, which was a supposedly 90% atheistic. It tried to lead the masses with a quasi-religious ideology of progress.

    https://www.vipgeo.ru/uploads/Showplace/large/137673.jpg

    It failed.

    https://varlamov.me/img/buran/05.jpg

    https://b1.m24.ru/c/1398175.jpg

    The immense majority of people need a transcendent dimension to their lives to continue having and raising children. The hope of economic growth and social betterment is not enough.

    People need something to believe in to build a strong society. That is why if you want to cull an ethnic group, a nation, a culture or a civilization, you first subvert religion and "kill" their gods.

    This is a very ancient and tried tool of psychological warfare...

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @mal, @Dmitry

    Your examples in the photographs are impressive. – Thanks.

    The immense majority of people need a transcendent dimension to their lives

    Our lives don’t fit perfectly well in – with what we know about our existence and about the world. There are holes – and people instinctively shy away from them. Religion allows us to encounter those rather frightening holes and – the insecurities they cause.

    Progress can’t fill them, because they are eternal – death and birth and death and birth and death and birth. The structural insufficiency of progress with regard to our existential problems is being reflected in the poor aesthetic quality the monument of progress above shows. – Whereas the church – is looking good!

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Dieter Kief

    Pardon my bluntness, but what is it with all these ungrammatical dashes in your posts? It's as though you can't complete a sentence without one. It makes your posts hard to read and, even though you make a number of good points, likely causes people to dismiss what you say.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    , @Bashibuzuk
    @Dieter Kief

    I agree with what you wrote, with two notable precisions:

    1) I was born and lived most part of my youth a mere few km from the VDNKh and its Monument to the first space explorers (the one in the picture).

    I have always found (and still find) this monument beautiful and expressive. Although Communism failed in USSR (as any atheist ideology would in due time anywhere around the world), it has nevertheless produced many fine example of architecture and art (Moscow's metro comes to mind).

    2) The recently built main Cathedral of the Russian Armed Forces is interesting because it is far from being a typical Orthodox Cathedral. It is quite innovative, perhaps departing a bit too much from the Russian Orthodox church-building tradition.

    OTOH this tradition has been strongly altered after the Raskol and the reign of Peter the Great. My favorite Russian churches are the wooden churches of Kizhi, built by the local peasants.

    https://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/styles/project_gallery_full_size/public/projects/gallery/RUS_Kizi_Pogos_JPEG_img-01.jpg?itok=VgR_AfVq

    I only used the Cathedral of Armed Forces to illustrate the religious revival in Russia.

    There are better examples of Russian church-building tradition at the link below.

    https://hramy.ru/rare/domongol.htm

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  45. @ImmortalRationalist
    What do you think of this video analyzing China's chances of becoming the next world power? Some of his arguments are that China will experience massive aging in the next generation similar to that of Japan, which will cripple Chinese prospects for world domination. He also argues that the Chinese are lying about their fertility rate, and the actual Chinese fertility rate is closer to 1.0. He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7wZOGtsOWg

    Replies: @Malenfant, @advancedatheist, @Passer by, @Nancy O'Brien Simpson, @Daniel Chieh, @Abelard Lindsey

    He has some really stupid takes, for example that the US will soon stop immigration. The Dems taking over the US, and effectively turning it into a one party state, really blew up his prediction. The US elite will never allow that to happen.

  46. @songbird
    I wonder if the reluctance of early American TV shows to depict pregnancy was really a covert attack on natalism, wrapped in the costume of priggish moralism about sex.

    Replies: @advancedatheist, @Indiana Jack

    The reluctance of early American TV shows to depict pregnancy was simply a reflection of norms of American society of the time. For much of American history, it was considered improper for a woman who was obviously pregnant to be seen in public. I remember hearing this from some older acquaintances and being surprised by it, but it seems to have been a widespread attitude in America in the past:

    One should recall that pregnant women, in
    some social circles, rarely showed themselves in public. A
    pregnant woman-an obviously pregnant woman-was one
    who in a sense was wearing a large bodily sign that said:
    look, I’ve had sexual intercourse, and this is the result. It
    was not that there was anything shameful about pregnancy
    (just as there is nothing shameful about sex between
    married couples); but it was shameful to talk about it, or
    show it, or the like. Sex was supposed to be a purely private
    affair.

    https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=law_faculty

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Indiana Jack

    I recall hearing about the thing with pregnant teachers stepping down. I not sure about that though - they really did have a more exacting ideology about health back then - I recall hearing some old student guideline book from my school being read aloud. It was full of things like get ten hours of sleep and drink milk. Also, there was undoubtedly a social edge to getting married women out of the workplace, so they could be good homemakers.

    Have to say I am really skeptical about pregnant woman hiding in the home. With the Blue Laws, stores were often closed when men got off work, so women were required to run all the errands. Men had women buy socks for them, and things like that. I doubt a woman would refrain from being seen publicly, just because she was pregnant.

    Replies: @Rosie

  47. @Dieter Kief
    @Bashibuzuk

    Your examples in the photographs are impressive. - Thanks.


    The immense majority of people need a transcendent dimension to their lives
     
    Our lives don't fit perfectly well in - with what we know about our existence and about the world. There are holes - and people instinctively shy away from them. Religion allows us to encounter those rather frightening holes and - the insecurities they cause.

    Progress can't fill them, because they are eternal - death and birth and death and birth and death and birth. The structural insufficiency of progress with regard to our existential problems is being reflected in the poor aesthetic quality the monument of progress above shows. - Whereas the church - is looking good!

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Bashibuzuk

    Pardon my bluntness, but what is it with all these ungrammatical dashes in your posts? It’s as though you can’t complete a sentence without one. It makes your posts hard to read and, even though you make a number of good points, likely causes people to dismiss what you say.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @silviosilver

    I'm writing as if I'd be talking to somebody at times - so. - - - I grew up in a pub (literally - we had no living room) and heard people talk and talk and talk - long before I started reading and writing (I did not talk much as a child). French philosopher Jacques Derrida and Socrates and Plato reflected on the subject before me. German writer Arno Schmidt developed an extensive sign-regime, to bring his texts closer to the colloquial form they had in his mind before he wrote them down. Tom Wolfe does that too if in a slightly different (more pop-oriented) manner. Arno Schmidt is the self-taught, non-university trained but nonetheless - : - super-brainy and rough (and spergy) type.

    (Thanks for the good points).

    Replies: @silviosilver

  48. @Indiana Jack
    @songbird

    The reluctance of early American TV shows to depict pregnancy was simply a reflection of norms of American society of the time. For much of American history, it was considered improper for a woman who was obviously pregnant to be seen in public. I remember hearing this from some older acquaintances and being surprised by it, but it seems to have been a widespread attitude in America in the past:


    One should recall that pregnant women, in
    some social circles, rarely showed themselves in public. A
    pregnant woman-an obviously pregnant woman-was one
    who in a sense was wearing a large bodily sign that said:
    look, I've had sexual intercourse, and this is the result. It
    was not that there was anything shameful about pregnancy
    (just as there is nothing shameful about sex between
    married couples); but it was shameful to talk about it, or
    show it, or the like. Sex was supposed to be a purely private
    affair.
     
    https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=law_faculty

    Replies: @songbird

    I recall hearing about the thing with pregnant teachers stepping down. I not sure about that though – they really did have a more exacting ideology about health back then – I recall hearing some old student guideline book from my school being read aloud. It was full of things like get ten hours of sleep and drink milk. Also, there was undoubtedly a social edge to getting married women out of the workplace, so they could be good homemakers.

    Have to say I am really skeptical about pregnant woman hiding in the home. With the Blue Laws, stores were often closed when men got off work, so women were required to run all the errands. Men had women buy socks for them, and things like that. I doubt a woman would refrain from being seen publicly, just because she was pregnant.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @songbird


    Have to say I am really skeptical about pregnant woman hiding in the home.
     
    And why stop there? Doesn't appearing in public with a newborn or a toddler who. Alls you "Mom" likewise advertise that you've had sex with someone? That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard of.
  49. @Blinky Bill
    @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    May I ask which website is this video hosted on?

    Replies: @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    • Thanks: Blinky Bill
  50. @Bashibuzuk
    @advancedatheist

    I remember very well the late Soviet Union, which was a supposedly 90% atheistic. It tried to lead the masses with a quasi-religious ideology of progress.

    https://www.vipgeo.ru/uploads/Showplace/large/137673.jpg

    It failed.

    https://varlamov.me/img/buran/05.jpg

    https://b1.m24.ru/c/1398175.jpg

    The immense majority of people need a transcendent dimension to their lives to continue having and raising children. The hope of economic growth and social betterment is not enough.

    People need something to believe in to build a strong society. That is why if you want to cull an ethnic group, a nation, a culture or a civilization, you first subvert religion and "kill" their gods.

    This is a very ancient and tried tool of psychological warfare...

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @mal, @Dmitry

    To be fair, Buran was an amazing technological achievement, just way ahead of its time. Similar to Space Shuttle.

    To the overall point, I’m an atheist and I agree. In my view, a successful society requires a “frontier spirit”, curiosity and desire to look over the horizon. To that end, people need to believe that there is something over the horizon, and that they somehow belong there in the big picture. Obviously, for me it’s about exploring the secrets of the universe, and carrying the evolutionary process to the stars. But to people not dreaming about interstellar biological empires and ecosystems, religion can be a suitable substitute.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @mal

    Intellectually inclined people need transcendence. It might come in many forms, space exploration is one of them. It is something "beyond", something expanding our boundaries. Problem is, if everything is material only, and there is no ultimate meaning to it all, then in the end our quest as a species is futile. We feel it deep inside -
    instinctively - and we stop to breed. Any civilization that comes to this negative realization crumbles and/or dies out.

    Any ideology that aims at existing for a somewhat extended period of time, needs a metaphysical component. Early Bolcheviks were frequently inspired by Cosmism, but Stalinist state stiffened any further developments of this very promising philosophical trend. Who knows what would have happened if it didn't.

    I agree about Buran and the US shuttles. It is saddening to see them dispensed with.

    Replies: @Marshal Marlow

    , @AltanBakshi
    @mal


    But to people not dreaming about interstellar biological empires and ecosystems
     
    Its nice to think about such things when one is surrounded by modern niceties, but would such dreams bring you comfort and trust in your future, if you would live in a real frontier society, where danger would be ever prevalent? Could such dreams even be a basis for group solidarity? For some reason I believe that for people who would live in such society, such dreams would sound like hollow propaganda.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @silviosilver

    , @Simpleguest
    @mal


    To be fair, Buran was an amazing technological achievement, just way ahead of its time. Similar to Space Shuttle.
    To the overall point, I’m an atheist and I agree. In my view, a successful society requires a “frontier spirit”, curiosity and desire to look over the horizon.
     
    Brings back memories of 80s. Glorious times. The digital revolution just took off while the Space Shuttle become a synonym of the new era with unbound possibilities. Stars and galaxies were within reach, as confirmed by Star Trek the Next Generation.

    Here is an AutoCAD promo featuring 3-D rendering of the space shuttle. The future had arrived.

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRCMLIdoqD42Vym_jR2NHGYsgvJMbrw8t5_6Q&usqp=CAU
    , @songbird
    @mal

    Arguably, the Buran was superior to the Shuttle. For example, it could fly on autopilot. And I believe it was designed to be able to redirect, to sort of fly, rather than be a completely passive glider. Though that is with the caveat, that its safety record can't be evaluated because it only completed one flight - and, of course, that it was developed secondly, with inspiration from the Shuttle.

    And I think it is probable that neither of them made much sense, in the long run, and the money would have been better spent just trying to relentlessly decrease $/kg to orbit.

    I suppose it probably included military tech, but it is almost a shame that they didn't try to do a firesale to Japan or the EU, just to try to get it flying more.

    Replies: @(((They))) Live, @reiner Tor, @Abelard Lindsey

    , @Svevlad
    @mal

    I have a similar, if less idealistic idea. I'd call it "balls", "courage", "killer instinct" or just good old chutzpah. It's a trait of individuals, but "stackable" into entire ethnies. I can't really describe what it is, but I can describe easily what it isn't: not knowing to use fuckin MS Office to it's fullest extent because you don't want to press a button out of fear of "breaking something;" when you shitcan any plans because they aren't "realistic" instead of just extending the deadline and working towards it anyway; not wanting better and so on and so forth.

    Basically, on a national scale, a form of collective will and a goal that nothing can stop from being reached.

  51. @Down Force
    @Morton's toes


    I wonder if the clockwise racing circuits might have some correlation with countries where they drive on the left side of the street with the steering wheel on the right side of the car.
     
    Most if not all oval tracks are counterclockwise (IMS, Daytona, Pocono, Texas Motor Speedway, et al.) while many (most?) road courses run clockwise (Road America, Watkins Glen, Mid-Ohio, Laguna Seca, et al.)

    But it doesn’t matter in open-wheel racing— F1, Indy Car, et al.— where the driver is situated in the center of the car. Same with sports car racing. In IMSA in the three fastest classes, where lateral force is much greater— Daytona Prototype International (DPi), Le Mans Prototype 2 (LMP2), Le Mans Prototype 3 (LMP3)— the driver is positioned in the center of the car.

    I notice on twisty roads in my own cars that they corner very very slightly better in left turns and I am guessing the suspension is balanced and then I sit on the left side of the car my measly little 150 pounds of additional weight presses the left side of the car ever so slightly more tightly against the pavement.
     
    You need to tell your mechanic you’re having problems hitting the apex and he needs to adjust the camber and caster settings on your car to handle the offset static load. But he might first send you over to your tire shop to figure out the slip angle of your tires which will affect the lateral force. Also be sure to ask your mechanic if he thinks you need weight jacker device* to adjust the diagonal load. 😀 🏎

    * https://racer.com/2020/08/14/an-inside-look-at-indy-weight-jacker-tricks/

    Replies: @Down Force, @A123

    many (most?) road courses run clockwise (Road America, Watkins Glen, Mid-Ohio, Laguna Seca, et al.)

    Most U.S. Road Circuits run Clockwise [CW]. However, Laguna Seca is CounterClockWise [CCW]. The split is much more even in other parts of the globe.

    A great deal of racing takes place in support classes that have U.S. standard left hand seating in the vehicle. CW circuits are much easier for driver changes because the driver door does not open towards a wall. On a CCW circuit, a Bronze rated driver can vastly complicate (and thus slow) the pit stop by positioning the car to close to the wall.

    Morton: I notice on twisty roads in my own cars that they corner very very slightly better in left turns

    Non-professional drivers to tend to place the car more accurately when turning towards the driver’s side. This makes the corner feel better. The larger angle (and huge hoods on some models) leads to more variation including missing the corner apex, or worse yet impacting it.

    Some mechanical aids may help. However, I would recommend training & practice for the fleshy bits behind the wheel.

    PEACE 😇

  52. @Dieter Kief
    @Bashibuzuk

    Your examples in the photographs are impressive. - Thanks.


    The immense majority of people need a transcendent dimension to their lives
     
    Our lives don't fit perfectly well in - with what we know about our existence and about the world. There are holes - and people instinctively shy away from them. Religion allows us to encounter those rather frightening holes and - the insecurities they cause.

    Progress can't fill them, because they are eternal - death and birth and death and birth and death and birth. The structural insufficiency of progress with regard to our existential problems is being reflected in the poor aesthetic quality the monument of progress above shows. - Whereas the church - is looking good!

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Bashibuzuk

    I agree with what you wrote, with two notable precisions:

    1) I was born and lived most part of my youth a mere few km from the VDNKh and its Monument to the first space explorers (the one in the picture).

    I have always found (and still find) this monument beautiful and expressive. Although Communism failed in USSR (as any atheist ideology would in due time anywhere around the world), it has nevertheless produced many fine example of architecture and art (Moscow’s metro comes to mind).

    2) The recently built main Cathedral of the Russian Armed Forces is interesting because it is far from being a typical Orthodox Cathedral. It is quite innovative, perhaps departing a bit too much from the Russian Orthodox church-building tradition.

    OTOH this tradition has been strongly altered after the Raskol and the reign of Peter the Great. My favorite Russian churches are the wooden churches of Kizhi, built by the local peasants.

    https://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/styles/project_gallery_full_size/public/projects/gallery/RUS_Kizi_Pogos_JPEG_img-01.jpg?itok=VgR_AfVq

    I only used the Cathedral of Armed Forces to illustrate the religious revival in Russia.

    There are better examples of Russian church-building tradition at the link below.

    https://hramy.ru/rare/domongol.htm

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Bashibuzuk

    Thanks Bashibuzuk.

    1 question: Did you - maybe even while adoring the monument of the space Soviet space explorers - come across the (bitter and moving) novel Omon Ra by Victor Pelevin?

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  53. @silviosilver
    @Dieter Kief

    Pardon my bluntness, but what is it with all these ungrammatical dashes in your posts? It's as though you can't complete a sentence without one. It makes your posts hard to read and, even though you make a number of good points, likely causes people to dismiss what you say.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    I’m writing as if I’d be talking to somebody at times – so. – – – I grew up in a pub (literally – we had no living room) and heard people talk and talk and talk – long before I started reading and writing (I did not talk much as a child). French philosopher Jacques Derrida and Socrates and Plato reflected on the subject before me. German writer Arno Schmidt developed an extensive sign-regime, to bring his texts closer to the colloquial form they had in his mind before he wrote them down. Tom Wolfe does that too if in a slightly different (more pop-oriented) manner. Arno Schmidt is the self-taught, non-university trained but nonetheless – : – super-brainy and rough (and spergy) type.

    (Thanks for the good points).

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Dieter Kief

    If it's making you happy, knock yourself out, I guess. But to me it comes across less as somebody "talking to me" and more like somebody who isn't sure of what he wants to say. Conforming our writing to our speaking is more of a barrier to communication than an aid to it, imo.

    Btw, Tom Wolfe - of whom I'm a huge fan - used those stylistic devices much more sparingly.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  54. @mal
    @Bashibuzuk

    To be fair, Buran was an amazing technological achievement, just way ahead of its time. Similar to Space Shuttle.

    To the overall point, I'm an atheist and I agree. In my view, a successful society requires a "frontier spirit", curiosity and desire to look over the horizon. To that end, people need to believe that there is something over the horizon, and that they somehow belong there in the big picture. Obviously, for me it's about exploring the secrets of the universe, and carrying the evolutionary process to the stars. But to people not dreaming about interstellar biological empires and ecosystems, religion can be a suitable substitute.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Simpleguest, @songbird, @Svevlad

    Intellectually inclined people need transcendence. It might come in many forms, space exploration is one of them. It is something “beyond”, something expanding our boundaries. Problem is, if everything is material only, and there is no ultimate meaning to it all, then in the end our quest as a species is futile. We feel it deep inside –
    instinctively – and we stop to breed. Any civilization that comes to this negative realization crumbles and/or dies out.

    Any ideology that aims at existing for a somewhat extended period of time, needs a metaphysical component. Early Bolcheviks were frequently inspired by Cosmism, but Stalinist state stiffened any further developments of this very promising philosophical trend. Who knows what would have happened if it didn’t.

    I agree about Buran and the US shuttles. It is saddening to see them dispensed with.

    • Replies: @Marshal Marlow
    @Bashibuzuk

    I'd argue that religions promising an after-life are nihilistic in that their message is that regardless of how shit this world might be, you get to go to paradise so long as you've joined the right club (which just happens to be your parent's one and/or the dominant one in your geographical area). "Opiate of the masses" kind of stuff.

    In contrast, an atheist would say, "Nah, I'm going to make my time count and make this world a bit better for my kids. I might change my mind on my death bed, but that's fine".

    These are ideals of course, and 90% of people just go along with the prevailing cultural paradigm because they just want a quiet life without having to do much thinking about eternity.

  55. @mal
    @Bashibuzuk

    To be fair, Buran was an amazing technological achievement, just way ahead of its time. Similar to Space Shuttle.

    To the overall point, I'm an atheist and I agree. In my view, a successful society requires a "frontier spirit", curiosity and desire to look over the horizon. To that end, people need to believe that there is something over the horizon, and that they somehow belong there in the big picture. Obviously, for me it's about exploring the secrets of the universe, and carrying the evolutionary process to the stars. But to people not dreaming about interstellar biological empires and ecosystems, religion can be a suitable substitute.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Simpleguest, @songbird, @Svevlad

    But to people not dreaming about interstellar biological empires and ecosystems

    Its nice to think about such things when one is surrounded by modern niceties, but would such dreams bring you comfort and trust in your future, if you would live in a real frontier society, where danger would be ever prevalent? Could such dreams even be a basis for group solidarity? For some reason I believe that for people who would live in such society, such dreams would sound like hollow propaganda.

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk
    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @AltanBakshi

    OTOH early Soviet society was very much space oriented, way more so than in the relatively comfortable Brezhnev era.

    People need dreams and myths when they fight and experience hardships. I would say more : people need fighting and hardships to be able to build strong and enduring dreams and myths. When you face death, you acquire an energy that can be directed towards transcendence.

    Our society is more comfortable nowadays, and see the results below:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

    , @silviosilver
    @AltanBakshi


    Its nice to think about such things when one is surrounded by modern niceties, but would such dreams bring you comfort and trust in your future, if you would live in a real frontier society, where danger would be ever prevalent?
     
    I don't think it's much of a criticism to say that 'cosmism' - let's call it, to use a term already introduced into the discussion - is only appropriate in a certain context. In fact, I'd turn that around and say that it's precisely because of context - ie human development having reached a certain point and outgrown earlier religious modalities - that the need for something like cosmism has arisen. In a preliterate society, cosmism would not only have provided cold comfort to a family whose child had just been eaten by a bear, it wouldn't have answered to any felt need among the people either. Today, cosmism does answer to such a need.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi

  56. @Dieter Kief
    @silviosilver

    I'm writing as if I'd be talking to somebody at times - so. - - - I grew up in a pub (literally - we had no living room) and heard people talk and talk and talk - long before I started reading and writing (I did not talk much as a child). French philosopher Jacques Derrida and Socrates and Plato reflected on the subject before me. German writer Arno Schmidt developed an extensive sign-regime, to bring his texts closer to the colloquial form they had in his mind before he wrote them down. Tom Wolfe does that too if in a slightly different (more pop-oriented) manner. Arno Schmidt is the self-taught, non-university trained but nonetheless - : - super-brainy and rough (and spergy) type.

    (Thanks for the good points).

    Replies: @silviosilver

    If it’s making you happy, knock yourself out, I guess. But to me it comes across less as somebody “talking to me” and more like somebody who isn’t sure of what he wants to say. Conforming our writing to our speaking is more of a barrier to communication than an aid to it, imo.

    Btw, Tom Wolfe – of whom I’m a huge fan – used those stylistic devices much more sparingly.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @silviosilver

    Same here -huge fan of Tom Wolfe, even of his graphic excesses. One of the not so big group of authors whose books I've read completely. I even liked The Kingdom of Speech.


    You might enjoy having a look at a small section of a page of Arno Schmidt's Opus Magnum Zettel's Traum, which weighs in at 3,8 kilos. This small section is typical of the way in which the book is written:

    https://buchwolf.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/zettel31.jpg

    Now - I don't like that too much and think it is way overdone. But - even Schmidt did indeed find numerous readers.

  57. @AltanBakshi
    @mal


    But to people not dreaming about interstellar biological empires and ecosystems
     
    Its nice to think about such things when one is surrounded by modern niceties, but would such dreams bring you comfort and trust in your future, if you would live in a real frontier society, where danger would be ever prevalent? Could such dreams even be a basis for group solidarity? For some reason I believe that for people who would live in such society, such dreams would sound like hollow propaganda.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @silviosilver

    OTOH early Soviet society was very much space oriented, way more so than in the relatively comfortable Brezhnev era.

    People need dreams and myths when they fight and experience hardships. I would say more : people need fighting and hardships to be able to build strong and enduring dreams and myths. When you face death, you acquire an energy that can be directed towards transcendence.

    Our society is more comfortable nowadays, and see the results below:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

    • Agree: mal
  58. @Passer by
    Cold winter: Russian gas saves Europe from freezing.

    https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/020121-russias-gazprom-posts-highest-ever-january-gas-sales-in-europe-turkey

    Replies: @Europe Europa

    You phrase that as if Russia gives it away for free or subsidises it in some way for the needy across Europe. It’s the basis of their economy and they sell it at the going rate.

    • Replies: @Passer by
    @Europe Europa

    https://imgur.com/a/8xMby1G#zceMqW3

    Considering the rise of the asian market, and the long term decline of the Europe, i wouldn't call "selling gas to the EU" the basis of Russia's economy.

    "My meeting with Minister Lavrov highlighted that Europe and Russia are drifting apart. It seems that Russia is progressively disconnecting itself from Europe."

    Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union

    , @Mitleser
    @Europe Europa

    This was debuked last year as a wrong claim.


    (1) Share of natural gas as percentage of Russian exports: 6%. Historically hovers between 5%-10%. This isn’t altogether insignificant, but not all that central in the grand scheme of things and overshadowed by yearly fluctuations in commodity prices.
     
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/gas-realism/
  59. @AltanBakshi
    @mal


    But to people not dreaming about interstellar biological empires and ecosystems
     
    Its nice to think about such things when one is surrounded by modern niceties, but would such dreams bring you comfort and trust in your future, if you would live in a real frontier society, where danger would be ever prevalent? Could such dreams even be a basis for group solidarity? For some reason I believe that for people who would live in such society, such dreams would sound like hollow propaganda.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @silviosilver

    Its nice to think about such things when one is surrounded by modern niceties, but would such dreams bring you comfort and trust in your future, if you would live in a real frontier society, where danger would be ever prevalent?

    I don’t think it’s much of a criticism to say that ‘cosmism’ – let’s call it, to use a term already introduced into the discussion – is only appropriate in a certain context. In fact, I’d turn that around and say that it’s precisely because of context – ie human development having reached a certain point and outgrown earlier religious modalities – that the need for something like cosmism has arisen. In a preliterate society, cosmism would not only have provided cold comfort to a family whose child had just been eaten by a bear, it wouldn’t have answered to any felt need among the people either. Today, cosmism does answer to such a need.

    • Agree: mal
    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @silviosilver

    Early Russian Cosmism appeared in the late nineteenth century. It was not a coincidence that Soviets were the first to launch a man into space.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cosmism

    Also earlier references to possible extraterrestrial life are to be found much earlier. Giordano Bruno was often cited by Soviets as a precursor.

    , @AltanBakshi
    @silviosilver

    You have a point, I agree, but is Cosmism enough for family men? Or how I would put it? Such abstract ideas as interstellar empires, possible future terraforming scenarios, bioengineering and so on, how such ideas motivate men and women to bond and make babies? In my opinion Cosmism can be a good source for motivation for a minority of some highly specialised and idealistic men, but for masses such promises sound hollow, at least as long as there are no concrete results, but only some distant promises that will be realised in future, or so I so believe. But personally to me, such ideas sound inspiring.

    As a glue for social cohesion and solidarity? No, I dont believe that Cosmism can be such glue. Not at all. Still if there is enough surplus production in society and some charismatic personas speaking for it, then Cosmism can be an engine for societal change, but I really dont believe that masses would be ready to make personal sacrifices in the name of the Cosmism.(Without the heavy hand of state!)

    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much? Authoritarian? No, not enough, it must be totalitarian, or masses start to question and criticize too much. Every day citizens would make a pledge that humanity will reach the stars, news would be full of reports of new astronomic findings, all tv channels would broadcast documentaries about rocket engines and exoplanets, there would be more than ten channels for scifi series etc, etc....

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @silviosilver, @mal, @ImmortalRationalist, @FerW

  60. @Europe Europa
    @Passer by

    You phrase that as if Russia gives it away for free or subsidises it in some way for the needy across Europe. It's the basis of their economy and they sell it at the going rate.

    Replies: @Passer by, @Mitleser

    View post on imgur.com

    Considering the rise of the asian market, and the long term decline of the Europe, i wouldn’t call “selling gas to the EU” the basis of Russia’s economy.

    “My meeting with Minister Lavrov highlighted that Europe and Russia are drifting apart. It seems that Russia is progressively disconnecting itself from Europe.”

    Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union

  61. @mal
    @Bashibuzuk

    To be fair, Buran was an amazing technological achievement, just way ahead of its time. Similar to Space Shuttle.

    To the overall point, I'm an atheist and I agree. In my view, a successful society requires a "frontier spirit", curiosity and desire to look over the horizon. To that end, people need to believe that there is something over the horizon, and that they somehow belong there in the big picture. Obviously, for me it's about exploring the secrets of the universe, and carrying the evolutionary process to the stars. But to people not dreaming about interstellar biological empires and ecosystems, religion can be a suitable substitute.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Simpleguest, @songbird, @Svevlad

    To be fair, Buran was an amazing technological achievement, just way ahead of its time. Similar to Space Shuttle.
    To the overall point, I’m an atheist and I agree. In my view, a successful society requires a “frontier spirit”, curiosity and desire to look over the horizon.

    Brings back memories of 80s. Glorious times. The digital revolution just took off while the Space Shuttle become a synonym of the new era with unbound possibilities. Stars and galaxies were within reach, as confirmed by Star Trek the Next Generation.

    Here is an AutoCAD promo featuring 3-D rendering of the space shuttle. The future had arrived.

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRCMLIdoqD42Vym_jR2NHGYsgvJMbrw8t5_6Q&usqp=CAU

  62. @mal
    @Bashibuzuk

    To be fair, Buran was an amazing technological achievement, just way ahead of its time. Similar to Space Shuttle.

    To the overall point, I'm an atheist and I agree. In my view, a successful society requires a "frontier spirit", curiosity and desire to look over the horizon. To that end, people need to believe that there is something over the horizon, and that they somehow belong there in the big picture. Obviously, for me it's about exploring the secrets of the universe, and carrying the evolutionary process to the stars. But to people not dreaming about interstellar biological empires and ecosystems, religion can be a suitable substitute.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Simpleguest, @songbird, @Svevlad

    Arguably, the Buran was superior to the Shuttle. For example, it could fly on autopilot. And I believe it was designed to be able to redirect, to sort of fly, rather than be a completely passive glider. Though that is with the caveat, that its safety record can’t be evaluated because it only completed one flight – and, of course, that it was developed secondly, with inspiration from the Shuttle.

    And I think it is probable that neither of them made much sense, in the long run, and the money would have been better spent just trying to relentlessly decrease $/kg to orbit.

    I suppose it probably included military tech, but it is almost a shame that they didn’t try to do a firesale to Japan or the EU, just to try to get it flying more.

    • Agree: mal
    • Replies: @(((They))) Live
    @songbird

    Yes IMO the Buran was "better" than the Shuttle, the Soviets only launched the Buran once, the clowns at NASA continued with the Shuttle for decades, with a $1.6 billion launch cost and 14 dead astronauts, well done NASA, the minute you hear some one praise the Shuttle program, you know you're talking to a retard

    I think the Soviets only built the Buran because they didn't understand how pork powered rockets work, most of the engineers would have known it was bad idea, but maybe the Yanks are up to something that we can't figure out, so we should build one too

    Replies: @Simpleguest, @songbird

    , @reiner Tor
    @songbird


    Arguably, the Buran was superior to the Shuttle.
     
    I don’t have a firm opinion on the question, but I know a Hungarian aviation magazine editor who is of the firm opinion that it was inferior. I think the rocket engine wasn’t reusable for example, and he pointed out that the American Shuttle was also theoretically capable of unmanned flight, but it was way less useful that way. The Buran was flying unmanned (it was a useless mission without cosmonauts) because the life sustaining module wasn’t yet ready, so while in theory it was similar in that respect, in practice it was actually inferior in that it wasn’t capable of manned flights.

    This guy is moderately Russophobic, though. (He is still fair and balanced enough that he vehemently attacked a newspaper article claiming that MiG-25 was not a sophisticated airplane “because it was made of stainless steel and not titanium alloy like the SR-71 Blackbird.” He pointed out that the SR-71 had a totally different role and wasn’t produced in very large numbers, unlike the MiG-25, and that if they had only needed a few dozens, then probably the Soviets would also have been able to use titanium alloys, whereas for a thousand planes the Americans also had to resort to using stainless steel at the time.) So overall I put some weight on his opinions despite his moderate Russophobia.

    Replies: @utu, @Vishnugupta, @songbird, @utu, @utu

    , @Abelard Lindsey
    @songbird

    The Buran was superior to the Shuttle. However, both are a flawed design. There was a technical debate at NASA in the early 70's whether to make the first stage reusable or not. All of the engineers who were any good favored making a reusable first stage. They were overruled by new management for no reason other than to make their managerial "footprints" on the design process (this says something about the nature of bureaucracy and large scale organizations in general).

    SpaceX is actually doing it right. Use conventional rocketry and focus on making the first stage reusable. Work out all of the design bugs until the first stage can be reused, say, like an airliner. Then focus on making the second stage reusable. Launch costs will drop to around $50-100 per Kg once these are perfected (Musk claims he can get to $10/Kg but I think that is hype). This is not as cheap as, say, flying from LA to Sydney. But is certainly cheap enough to enable large scale space development.

  63. @silviosilver
    @Dieter Kief

    If it's making you happy, knock yourself out, I guess. But to me it comes across less as somebody "talking to me" and more like somebody who isn't sure of what he wants to say. Conforming our writing to our speaking is more of a barrier to communication than an aid to it, imo.

    Btw, Tom Wolfe - of whom I'm a huge fan - used those stylistic devices much more sparingly.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Same here -huge fan of Tom Wolfe, even of his graphic excesses. One of the not so big group of authors whose books I’ve read completely. I even liked The Kingdom of Speech.

    You might enjoy having a look at a small section of a page of Arno Schmidt’s Opus Magnum Zettel’s Traum, which weighs in at 3,8 kilos. This small section is typical of the way in which the book is written:

    Now – I don’t like that too much and think it is way overdone. But – even Schmidt did indeed find numerous readers.

  64. @silviosilver
    @AltanBakshi


    Its nice to think about such things when one is surrounded by modern niceties, but would such dreams bring you comfort and trust in your future, if you would live in a real frontier society, where danger would be ever prevalent?
     
    I don't think it's much of a criticism to say that 'cosmism' - let's call it, to use a term already introduced into the discussion - is only appropriate in a certain context. In fact, I'd turn that around and say that it's precisely because of context - ie human development having reached a certain point and outgrown earlier religious modalities - that the need for something like cosmism has arisen. In a preliterate society, cosmism would not only have provided cold comfort to a family whose child had just been eaten by a bear, it wouldn't have answered to any felt need among the people either. Today, cosmism does answer to such a need.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi

    Early Russian Cosmism appeared in the late nineteenth century. It was not a coincidence that Soviets were the first to launch a man into space.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cosmism

    Also earlier references to possible extraterrestrial life are to be found much earlier. Giordano Bruno was often cited by Soviets as a precursor.

  65. @silviosilver
    @AltanBakshi


    Its nice to think about such things when one is surrounded by modern niceties, but would such dreams bring you comfort and trust in your future, if you would live in a real frontier society, where danger would be ever prevalent?
     
    I don't think it's much of a criticism to say that 'cosmism' - let's call it, to use a term already introduced into the discussion - is only appropriate in a certain context. In fact, I'd turn that around and say that it's precisely because of context - ie human development having reached a certain point and outgrown earlier religious modalities - that the need for something like cosmism has arisen. In a preliterate society, cosmism would not only have provided cold comfort to a family whose child had just been eaten by a bear, it wouldn't have answered to any felt need among the people either. Today, cosmism does answer to such a need.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi

    You have a point, I agree, but is Cosmism enough for family men? Or how I would put it? Such abstract ideas as interstellar empires, possible future terraforming scenarios, bioengineering and so on, how such ideas motivate men and women to bond and make babies? In my opinion Cosmism can be a good source for motivation for a minority of some highly specialised and idealistic men, but for masses such promises sound hollow, at least as long as there are no concrete results, but only some distant promises that will be realised in future, or so I so believe. But personally to me, such ideas sound inspiring.

    As a glue for social cohesion and solidarity? No, I dont believe that Cosmism can be such glue. Not at all. Still if there is enough surplus production in society and some charismatic personas speaking for it, then Cosmism can be an engine for societal change, but I really dont believe that masses would be ready to make personal sacrifices in the name of the Cosmism.(Without the heavy hand of state!)

    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much? Authoritarian? No, not enough, it must be totalitarian, or masses start to question and criticize too much. Every day citizens would make a pledge that humanity will reach the stars, news would be full of reports of new astronomic findings, all tv channels would broadcast documentaries about rocket engines and exoplanets, there would be more than ten channels for scifi series etc, etc….

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @AltanBakshi


    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years
     
    That's a distinct possibility, it is actually quite probable.
    , @silviosilver
    @AltanBakshi

    No, I don't think cosmism has any hope of serving as a social glue or instilling in people a sense of duty to form families. This is certainly one disadvantage it has compared to traditional religion. I think nationalism could serve that function handily enough however. Nationalism has the added the advantage that it's easier (but not necessarily easy) to "turn down the dial" as needed compared to traditional religious belief. I mean, take the Amish or Haredis. Obviously their breeding practices cannot continue indefinitely without the world running hard up against its carrying capacity. (Short of that, who in his right mind would want to see 500 million haredis?) But what chance does anyone have trying to convince them to have fewer children? Only a totalitarian take-no-prisoners approach could alter the behavior of these scum people.


    to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years,
     
    I don't see the need to rush it. For me the religious promise of cosmism doesn't lie in the physical achievements of, say, reaching a certain destination in space or terraforming a planet, but in the 'hope' that some higher understanding of our purpose will become apparent to us through attempting to accomplish those physical goals.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    , @mal
    @AltanBakshi


    You have a point, I agree, but is Cosmism enough for family men? Or how I would put it? Such abstract ideas as interstellar empires, possible future terraforming scenarios, bioengineering and so on, how such ideas motivate men and women to bond and make babies?
     
    It is for me and my 2 year old who obsessed with with rocket launches and orbital mechanics (I showed him Kerbal Space Program), every cell tower is a rocket now :). It is true that women are less into fantastic geekery, but they generally follow where wealth and power is, and i hate to turn religious discussion materialistic and militaristic, but the military and the rich will be throwing $trillions on the more practical aspects and applications of cosmism. Women will follow.

    As a glue for social cohesion and solidarity? No, I dont believe that Cosmism can be such glue. Not at all. Still if there is enough surplus production in society and some charismatic personas speaking for it, then Cosmism can be an engine for societal change, but I really dont believe that masses would be ready to make personal sacrifices in the name of the Cosmism.(Without the heavy hand of state!)
     
    Well, Elon Musk has a cult following among ordinary people simply because he made rocket launches and landings look cool. It is also true that you shouldn't overcomplicate things for ordinary people, so the whole forced evolutionary accelerationism business need not be emphasized excessively. For example, Musk himself knows that people living in his visionary Mars City will not be humans, at least not humans as we are currently. Even worse, a lot of them will be Trump voters (skilled trades people etc). But that's not heavily emphasized.

    Elon Musk managed to inspire and unite large cross section of society, especially young people, to build a planetary habitat for mutant Trumpers. If such thing is possible, i think anything is possible. If nothing else, we will get people excited about rocket launches, and more public funding for science. And of course, the ultimate objectives will be discovering life on other worlds and giving humans a proper context.

    Currently, humans view themselves as part of planet Earth. Which is fine but it leads to fallacies such as "finite world" etc. If you read the comment section on the BBC article that Bashibuzuk posted, they are cheering their own extinction because of this. That's a problem. If the mindset where to switch however, from "finite Earth" to "infinite Universe", especially living Universe, the death cult cheerleaders would lose a powerful argument, and more babies would come.

    No, not enough, it must be totalitarian, or masses start to question and criticize too much.
     
    Not sure we need to be so drastic. Good marketing should do the trick. If the likes of Elon Musk can use their cult power to pump Doge Coin, they can pump making babies idea just as well. There is a problem of resource allocation to space colony projects, but as i mentioned earlier, the military and the rich will solve it in order to achieve their own goals.
    , @ImmortalRationalist
    @AltanBakshi


    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much? Authoritarian? No, not enough, it must be totalitarian, or masses start to question and criticize too much. Every day citizens would make a pledge that humanity will reach the stars, news would be full of reports of new astronomic findings, all tv channels would broadcast documentaries about rocket engines and exoplanets, there would be more than ten channels for scifi series etc, etc….
     
    Whether space colonization is a good idea depends on the average quality of life of the future sentient beings that will colonize space. If quality of life is on average negative, one could argue that space colonization is evil due to spreading vast amounts of suffering across the universe. Antinatalism, if taken to its logical conclusion, implies that space colonization is one of the greatest evils imaginable, and that Earth would be better off as a dead planet completely devoid of life. Although humanity in its current form will almost certainly never colonize the universe. The entities that will colonize the universe will either be posthumans or some form of superintelligence, and such entities may be capable of wireheading.

    Relevant:
    https://longtermrisk.org/risks-of-astronomical-future-suffering/
    https://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multiply-wild-animal-suffering/
    https://reducing-suffering.org/utopia/
    https://reducing-suffering.org/how-likely-is-wireheading/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yROxal8jQZM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7nsv4n_Bgk

    Replies: @mal

    , @FerW
    @AltanBakshi


    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much?
     
    This odd statement-question gave me pause. Having quietly read in the order of 1000s of comments in this forum I had imagined AltanBakshi to be a grounded, rather than stars-bound, Buddhist. Are you saying that you would indeed give your support for one such globally totalitarian "cosmist" project?

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  66. @Bashibuzuk
    @advancedatheist

    I remember very well the late Soviet Union, which was a supposedly 90% atheistic. It tried to lead the masses with a quasi-religious ideology of progress.

    https://www.vipgeo.ru/uploads/Showplace/large/137673.jpg

    It failed.

    https://varlamov.me/img/buran/05.jpg

    https://b1.m24.ru/c/1398175.jpg

    The immense majority of people need a transcendent dimension to their lives to continue having and raising children. The hope of economic growth and social betterment is not enough.

    People need something to believe in to build a strong society. That is why if you want to cull an ethnic group, a nation, a culture or a civilization, you first subvert religion and "kill" their gods.

    This is a very ancient and tried tool of psychological warfare...

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @mal, @Dmitry

    Soviet Union, which was a supposedly 90% atheistic

    But mostly, not more than 2-3 generations from very God-fearing, often illiterate, people, and at which stage the secular concepts can be translations from the religious ones of a generation earlier.

    In the 19th century, this was a process evident still even in the most sophisticated people. Marx was grandchild of a Jewish Rabbi, and the fact that two generations was not sufficient to prevent hum programming “software architecture” in the style of messianic Biblical prophecies. (Which was also in Hegel, whose teenage years were in the Evangelical Lutheran theological seminary).

    Similarly, Nietzsche was a son of a Lutheran pastor, and despite his brilliant education in Ancient Greek and Latin; we find within Nietzsche writing style there can be felt still an exhortatory voice of a protestant preacher.

    The exhortatory preacher in Nietzsche’s writing, is probably partly why reading Nietzsche is so popular today with American teenager, whose mainstream culture is still habituated to this dramatic Evangelist style millions hear in the Church every Sunday.

    immense majority of people need a transcendent dimension to their lives to continue having and raising children. The hope of economic growth and social betterment is not enough.

    In all our human and non-human ancestors, there was no “need of a transcendent dimension” to have children. Having children was not a choice, but a result of having sex, which is an instinct hardwired into endocrinologically normal mammals. Nature has made sex enjoyable to man, for the reason of children as a byproduct.

    It’s only in the last few generations, where man has become technologically sophisticated enough to conveniently separate sex from having children, that having children has become a voluntary choice – which is an unprecedented situation, which was historically usually only made by nuns or monks who could suppress their sexual impulses.

    When having children becomes a choice, the vast majority of people still choose to have children. For example, only 9% of Russians today do not have children in their life. The social and economic problem is that a large proportion of people have one child, instead of two children.

    As for the influence of religion on having children – mainly when the religion bans the use of contraception, and therefore undoes the voluntary choice in the consequences of having sex that had emerged in the 20th century. This is most evident in groups like Amish and Haredim, which ban the use of contraception, as well as many other aspects of the 20th and even 19th century.

    People need something to believe in to build a strong society. That is why if you want to cull an ethnic group, a nation, a culture or a civilization, you first subvert religion and “kill” their gods

    This modern (i.e. 20th century and 19th century) Max Weber sounding perspective is already more or less an admission of post-religion, as the definition of a God for believing people, is that its existence is not dependent on people believing in it, but that it actually exists.

    For God-fearing people, the point is that God exists regardless of human political and cultural history, and created the world before he created humans. God may be pleased or displeased with men, but he certainly cannot be killed by them.

    Today, passionate atheists are often mentally closer to God-fearing religious people, than those who act like religion is a lifestyle or sociological phenomenon; as the atheists who are one generation from God-fearing religion, might view the religious claims as having real ontological implications, while the “religious lifestyle” people seem to view religion as a sociological phenomenon, that is a product of particular peoples and cultures.

    When religion becomes a kind of cultural and lifestyle decoration, or fashion accessory, it’s a sign that we are so far from God-fearing people, that we do not even understand the idea of fearing religion anymore. 19th century atheists like Nietzsche, who was only one generation from his God-fearing pastor father, still could not view mildly religious claims, as being less than ontological ones.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry


    In all our human and non-human ancestors, there was no “need of a transcendent dimension” to have children. Having children was not a choice, but a result of having sex, which is an instinct hardwired into endocrinologically normal mammals. Nature has made sex enjoyable to man, for the reason of children as a byproduct.
     
    Humans are not (just) animals. The earliest known building is temple (Gobekli tepe). And fertility rites are among the earliest religious practices.

    This modernist (i.e. 20th century and 19th century) perspective is already more or less an admission of post-religion, as the definition of a God for believing people, is that its existence is not dependent on people believing in it, but that it actually exists
     
    Already in the Old Testament, the Jewish prophets clearly link the religious covenant of the Hebrews with YHWH Adonai as the only way for the Jewish people to survive as distinct human group. I am surprised you did not think about it Dmitry.

    For God-fearing people, the point is that God exists regardless of human political and cultural history, and created the world before he created humans. God may be pleased or displeased with men, but he certainly cannot be killed by them.
     
    One religion can replace another and one God can replace ("kill") other gods. We both know that the Abrahamic religions had this tendency to replace native creeds.

    Today, passionate atheists are often mentally closer to God-fearing religious people
     
    Atheism is often a form of religious thought. Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God. In both cases it is a matter of belief that might indeed be quite passionate in certain people.

    The more casual attitude towards God's unproven (in) existence is Agnosticism. But even Agnostic people still believe in "energy", "spirit " and other New Age stuff.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @AltanBakshi, @Mikel

  67. @AltanBakshi
    @silviosilver

    You have a point, I agree, but is Cosmism enough for family men? Or how I would put it? Such abstract ideas as interstellar empires, possible future terraforming scenarios, bioengineering and so on, how such ideas motivate men and women to bond and make babies? In my opinion Cosmism can be a good source for motivation for a minority of some highly specialised and idealistic men, but for masses such promises sound hollow, at least as long as there are no concrete results, but only some distant promises that will be realised in future, or so I so believe. But personally to me, such ideas sound inspiring.

    As a glue for social cohesion and solidarity? No, I dont believe that Cosmism can be such glue. Not at all. Still if there is enough surplus production in society and some charismatic personas speaking for it, then Cosmism can be an engine for societal change, but I really dont believe that masses would be ready to make personal sacrifices in the name of the Cosmism.(Without the heavy hand of state!)

    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much? Authoritarian? No, not enough, it must be totalitarian, or masses start to question and criticize too much. Every day citizens would make a pledge that humanity will reach the stars, news would be full of reports of new astronomic findings, all tv channels would broadcast documentaries about rocket engines and exoplanets, there would be more than ten channels for scifi series etc, etc....

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @silviosilver, @mal, @ImmortalRationalist, @FerW

    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years

    That’s a distinct possibility, it is actually quite probable.

  68. At the fin-de-siècle and near the end of his life Émile Zola published, Fécondité, the first novel of a quartet (The Four Gospels) as part of his attempt to replace traditional Christianity with a socialist humanist Gospel (the heros of the respective novels were to be named after Matthew, Luke, Mark and John).

    (N.B. I haven’t read this specific work of Zola’s, so I am relying on summaries)

    The protagonist, Mathieu, and his wife who over the course of the novel end up having a dozen children in defiance of the social rejection they face are juxtaposed with their urban acquaintances who have various excuses for not having children (or more than one or two) as well various social institutions or situations where children are either unborn or mistreated.

    The protagonist and his wife decides to abandon his factory job producing farming tools and leaves for the countryside while their descendants end up dominating Paris and starting the project of settling Africa.

    It is probably rather heavily influenced by the concerns about decay that flowed through in varied forms in all sections of 19th and early 20th century French society, but I nevertheless found it an interesting ideological oddity.

    • Thanks: Bashibuzuk
  69. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dieter Kief

    I agree with what you wrote, with two notable precisions:

    1) I was born and lived most part of my youth a mere few km from the VDNKh and its Monument to the first space explorers (the one in the picture).

    I have always found (and still find) this monument beautiful and expressive. Although Communism failed in USSR (as any atheist ideology would in due time anywhere around the world), it has nevertheless produced many fine example of architecture and art (Moscow's metro comes to mind).

    2) The recently built main Cathedral of the Russian Armed Forces is interesting because it is far from being a typical Orthodox Cathedral. It is quite innovative, perhaps departing a bit too much from the Russian Orthodox church-building tradition.

    OTOH this tradition has been strongly altered after the Raskol and the reign of Peter the Great. My favorite Russian churches are the wooden churches of Kizhi, built by the local peasants.

    https://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/styles/project_gallery_full_size/public/projects/gallery/RUS_Kizi_Pogos_JPEG_img-01.jpg?itok=VgR_AfVq

    I only used the Cathedral of Armed Forces to illustrate the religious revival in Russia.

    There are better examples of Russian church-building tradition at the link below.

    https://hramy.ru/rare/domongol.htm

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Thanks Bashibuzuk.

    1 question: Did you – maybe even while adoring the monument of the space Soviet space explorers – come across the (bitter and moving) novel Omon Ra by Victor Pelevin?

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @Dieter Kief

    Yes of course, I am a great fan of Pelevin.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  70. @Dmitry
    @Bashibuzuk


    Soviet Union, which was a supposedly 90% atheistic
     
    But mostly, not more than 2-3 generations from very God-fearing, often illiterate, people, and at which stage the secular concepts can be translations from the religious ones of a generation earlier.

    In the 19th century, this was a process evident still even in the most sophisticated people. Marx was grandchild of a Jewish Rabbi, and the fact that two generations was not sufficient to prevent hum programming "software architecture" in the style of messianic Biblical prophecies. (Which was also in Hegel, whose teenage years were in the Evangelical Lutheran theological seminary).

    Similarly, Nietzsche was a son of a Lutheran pastor, and despite his brilliant education in Ancient Greek and Latin; we find within Nietzsche writing style there can be felt still an exhortatory voice of a protestant preacher.

    The exhortatory preacher in Nietzsche's writing, is probably partly why reading Nietzsche is so popular today with American teenager, whose mainstream culture is still habituated to this dramatic Evangelist style millions hear in the Church every Sunday.


    immense majority of people need a transcendent dimension to their lives to continue having and raising children. The hope of economic growth and social betterment is not enough.
     
    In all our human and non-human ancestors, there was no "need of a transcendent dimension" to have children. Having children was not a choice, but a result of having sex, which is an instinct hardwired into endocrinologically normal mammals. Nature has made sex enjoyable to man, for the reason of children as a byproduct.

    It's only in the last few generations, where man has become technologically sophisticated enough to conveniently separate sex from having children, that having children has become a voluntary choice - which is an unprecedented situation, which was historically usually only made by nuns or monks who could suppress their sexual impulses.

    When having children becomes a choice, the vast majority of people still choose to have children. For example, only 9% of Russians today do not have children in their life. The social and economic problem is that a large proportion of people have one child, instead of two children.

    As for the influence of religion on having children - mainly when the religion bans the use of contraception, and therefore undoes the voluntary choice in the consequences of having sex that had emerged in the 20th century. This is most evident in groups like Amish and Haredim, which ban the use of contraception, as well as many other aspects of the 20th and even 19th century.


    People need something to believe in to build a strong society. That is why if you want to cull an ethnic group, a nation, a culture or a civilization, you first subvert religion and “kill” their gods
     
    This modern (i.e. 20th century and 19th century) Max Weber sounding perspective is already more or less an admission of post-religion, as the definition of a God for believing people, is that its existence is not dependent on people believing in it, but that it actually exists.

    For God-fearing people, the point is that God exists regardless of human political and cultural history, and created the world before he created humans. God may be pleased or displeased with men, but he certainly cannot be killed by them.

    Today, passionate atheists are often mentally closer to God-fearing religious people, than those who act like religion is a lifestyle or sociological phenomenon; as the atheists who are one generation from God-fearing religion, might view the religious claims as having real ontological implications, while the "religious lifestyle" people seem to view religion as a sociological phenomenon, that is a product of particular peoples and cultures.

    When religion becomes a kind of cultural and lifestyle decoration, or fashion accessory, it's a sign that we are so far from God-fearing people, that we do not even understand the idea of fearing religion anymore. 19th century atheists like Nietzsche, who was only one generation from his God-fearing pastor father, still could not view mildly religious claims, as being less than ontological ones.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    In all our human and non-human ancestors, there was no “need of a transcendent dimension” to have children. Having children was not a choice, but a result of having sex, which is an instinct hardwired into endocrinologically normal mammals. Nature has made sex enjoyable to man, for the reason of children as a byproduct.

    Humans are not (just) animals. The earliest known building is temple (Gobekli tepe). And fertility rites are among the earliest religious practices.

    This modernist (i.e. 20th century and 19th century) perspective is already more or less an admission of post-religion, as the definition of a God for believing people, is that its existence is not dependent on people believing in it, but that it actually exists

    Already in the Old Testament, the Jewish prophets clearly link the religious covenant of the Hebrews with YHWH Adonai as the only way for the Jewish people to survive as distinct human group. I am surprised you did not think about it Dmitry.

    For God-fearing people, the point is that God exists regardless of human political and cultural history, and created the world before he created humans. God may be pleased or displeased with men, but he certainly cannot be killed by them.

    One religion can replace another and one God can replace (“kill”) other gods. We both know that the Abrahamic religions had this tendency to replace native creeds.

    Today, passionate atheists are often mentally closer to God-fearing religious people

    Atheism is often a form of religious thought. Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God. In both cases it is a matter of belief that might indeed be quite passionate in certain people.

    The more casual attitude towards God’s unproven (in) existence is Agnosticism. But even Agnostic people still believe in “energy”, “spirit ” and other New Age stuff.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Bashibuzuk


    temple (Gobekli tepe). And fertility rites are among the earliest religious
     
    As a religious practice. Humans reproduce with or without fertility rites, as our human and non-human ancestors have for thousands of generations before the emergence of such festivals.

    Just as we can eat without food festivals, and breathe air without breathing festivals - nature has not quite relied on the hazard of religious practices for ensuring essential biological function of reproduction.

    On the other hand, it's possible we will need something like fertility rites, corybantic dancing, Dionysian Mysteries, etc, to connect our lives to transcendence, and not fall into a sense of nihilism.

    Fertility rites, was important for spirituality of our ancestors, much more than their reproduction.


    Jewish prophets clearly link the religious covenant of the Hebrews with YHWH Adonai as the only way for the Jewish people to survive as distinct human group.

     

    I think Ancient Hebrews considered that the god they are in communication with, is the only legitimate authority - the one which has created the world itself.

    So to the extent they believe their religion, they could not consider themselves to be killing other gods, but rather being the only nationality correctly communicating with god.

    In Exodus (which of course is mythological, rather than historical story), the Egyptians were under the same god as the Hebrews, but disfavoured and unrecognizing of him. So when Pharaoh is supposedly saying "your god", but the point of the story is that it is everyone's "god", and Pharaoh is punished for acting as if it was just "your god". https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+8&version=NIV

    This is the same thoughts when conquerors' religions are displacing conquered peoples' religions.

    When Conquistadors destroy Aztecs and their religion, religious ones could not believe they are killing peoples' gods. Rather, they (to the extent they believe their own religions) believe those other gods do not exist, and that they are showing the reality and truth to the natives.

    The idea that gods can be killed by men, or that they could die by our neglecting them, is a poetic belief, but a poetry of modern times, that would not be likely understood before the 19th century.

    I'm not an expert about history though, so it's possible this theme has existed in some 18th century sources. But the idea of awakening old gods, killing gods, and ancestral gods dying from neglect, is a theme in German Romanticism across the 19th century, more in poetic setting, and in a context of loss of religion at the time.


    Atheism is often a form of religious thought. Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God. In both cases it is a matter of belief that might indeed be quite passionate in certain people.

    The more casual attitude towards God’s unproven (in) existence is Agnosticism. But even Agnostic people still believe in “energy”, “spirit ” and other New Age stuff.
     

    Agnosticism is the sensible view for people in the 21st century context, when there is little choice for an God-fearing religion, and it only exists in small cultic communities.

    But in the 17th century, agnosticism, would be felt by us as a more untenable position. If you ask yourself "Will the negative thought I felt about my neighbour, be the balance point that places me in hell for eternity after I die?"

    Then you answer agnostically: "Well, maybe it will place me in hell, or maybe it will not - who knows because I don't know if God exists or not?"

    The agnostic response is not really acceptable from an emotional point of view: most of us need "yes" or "no" answer, when the choice is about a serious God-fearing religion. The agnostic view itself should probably slide to "Yes", in the way of Pascal's wager.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    , @AltanBakshi
    @Bashibuzuk


    Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God
     
    Im not going to start arguing about this, but such agnosticism is not a Buddhist position. We have an excellent case, though I will never share our arguments for it, here.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    , @Mikel
    @Bashibuzuk


    Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God
     
    Yes, there are many things that are impossible to prove or disprove: unicorns, fairies, werewolves, gods,...

    In fact, natural sciences don’t prove or disprove anything. Proofs only belong to the realm of mathematics and logic. Science only deals with empirical evidence that supports or falsifies hypotheses so, given the available evidence, the rational and scientifically minded person has to choose whether to believe or not in that type of things.

    But this does not mean that believing in fairies and not believing in them are equivalent positions. They’re not, for any rational and well informed person.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Bashibuzuk

  71. @Dieter Kief
    @Bashibuzuk

    Thanks Bashibuzuk.

    1 question: Did you - maybe even while adoring the monument of the space Soviet space explorers - come across the (bitter and moving) novel Omon Ra by Victor Pelevin?

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    Yes of course, I am a great fan of Pelevin.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Bashibuzuk

    Me too!

    I just think that maybe he is a bit deficient when it comes to transcendence. That might make him a tad - too bitter in the end.

    If you don't mind: How old were you, when you read Omon Ra - and did it have a disillusional effect on you?

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  72. For the minority of people who would be interested George Knapp has two hours of interview up on youtube with Robert Bigelow. If you get to the end you will learn that you can win a 500 000 dollar prize from RB if you submit the winning entry in his essay contest (< 25 000 words) on Proof that there is an Other Side [of life you silly goose].

    The contest website: http://bigelowinstitute.org/

    The first half of the Knapp-Bigelow interview:

    Bigelow's office would make a lot of people drool but his and Knapp's barber work looks like they got ripped off. (Bigelow's office definitely makes me drool.)

    • Thanks: Bashibuzuk
  73. Most of the discussion of Sputnik V on twitter seems to be in Spanish. Not too unexpected since many Latin American countries are buying it but still somewhat interesting.

  74. @songbird
    @mal

    Arguably, the Buran was superior to the Shuttle. For example, it could fly on autopilot. And I believe it was designed to be able to redirect, to sort of fly, rather than be a completely passive glider. Though that is with the caveat, that its safety record can't be evaluated because it only completed one flight - and, of course, that it was developed secondly, with inspiration from the Shuttle.

    And I think it is probable that neither of them made much sense, in the long run, and the money would have been better spent just trying to relentlessly decrease $/kg to orbit.

    I suppose it probably included military tech, but it is almost a shame that they didn't try to do a firesale to Japan or the EU, just to try to get it flying more.

    Replies: @(((They))) Live, @reiner Tor, @Abelard Lindsey

    Yes IMO the Buran was “better” than the Shuttle, the Soviets only launched the Buran once, the clowns at NASA continued with the Shuttle for decades, with a $1.6 billion launch cost and 14 dead astronauts, well done NASA, the minute you hear some one praise the Shuttle program, you know you’re talking to a retard

    I think the Soviets only built the Buran because they didn’t understand how pork powered rockets work, most of the engineers would have known it was bad idea, but maybe the Yanks are up to something that we can’t figure out, so we should build one too

    • Replies: @Simpleguest
    @(((They))) Live

    Sadly, you are right about the Shuttle. Although, it did some very useful things, like putting HUBBLE in orbit and later maintaining it.
    No one can, though, deny the tremendous PR value that the Shuttle possessed and that it enhanced enormously the US standing in the world (until the second disaster, that is).

    , @songbird
    @(((They))) Live

    Despite the idea that there were these two ideological systems that were competing during the Cold War, there seems to have been a lot of copycatism. Not just on technology programs like the Shuttle or Concorde, but in foreign policy, drowning worthless African regimes with foreign aid.

  75. @AltanBakshi
    @silviosilver

    You have a point, I agree, but is Cosmism enough for family men? Or how I would put it? Such abstract ideas as interstellar empires, possible future terraforming scenarios, bioengineering and so on, how such ideas motivate men and women to bond and make babies? In my opinion Cosmism can be a good source for motivation for a minority of some highly specialised and idealistic men, but for masses such promises sound hollow, at least as long as there are no concrete results, but only some distant promises that will be realised in future, or so I so believe. But personally to me, such ideas sound inspiring.

    As a glue for social cohesion and solidarity? No, I dont believe that Cosmism can be such glue. Not at all. Still if there is enough surplus production in society and some charismatic personas speaking for it, then Cosmism can be an engine for societal change, but I really dont believe that masses would be ready to make personal sacrifices in the name of the Cosmism.(Without the heavy hand of state!)

    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much? Authoritarian? No, not enough, it must be totalitarian, or masses start to question and criticize too much. Every day citizens would make a pledge that humanity will reach the stars, news would be full of reports of new astronomic findings, all tv channels would broadcast documentaries about rocket engines and exoplanets, there would be more than ten channels for scifi series etc, etc....

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @silviosilver, @mal, @ImmortalRationalist, @FerW

    No, I don’t think cosmism has any hope of serving as a social glue or instilling in people a sense of duty to form families. This is certainly one disadvantage it has compared to traditional religion. I think nationalism could serve that function handily enough however. Nationalism has the added the advantage that it’s easier (but not necessarily easy) to “turn down the dial” as needed compared to traditional religious belief. I mean, take the Amish or Haredis. Obviously their breeding practices cannot continue indefinitely without the world running hard up against its carrying capacity. (Short of that, who in his right mind would want to see 500 million haredis?) But what chance does anyone have trying to convince them to have fewer children? Only a totalitarian take-no-prisoners approach could alter the behavior of these scum people.

    to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years,

    I don’t see the need to rush it. For me the religious promise of cosmism doesn’t lie in the physical achievements of, say, reaching a certain destination in space or terraforming a planet, but in the ‘hope’ that some higher understanding of our purpose will become apparent to us through attempting to accomplish those physical goals.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @silviosilver


    Only a totalitarian take-no-prisoners approach could alter the behavior of these scum people.
     
    Or order of their rebbes? Why Amishes are scum in your opinion? Young Amishes are given a choice if they want to live in normal society or stay with the Amishes, many choose to leave the Amish community, and they can still continue visiting their relatives in the Amish community. Thats a best proof that they are not a cult.

    but in the ‘hope’ that some higher understanding of our purpose will become apparent to us through attempting to accomplish those physical goals.
     
    I understand, still such 'hope' is too abstract ,too impersonal for masses to believe and pursue.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @silviosilver

  76. Accidentally found this New York based NGO called “Free Kazakhs”. Just scrolling through some tweets:

    *Nazerbayev is a Russian communist

    *Russian vaccine is hybrid warfare

    *China is fascist terrorist state

    *Calls for EU and USA to save Kazakhstan

    • Thanks: Blinky Bill
    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @Shortsword

    There is but one solution!

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJGfznt5DKSqK9joSOtSJrvLWGq9rpPTmF6w&usqp.jpg

    , @Blinky Bill
    @Shortsword

    Why can't we all just get along?


    https://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam/usa-pompeo-10312020100244.html/pompeo-asia.jpg/@@images/2f6ee8c1-ed3f-4d80-9813-565132a1f752.jpeg

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcROo_rO6qf0RSeegBCCrT-lT1A8LuZxK0lkyQ&usqp.jpg

    Replies: @Hyperborean, @AnonFromTN

  77. More humor for the Open Thread.

    PEACE 😇
     

  78. @AltanBakshi
    @silviosilver

    You have a point, I agree, but is Cosmism enough for family men? Or how I would put it? Such abstract ideas as interstellar empires, possible future terraforming scenarios, bioengineering and so on, how such ideas motivate men and women to bond and make babies? In my opinion Cosmism can be a good source for motivation for a minority of some highly specialised and idealistic men, but for masses such promises sound hollow, at least as long as there are no concrete results, but only some distant promises that will be realised in future, or so I so believe. But personally to me, such ideas sound inspiring.

    As a glue for social cohesion and solidarity? No, I dont believe that Cosmism can be such glue. Not at all. Still if there is enough surplus production in society and some charismatic personas speaking for it, then Cosmism can be an engine for societal change, but I really dont believe that masses would be ready to make personal sacrifices in the name of the Cosmism.(Without the heavy hand of state!)

    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much? Authoritarian? No, not enough, it must be totalitarian, or masses start to question and criticize too much. Every day citizens would make a pledge that humanity will reach the stars, news would be full of reports of new astronomic findings, all tv channels would broadcast documentaries about rocket engines and exoplanets, there would be more than ten channels for scifi series etc, etc....

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @silviosilver, @mal, @ImmortalRationalist, @FerW

    You have a point, I agree, but is Cosmism enough for family men? Or how I would put it? Such abstract ideas as interstellar empires, possible future terraforming scenarios, bioengineering and so on, how such ideas motivate men and women to bond and make babies?

    It is for me and my 2 year old who obsessed with with rocket launches and orbital mechanics (I showed him Kerbal Space Program), every cell tower is a rocket now :). It is true that women are less into fantastic geekery, but they generally follow where wealth and power is, and i hate to turn religious discussion materialistic and militaristic, but the military and the rich will be throwing $trillions on the more practical aspects and applications of cosmism. Women will follow.

    As a glue for social cohesion and solidarity? No, I dont believe that Cosmism can be such glue. Not at all. Still if there is enough surplus production in society and some charismatic personas speaking for it, then Cosmism can be an engine for societal change, but I really dont believe that masses would be ready to make personal sacrifices in the name of the Cosmism.(Without the heavy hand of state!)

    Well, Elon Musk has a cult following among ordinary people simply because he made rocket launches and landings look cool. It is also true that you shouldn’t overcomplicate things for ordinary people, so the whole forced evolutionary accelerationism business need not be emphasized excessively. For example, Musk himself knows that people living in his visionary Mars City will not be humans, at least not humans as we are currently. Even worse, a lot of them will be Trump voters (skilled trades people etc). But that’s not heavily emphasized.

    Elon Musk managed to inspire and unite large cross section of society, especially young people, to build a planetary habitat for mutant Trumpers. If such thing is possible, i think anything is possible. If nothing else, we will get people excited about rocket launches, and more public funding for science. And of course, the ultimate objectives will be discovering life on other worlds and giving humans a proper context.

    Currently, humans view themselves as part of planet Earth. Which is fine but it leads to fallacies such as “finite world” etc. If you read the comment section on the BBC article that Bashibuzuk posted, they are cheering their own extinction because of this. That’s a problem. If the mindset where to switch however, from “finite Earth” to “infinite Universe”, especially living Universe, the death cult cheerleaders would lose a powerful argument, and more babies would come.

    No, not enough, it must be totalitarian, or masses start to question and criticize too much.

    Not sure we need to be so drastic. Good marketing should do the trick. If the likes of Elon Musk can use their cult power to pump Doge Coin, they can pump making babies idea just as well. There is a problem of resource allocation to space colony projects, but as i mentioned earlier, the military and the rich will solve it in order to achieve their own goals.

    • Thanks: AltanBakshi
  79. @ImmortalRationalist
    What do you think of this video analyzing China's chances of becoming the next world power? Some of his arguments are that China will experience massive aging in the next generation similar to that of Japan, which will cripple Chinese prospects for world domination. He also argues that the Chinese are lying about their fertility rate, and the actual Chinese fertility rate is closer to 1.0. He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7wZOGtsOWg

    Replies: @Malenfant, @advancedatheist, @Passer by, @Nancy O'Brien Simpson, @Daniel Chieh, @Abelard Lindsey

    I am an agnostic and I have a magnificent purpose in life. My agnostic friends are also purpose-driven people. We all want to make the earth a better place. We take this very seriously and we volunteer and give of ourselves in the ways we can, especially to the poor and disenfranchised. We are also politically involved.

    I have visited China twice. I do not speak Chinese however the Chinese are hugely motivated by their children and by taking care of their aging parents. They are also very driven by education. These two factors give purpose to their lives in a profound way that may be missing in Western Christians.

  80. @songbird
    @Indiana Jack

    I recall hearing about the thing with pregnant teachers stepping down. I not sure about that though - they really did have a more exacting ideology about health back then - I recall hearing some old student guideline book from my school being read aloud. It was full of things like get ten hours of sleep and drink milk. Also, there was undoubtedly a social edge to getting married women out of the workplace, so they could be good homemakers.

    Have to say I am really skeptical about pregnant woman hiding in the home. With the Blue Laws, stores were often closed when men got off work, so women were required to run all the errands. Men had women buy socks for them, and things like that. I doubt a woman would refrain from being seen publicly, just because she was pregnant.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Have to say I am really skeptical about pregnant woman hiding in the home.

    And why stop there? Doesn’t appearing in public with a newborn or a toddler who. Alls you “Mom” likewise advertise that you’ve had sex with someone? That is the most retarded thing I’ve ever heard of.

  81. @Shortsword

    Saakashvili urged Ukraine to prepare for the loss of Mariupol and Kherson.
     

    Replies: @AnonfromTN

    Saakashvili urged Ukraine to prepare for the loss of Mariupol and Kherson.

    Even failed Georgian president Saakashvili sometimes has lucid moments. In 2015 he said that if Ukraine develops successfully, in 10 years people would live like under Yanuk.

    It appears that Ukraine did not develop successfully, though. Those who “love” Ukraine from afar would tell you about wages in US dollar rising. Those who actually live in Ukraine would tell you that all utility costs (electricity, heating, water, natural gas, etc.) have risen manifold since 2013. Protest against rising prices of utilities are happening all over the country. Most of my relatives have left that sinking ship, but my cousin is too old to move. She lives in Kiev, and she tells me that her monthly heating bill in winter exceeds her pension.

    So, losing Mariupol and Kherson should not worry Ukrainian government too much. Losing the country should.

  82. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry


    In all our human and non-human ancestors, there was no “need of a transcendent dimension” to have children. Having children was not a choice, but a result of having sex, which is an instinct hardwired into endocrinologically normal mammals. Nature has made sex enjoyable to man, for the reason of children as a byproduct.
     
    Humans are not (just) animals. The earliest known building is temple (Gobekli tepe). And fertility rites are among the earliest religious practices.

    This modernist (i.e. 20th century and 19th century) perspective is already more or less an admission of post-religion, as the definition of a God for believing people, is that its existence is not dependent on people believing in it, but that it actually exists
     
    Already in the Old Testament, the Jewish prophets clearly link the religious covenant of the Hebrews with YHWH Adonai as the only way for the Jewish people to survive as distinct human group. I am surprised you did not think about it Dmitry.

    For God-fearing people, the point is that God exists regardless of human political and cultural history, and created the world before he created humans. God may be pleased or displeased with men, but he certainly cannot be killed by them.
     
    One religion can replace another and one God can replace ("kill") other gods. We both know that the Abrahamic religions had this tendency to replace native creeds.

    Today, passionate atheists are often mentally closer to God-fearing religious people
     
    Atheism is often a form of religious thought. Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God. In both cases it is a matter of belief that might indeed be quite passionate in certain people.

    The more casual attitude towards God's unproven (in) existence is Agnosticism. But even Agnostic people still believe in "energy", "spirit " and other New Age stuff.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @AltanBakshi, @Mikel

    temple (Gobekli tepe). And fertility rites are among the earliest religious

    As a religious practice. Humans reproduce with or without fertility rites, as our human and non-human ancestors have for thousands of generations before the emergence of such festivals.

    Just as we can eat without food festivals, and breathe air without breathing festivals – nature has not quite relied on the hazard of religious practices for ensuring essential biological function of reproduction.

    On the other hand, it’s possible we will need something like fertility rites, corybantic dancing, Dionysian Mysteries, etc, to connect our lives to transcendence, and not fall into a sense of nihilism.

    Fertility rites, was important for spirituality of our ancestors, much more than their reproduction.

    Jewish prophets clearly link the religious covenant of the Hebrews with YHWH Adonai as the only way for the Jewish people to survive as distinct human group.

    I think Ancient Hebrews considered that the god they are in communication with, is the only legitimate authority – the one which has created the world itself.

    So to the extent they believe their religion, they could not consider themselves to be killing other gods, but rather being the only nationality correctly communicating with god.

    In Exodus (which of course is mythological, rather than historical story), the Egyptians were under the same god as the Hebrews, but disfavoured and unrecognizing of him. So when Pharaoh is supposedly saying “your god”, but the point of the story is that it is everyone’s “god”, and Pharaoh is punished for acting as if it was just “your god”. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+8&version=NIV

    This is the same thoughts when conquerors’ religions are displacing conquered peoples’ religions.

    When Conquistadors destroy Aztecs and their religion, religious ones could not believe they are killing peoples’ gods. Rather, they (to the extent they believe their own religions) believe those other gods do not exist, and that they are showing the reality and truth to the natives.

    The idea that gods can be killed by men, or that they could die by our neglecting them, is a poetic belief, but a poetry of modern times, that would not be likely understood before the 19th century.

    I’m not an expert about history though, so it’s possible this theme has existed in some 18th century sources. But the idea of awakening old gods, killing gods, and ancestral gods dying from neglect, is a theme in German Romanticism across the 19th century, more in poetic setting, and in a context of loss of religion at the time.

    Atheism is often a form of religious thought. Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God. In both cases it is a matter of belief that might indeed be quite passionate in certain people.

    The more casual attitude towards God’s unproven (in) existence is Agnosticism. But even Agnostic people still believe in “energy”, “spirit ” and other New Age stuff.

    Agnosticism is the sensible view for people in the 21st century context, when there is little choice for an God-fearing religion, and it only exists in small cultic communities.

    But in the 17th century, agnosticism, would be felt by us as a more untenable position. If you ask yourself “Will the negative thought I felt about my neighbour, be the balance point that places me in hell for eternity after I die?”

    Then you answer agnostically: “Well, maybe it will place me in hell, or maybe it will not – who knows because I don’t know if God exists or not?”

    The agnostic response is not really acceptable from an emotional point of view: most of us need “yes” or “no” answer, when the choice is about a serious God-fearing religion. The agnostic view itself should probably slide to “Yes”, in the way of Pascal’s wager.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry

    A people deprived of transcendance would not reproduce. They would literally have no future. A people who have lost their gods would become something else if they adopt the gods of their conquerors. Any people holding strongly to their creed would not disappear, unless physically exterminated.

    In the Genesis, the creation myth is natrated by using plural Elohim for God. El or Elah was widely distributed among the Semitic tribes as the name of their god and in the earliest times, the God of Abraham was just the tribal spirit of a Northern Arabian population. Interestingly enough, the word Allah derives directly from this Semitic root. The early Hebrews did not deny the reality of other divine beings: Baals etc, rather they believed their God being the strongest one and the right one, while others were seen as demons masquerading as gods. Later on, the early Christians did exactly the same with the gods of pagan populations they converted. The only ones who flatly deny the existence of any other higher being are the Muslims, their affirmation of faith (Shahada) is the proclamation that there is no other god but Allah.

    Gods are basically memetic packages of information associated with their own semantic fields. The soul of a people is their culture: the information system that allows this people to find meaning in their existence. There is no meaningful existence without cukture, no culture without myths, there are no myths without gods and heroes. Abrahamic faiths have displaced, negated and destroyed the cultures of the converted populations. They have captured their souls and made them slaves to their Semitic God.

    This is why Jews deny the humanity of the Goyim, that is why they basically consider them as soulless animals : Akums whose spiritual nature is inherently inferior to a Hebrew. That is why Christianity sees all non-Christian as irredeemably damned, unless they accept Christ. And it is for this reason that Muslims consider all Kuffar as ignorants who will not find the Straight Path to Salvation (As-Seerat Al Mustakeem). The Abrahamic God, shared by these religions is a virulent meme, a theological virus infecting human consciousness, destroying and digesting the previous native theological memetic package and thriving in the infected populace brains.

    The mystics spoke of Egregores arising from the consciousness of the multitudes, God is fed through such an egregor. If you completely annihilate the egregor related to a God, this God dies. That is why in the ancient time the Christians heard the proclamation: "The Great God Pan has died".

    Ancient people were aware of these things, modern people are too blind to understand that what lives through them is their ancestors information, in both genetic and spiritual terms.

    Replies: @Morton's toes, @AP, @Dmitry

  83. @Bashibuzuk
    @mal

    Intellectually inclined people need transcendence. It might come in many forms, space exploration is one of them. It is something "beyond", something expanding our boundaries. Problem is, if everything is material only, and there is no ultimate meaning to it all, then in the end our quest as a species is futile. We feel it deep inside -
    instinctively - and we stop to breed. Any civilization that comes to this negative realization crumbles and/or dies out.

    Any ideology that aims at existing for a somewhat extended period of time, needs a metaphysical component. Early Bolcheviks were frequently inspired by Cosmism, but Stalinist state stiffened any further developments of this very promising philosophical trend. Who knows what would have happened if it didn't.

    I agree about Buran and the US shuttles. It is saddening to see them dispensed with.

    Replies: @Marshal Marlow

    I’d argue that religions promising an after-life are nihilistic in that their message is that regardless of how shit this world might be, you get to go to paradise so long as you’ve joined the right club (which just happens to be your parent’s one and/or the dominant one in your geographical area). “Opiate of the masses” kind of stuff.

    In contrast, an atheist would say, “Nah, I’m going to make my time count and make this world a bit better for my kids. I might change my mind on my death bed, but that’s fine”.

    These are ideals of course, and 90% of people just go along with the prevailing cultural paradigm because they just want a quiet life without having to do much thinking about eternity.

    • Agree: AnonfromTN
  84. @songbird
    @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    I came close to witnessing a shooting once. It was a road rage incident, in a place with practically no traffic. Rural area. Didn't see or hear it, but they shut down the road.

    On a note related to the story, I wonder how many people are killed by recycling trucks and recycling in general. Probably quite a few, if you added it up. Probably more than nuclear energy, I'd suppose.

    Replies: @Marshal Marlow

    In Adamstown, Maryland, a 64-year-old man died after a recycling services truck he was riding on the back of overturned on an icy roadway around noon Monday, the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office said.

    Kinda tragic that a 64yo is having to ride the back of a garbage truck in freezing conditions to (presumably) put bread on the table.

    • Agree: songbird
  85. @Dmitry
    @Bashibuzuk


    temple (Gobekli tepe). And fertility rites are among the earliest religious
     
    As a religious practice. Humans reproduce with or without fertility rites, as our human and non-human ancestors have for thousands of generations before the emergence of such festivals.

    Just as we can eat without food festivals, and breathe air without breathing festivals - nature has not quite relied on the hazard of religious practices for ensuring essential biological function of reproduction.

    On the other hand, it's possible we will need something like fertility rites, corybantic dancing, Dionysian Mysteries, etc, to connect our lives to transcendence, and not fall into a sense of nihilism.

    Fertility rites, was important for spirituality of our ancestors, much more than their reproduction.


    Jewish prophets clearly link the religious covenant of the Hebrews with YHWH Adonai as the only way for the Jewish people to survive as distinct human group.

     

    I think Ancient Hebrews considered that the god they are in communication with, is the only legitimate authority - the one which has created the world itself.

    So to the extent they believe their religion, they could not consider themselves to be killing other gods, but rather being the only nationality correctly communicating with god.

    In Exodus (which of course is mythological, rather than historical story), the Egyptians were under the same god as the Hebrews, but disfavoured and unrecognizing of him. So when Pharaoh is supposedly saying "your god", but the point of the story is that it is everyone's "god", and Pharaoh is punished for acting as if it was just "your god". https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+8&version=NIV

    This is the same thoughts when conquerors' religions are displacing conquered peoples' religions.

    When Conquistadors destroy Aztecs and their religion, religious ones could not believe they are killing peoples' gods. Rather, they (to the extent they believe their own religions) believe those other gods do not exist, and that they are showing the reality and truth to the natives.

    The idea that gods can be killed by men, or that they could die by our neglecting them, is a poetic belief, but a poetry of modern times, that would not be likely understood before the 19th century.

    I'm not an expert about history though, so it's possible this theme has existed in some 18th century sources. But the idea of awakening old gods, killing gods, and ancestral gods dying from neglect, is a theme in German Romanticism across the 19th century, more in poetic setting, and in a context of loss of religion at the time.


    Atheism is often a form of religious thought. Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God. In both cases it is a matter of belief that might indeed be quite passionate in certain people.

    The more casual attitude towards God’s unproven (in) existence is Agnosticism. But even Agnostic people still believe in “energy”, “spirit ” and other New Age stuff.
     

    Agnosticism is the sensible view for people in the 21st century context, when there is little choice for an God-fearing religion, and it only exists in small cultic communities.

    But in the 17th century, agnosticism, would be felt by us as a more untenable position. If you ask yourself "Will the negative thought I felt about my neighbour, be the balance point that places me in hell for eternity after I die?"

    Then you answer agnostically: "Well, maybe it will place me in hell, or maybe it will not - who knows because I don't know if God exists or not?"

    The agnostic response is not really acceptable from an emotional point of view: most of us need "yes" or "no" answer, when the choice is about a serious God-fearing religion. The agnostic view itself should probably slide to "Yes", in the way of Pascal's wager.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    A people deprived of transcendance would not reproduce. They would literally have no future. A people who have lost their gods would become something else if they adopt the gods of their conquerors. Any people holding strongly to their creed would not disappear, unless physically exterminated.

    In the Genesis, the creation myth is natrated by using plural Elohim for God. El or Elah was widely distributed among the Semitic tribes as the name of their god and in the earliest times, the God of Abraham was just the tribal spirit of a Northern Arabian population. Interestingly enough, the word Allah derives directly from this Semitic root. The early Hebrews did not deny the reality of other divine beings: Baals etc, rather they believed their God being the strongest one and the right one, while others were seen as demons masquerading as gods. Later on, the early Christians did exactly the same with the gods of pagan populations they converted. The only ones who flatly deny the existence of any other higher being are the Muslims, their affirmation of faith (Shahada) is the proclamation that there is no other god but Allah.

    Gods are basically memetic packages of information associated with their own semantic fields. The soul of a people is their culture: the information system that allows this people to find meaning in their existence. There is no meaningful existence without cukture, no culture without myths, there are no myths without gods and heroes. Abrahamic faiths have displaced, negated and destroyed the cultures of the converted populations. They have captured their souls and made them slaves to their Semitic God.

    This is why Jews deny the humanity of the Goyim, that is why they basically consider them as soulless animals : Akums whose spiritual nature is inherently inferior to a Hebrew. That is why Christianity sees all non-Christian as irredeemably damned, unless they accept Christ. And it is for this reason that Muslims consider all Kuffar as ignorants who will not find the Straight Path to Salvation (As-Seerat Al Mustakeem). The Abrahamic God, shared by these religions is a virulent meme, a theological virus infecting human consciousness, destroying and digesting the previous native theological memetic package and thriving in the infected populace brains.

    The mystics spoke of Egregores arising from the consciousness of the multitudes, God is fed through such an egregor. If you completely annihilate the egregor related to a God, this God dies. That is why in the ancient time the Christians heard the proclamation: “The Great God Pan has died”.

    Ancient people were aware of these things, modern people are too blind to understand that what lives through them is their ancestors information, in both genetic and spiritual terms.

    • Replies: @Morton's toes
    @Bashibuzuk

    OK I did this much research on the Bigelow 500 000 dollar essay prize. 25 000 words is 100 8.5 X 11 inch pages, 12 point font, 1 inch margins, double spaced. So it is not a quantity of work to mis-under-estimate. Still as a writing exercise it might be a great project. You have to file an application by the end of the month but you have until August to write the essay.

    (and I wrote a half-page of an outline of a fraction of an abstract. Probably I will forget about it within 24 hours.)

    I have met one of the judges who would probably recognize my face but certainly not my name. He chaired Erik Davis' PhD research committee. If I recall correct Davis finished in 2018 and he got a PhD in religious study from Rice U with a thesis on Terrance McKenna, Philip K. Dick, and Robert Anton Wilson. The Robert Anton Wilson part of his book is excellent but he really should have gone with Burroughs and not McKenna. I have my complaints about modernity but I applaud that a man can now write a PhD thesis on McKenna, Dick and Wilson.

    , @AP
    @Bashibuzuk


    The Abrahamic God, shared by these religions is a virulent meme, a theological virus infecting human consciousness, destroying and digesting the previous native theological memetic package and thriving in the infected populace brains.
     
    Given that peoples “infected” with this “virus” have been he most accomplished, humane and refined in history (especially compared to most pagans*) perhaps “virus” is not the most realistic metaphor? Maybe rather, a cure? Maybe a software upgrade? Evolution? Virus metaphor might work for post-Christian -isms though.

    *I mean the transformation of Americans from bloodthirsty demon-worshipping Aztec or Mayan pagans to Baroque-music producing, relatively civilized Mexicans has been evolutionary, not some sort of “illness.”

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    , @Dmitry
    @Bashibuzuk


    people deprived of transcendence would not reproduce
     
    All our ancestors human and non-human, have reproduced, with or without achieving a sense of "transcendence". Nature has ensured that people want to have sex to the extent they feel heterosexual lust, and historically often the most nihilistic and nontranscendent people (e.g. rapists, etc) have reproduced.

    It's only a result of technological habits of the last century, that sex could be conveniently separated from reproduction, and in our time we now have a choice or voluntary aspect to having children, when mostly peasant population of the past had many children without a choice.

    Today, vast majority of people will have children (e.g. 91% of Russian citizens), but the political/economic problem is created by a large proportion of people having only 1 child instead of 2.

    From the viewpoint of "transcendence", the 21st century idea that you should invest in your children, can seem more spiritually responsible, than the unthinking reproduction of our ancestors.

    Even today, I wouldn't be surprised if transcendence and spirituality, can not often reduce natality. Spiritual men and philosophers of the past, seem to have below average natality for their times, and transcendent perspectives can also support anti-natalism as we see in the writing of Schopenhauer.


    their God being the strongest one and the right one, while others were seen as demons masquerading as gods. Later on, the early Christians did exactly the same with the gods of
     
    Strength or weakness of other supernatural entities relative to God, would be dependent on objective reality, not subjective beliefs.

    You cannot kill another person's god, but you could convert another people to understand it is not god that they worship.

    The idea that you could kill peoples' gods, is assuming that gods don't exist, but are a creation of peoples and cultures. This is a very normal viewpoint for us, but not before the 19th century.


    consciousness of the multitudes, God is fed through such an egregor.
     
    This is the standard modern secular view, a little in the style of Feuerbach.

    But it assume that god doesn't exist, in the sense God-fearing people believe - that God is an objective power, that doesn't depend on your imagination.

    ancient time the Christians heard the proclamation: “The Great God Pan has died”.

    Ancient people were aware of these things, modern people are too blind to understand that what lives through them is their ancestors information, in both genetic and spiritual terms.

     

    When propagating religion, they could I'm sure see the loss of peoples' faith in rivals as a positive sense, as in this "death of Pan" myth created by Early Christians.

    But to be Early Christian, will mean that you don't believe that Pan is a god. Rather, you would want people to understand reality of who is actually god.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  86. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry

    A people deprived of transcendance would not reproduce. They would literally have no future. A people who have lost their gods would become something else if they adopt the gods of their conquerors. Any people holding strongly to their creed would not disappear, unless physically exterminated.

    In the Genesis, the creation myth is natrated by using plural Elohim for God. El or Elah was widely distributed among the Semitic tribes as the name of their god and in the earliest times, the God of Abraham was just the tribal spirit of a Northern Arabian population. Interestingly enough, the word Allah derives directly from this Semitic root. The early Hebrews did not deny the reality of other divine beings: Baals etc, rather they believed their God being the strongest one and the right one, while others were seen as demons masquerading as gods. Later on, the early Christians did exactly the same with the gods of pagan populations they converted. The only ones who flatly deny the existence of any other higher being are the Muslims, their affirmation of faith (Shahada) is the proclamation that there is no other god but Allah.

    Gods are basically memetic packages of information associated with their own semantic fields. The soul of a people is their culture: the information system that allows this people to find meaning in their existence. There is no meaningful existence without cukture, no culture without myths, there are no myths without gods and heroes. Abrahamic faiths have displaced, negated and destroyed the cultures of the converted populations. They have captured their souls and made them slaves to their Semitic God.

    This is why Jews deny the humanity of the Goyim, that is why they basically consider them as soulless animals : Akums whose spiritual nature is inherently inferior to a Hebrew. That is why Christianity sees all non-Christian as irredeemably damned, unless they accept Christ. And it is for this reason that Muslims consider all Kuffar as ignorants who will not find the Straight Path to Salvation (As-Seerat Al Mustakeem). The Abrahamic God, shared by these religions is a virulent meme, a theological virus infecting human consciousness, destroying and digesting the previous native theological memetic package and thriving in the infected populace brains.

    The mystics spoke of Egregores arising from the consciousness of the multitudes, God is fed through such an egregor. If you completely annihilate the egregor related to a God, this God dies. That is why in the ancient time the Christians heard the proclamation: "The Great God Pan has died".

    Ancient people were aware of these things, modern people are too blind to understand that what lives through them is their ancestors information, in both genetic and spiritual terms.

    Replies: @Morton's toes, @AP, @Dmitry

    OK I did this much research on the Bigelow 500 000 dollar essay prize. 25 000 words is 100 8.5 X 11 inch pages, 12 point font, 1 inch margins, double spaced. So it is not a quantity of work to mis-under-estimate. Still as a writing exercise it might be a great project. You have to file an application by the end of the month but you have until August to write the essay.

    (and I wrote a half-page of an outline of a fraction of an abstract. Probably I will forget about it within 24 hours.)

    I have met one of the judges who would probably recognize my face but certainly not my name. He chaired Erik Davis’ PhD research committee. If I recall correct Davis finished in 2018 and he got a PhD in religious study from Rice U with a thesis on Terrance McKenna, Philip K. Dick, and Robert Anton Wilson. The Robert Anton Wilson part of his book is excellent but he really should have gone with Burroughs and not McKenna. I have my complaints about modernity but I applaud that a man can now write a PhD thesis on McKenna, Dick and Wilson.

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk
  87. @Shortsword
    Accidentally found this New York based NGO called "Free Kazakhs". Just scrolling through some tweets:

    *Nazerbayev is a Russian communist

    *Russian vaccine is hybrid warfare

    *China is fascist terrorist state

    *Calls for EU and USA to save Kazakhstan

    https://freekazakhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/IMG_1801-1024x683-1-1.jpg

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Blinky Bill

    There is but one solution!

    [MORE]

    • LOL: Svevlad
  88. @(((They))) Live
    @songbird

    Yes IMO the Buran was "better" than the Shuttle, the Soviets only launched the Buran once, the clowns at NASA continued with the Shuttle for decades, with a $1.6 billion launch cost and 14 dead astronauts, well done NASA, the minute you hear some one praise the Shuttle program, you know you're talking to a retard

    I think the Soviets only built the Buran because they didn't understand how pork powered rockets work, most of the engineers would have known it was bad idea, but maybe the Yanks are up to something that we can't figure out, so we should build one too

    Replies: @Simpleguest, @songbird

    Sadly, you are right about the Shuttle. Although, it did some very useful things, like putting HUBBLE in orbit and later maintaining it.
    No one can, though, deny the tremendous PR value that the Shuttle possessed and that it enhanced enormously the US standing in the world (until the second disaster, that is).

  89. @Shortsword
    Accidentally found this New York based NGO called "Free Kazakhs". Just scrolling through some tweets:

    *Nazerbayev is a Russian communist

    *Russian vaccine is hybrid warfare

    *China is fascist terrorist state

    *Calls for EU and USA to save Kazakhstan

    https://freekazakhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/IMG_1801-1024x683-1-1.jpg

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Blinky Bill

    Why can’t we all just get along?

    [MORE]

    • Disagree: AltanBakshi
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    @Blinky Bill

    Warning: NSFW



    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51sR3dkZ0VL.jpg


    She's a lonely, overworked waitress in a downbeat Chicago pizza joint, and he's the president of the People's Republic of China on a tour of the United States. Their stressful, boring lives are about to heat up like a pizza oven after a chance encounter outside Manny's Pizza Barn. "Call me Xi Dada," he says. From there, Delanie takes Xi Jinping by the hand and leads him on a whirlwind tour of of Chicago as they struggle to keep their hands off each other.
     
    https://www.amazon.com/Xis-One-Sandra-Coupland-ebook/dp/B01N1XZ33L

    Replies: @Blinky Bill

    , @AnonFromTN
    @Blinky Bill


    Why can’t we all just get along?
     
    Wolves and sheep can get along only in a fantasy world.

    Replies: @Beckow

  90. @Europe Europa
    @Passer by

    You phrase that as if Russia gives it away for free or subsidises it in some way for the needy across Europe. It's the basis of their economy and they sell it at the going rate.

    Replies: @Passer by, @Mitleser

    This was debuked last year as a wrong claim.

    (1) Share of natural gas as percentage of Russian exports: 6%. Historically hovers between 5%-10%. This isn’t altogether insignificant, but not all that central in the grand scheme of things and overshadowed by yearly fluctuations in commodity prices.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/gas-realism/

  91. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dieter Kief

    Yes of course, I am a great fan of Pelevin.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Me too!

    I just think that maybe he is a bit deficient when it comes to transcendence. That might make him a tad – too bitter in the end.

    If you don’t mind: How old were you, when you read Omon Ra – and did it have a disillusional effect on you?

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @Dieter Kief

    I read nearly all his novels and quite a few short stories. I think Pelevin made a speciality of metaphysical dark humor and transcendent trolling. He has the talent of telling very deep things with a trolling laugh. He is a philosophical troll.

    Take this video below from the Generation P movie:

    https://youtu.be/r5BcWKcn84Y

    Ain't it quite interesting in the light of the latest developments?

    😄

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  92. @songbird
    @mal

    Arguably, the Buran was superior to the Shuttle. For example, it could fly on autopilot. And I believe it was designed to be able to redirect, to sort of fly, rather than be a completely passive glider. Though that is with the caveat, that its safety record can't be evaluated because it only completed one flight - and, of course, that it was developed secondly, with inspiration from the Shuttle.

    And I think it is probable that neither of them made much sense, in the long run, and the money would have been better spent just trying to relentlessly decrease $/kg to orbit.

    I suppose it probably included military tech, but it is almost a shame that they didn't try to do a firesale to Japan or the EU, just to try to get it flying more.

    Replies: @(((They))) Live, @reiner Tor, @Abelard Lindsey

    Arguably, the Buran was superior to the Shuttle.

    I don’t have a firm opinion on the question, but I know a Hungarian aviation magazine editor who is of the firm opinion that it was inferior. I think the rocket engine wasn’t reusable for example, and he pointed out that the American Shuttle was also theoretically capable of unmanned flight, but it was way less useful that way. The Buran was flying unmanned (it was a useless mission without cosmonauts) because the life sustaining module wasn’t yet ready, so while in theory it was similar in that respect, in practice it was actually inferior in that it wasn’t capable of manned flights.

    This guy is moderately Russophobic, though. (He is still fair and balanced enough that he vehemently attacked a newspaper article claiming that MiG-25 was not a sophisticated airplane “because it was made of stainless steel and not titanium alloy like the SR-71 Blackbird.” He pointed out that the SR-71 had a totally different role and wasn’t produced in very large numbers, unlike the MiG-25, and that if they had only needed a few dozens, then probably the Soviets would also have been able to use titanium alloys, whereas for a thousand planes the Americans also had to resort to using stainless steel at the time.) So overall I put some weight on his opinions despite his moderate Russophobia.

    • Replies: @utu
    @reiner Tor

    How the Soviets stole a space shuttle
    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18686090

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    , @Vishnugupta
    @reiner Tor

    The Buran concept was superior when you take into account the Energia rocket which straight off the bat gave the Soviets a manned moon mission capability.It was also scalable with additional boosters to exceed the Saturn V enabling a direct ascent moon mission.Glaushko proposed setting up a two man moon base with this enhanced variant.

    The Energia was designed to be progressively more reusable starting with the boosters and followed by the main stage as well though a lot of work bordering on a complete redesign would be required.

    Though the facts on the ground are that the Buran only had one flight and the ceramic tiles had unacceptably high thermal damage which pushed back the second flight well into the 1990s which didn't occur for obvious reasons.

    But it could be argued that the spinoffs specially the RD 170/180/191 engines were of greater value than what was gained by the US from the space shuttle program at much lower cost.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    , @songbird
    @reiner Tor

    I guess the Buran would not have had a Challenger incident because Russia didn't do sea recovery, so they couldn't splash down the boosters and attempt recovery, which actually was cost neutral at best.

    For practical purposes, the Shuttle engines were not as reusable as they were supposed to be, since they were lifting the tank. They were put under more stress than they were designed for, and needed to be disassembled and entirely rebuilt each time.

    I don't believe the Buran's engines needed to be fired to achieve orbit. Or if they did, it was light use.

    Though I doubt either system made sense. Lot of danger in side loading anything with thermal tiles, for one. The Dreamchaser toploads under a faring and can land on any commercial airstrip. With miniaturization, it probably doesn't make sense to build a spaceplane as big as the Shuttle.

    , @utu
    @reiner Tor

    How the Soviets stole a space shuttle
    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18686090

    , @utu
    @reiner Tor

    How the Soviets stole a space shuttle
    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18686090

  93. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry


    In all our human and non-human ancestors, there was no “need of a transcendent dimension” to have children. Having children was not a choice, but a result of having sex, which is an instinct hardwired into endocrinologically normal mammals. Nature has made sex enjoyable to man, for the reason of children as a byproduct.
     
    Humans are not (just) animals. The earliest known building is temple (Gobekli tepe). And fertility rites are among the earliest religious practices.

    This modernist (i.e. 20th century and 19th century) perspective is already more or less an admission of post-religion, as the definition of a God for believing people, is that its existence is not dependent on people believing in it, but that it actually exists
     
    Already in the Old Testament, the Jewish prophets clearly link the religious covenant of the Hebrews with YHWH Adonai as the only way for the Jewish people to survive as distinct human group. I am surprised you did not think about it Dmitry.

    For God-fearing people, the point is that God exists regardless of human political and cultural history, and created the world before he created humans. God may be pleased or displeased with men, but he certainly cannot be killed by them.
     
    One religion can replace another and one God can replace ("kill") other gods. We both know that the Abrahamic religions had this tendency to replace native creeds.

    Today, passionate atheists are often mentally closer to God-fearing religious people
     
    Atheism is often a form of religious thought. Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God. In both cases it is a matter of belief that might indeed be quite passionate in certain people.

    The more casual attitude towards God's unproven (in) existence is Agnosticism. But even Agnostic people still believe in "energy", "spirit " and other New Age stuff.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @AltanBakshi, @Mikel

    Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God

    Im not going to start arguing about this, but such agnosticism is not a Buddhist position. We have an excellent case, though I will never share our arguments for it, here.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    For clarification, could you define what you mean by 'God,' Bashibuzuk? Even in abstract terms. If you mean something like national or civilizational spirit, then such god would be possible for us, but you use word 'God,' with a capital first letter. Which implies that you believe that there is some kind of absolute power, or omnipotent deity. Once again Im not going to tell why we refute the existence of such 'God.' Im just interested what you mean by God.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Coconuts

  94. @reiner Tor
    @songbird


    Arguably, the Buran was superior to the Shuttle.
     
    I don’t have a firm opinion on the question, but I know a Hungarian aviation magazine editor who is of the firm opinion that it was inferior. I think the rocket engine wasn’t reusable for example, and he pointed out that the American Shuttle was also theoretically capable of unmanned flight, but it was way less useful that way. The Buran was flying unmanned (it was a useless mission without cosmonauts) because the life sustaining module wasn’t yet ready, so while in theory it was similar in that respect, in practice it was actually inferior in that it wasn’t capable of manned flights.

    This guy is moderately Russophobic, though. (He is still fair and balanced enough that he vehemently attacked a newspaper article claiming that MiG-25 was not a sophisticated airplane “because it was made of stainless steel and not titanium alloy like the SR-71 Blackbird.” He pointed out that the SR-71 had a totally different role and wasn’t produced in very large numbers, unlike the MiG-25, and that if they had only needed a few dozens, then probably the Soviets would also have been able to use titanium alloys, whereas for a thousand planes the Americans also had to resort to using stainless steel at the time.) So overall I put some weight on his opinions despite his moderate Russophobia.

    Replies: @utu, @Vishnugupta, @songbird, @utu, @utu

    How the Soviets stole a space shuttle
    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18686090

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @utu

    Oh of course they stole the plans. Though it must be pointed out that it was still not very easy to build it, and it might actually have been more expensive to build based on the stolen (though modified) plans than to simply design something for the Soviet industrial capabilities. The Americans obviously designed the Shuttle with their own industrial capabilities in mind, so replicating it was not very easy.

  95. @AltanBakshi
    @Bashibuzuk


    Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God
     
    Im not going to start arguing about this, but such agnosticism is not a Buddhist position. We have an excellent case, though I will never share our arguments for it, here.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    For clarification, could you define what you mean by ‘God,’ Bashibuzuk? Even in abstract terms. If you mean something like national or civilizational spirit, then such god would be possible for us, but you use word ‘God,’ with a capital first letter. Which implies that you believe that there is some kind of absolute power, or omnipotent deity. Once again Im not going to tell why we refute the existence of such ‘God.’ Im just interested what you mean by God.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi


    Which implies that you believe that there is some kind of absolute power, or omnipotent deity.
     
    Correction, I meant that you believe that one cant deny the possibility for such power or deity, right?

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    , @Coconuts
    @AltanBakshi

    I think some evolution in religious philosophy had gone on between Bashibuzuk's first example of the relationship between the Old Testament God and his neighbours, and Christianity and Islam (probably later Judaism, I don't know enough about that). The concept of God used by Christians starts to designate something with properties such that there can be only one of them, and it is something that doesn't itself change and doesn't come into existence, so it can't die. Other spiritual beings like devils and angels and deified people can exist but only derivative from this single divine nature.

    Discussion and conflict then starts to revolve around which revelation or source of knowledge concerning this divine nature is the true one, what if anything it has communicated and by whom (Dmitry was talking about this).

    Something related seems to happen with pagan deities in the Greek and Roman world, where various gods are understood to have a set of essential properties and a set of accidental ones, so you can have many gods with varying accidental properties like names and appearances, certain stories and legends, but which all share an essence and so are really the same god.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Bashibuzuk

  96. @utu
    @reiner Tor

    How the Soviets stole a space shuttle
    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18686090

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Oh of course they stole the plans. Though it must be pointed out that it was still not very easy to build it, and it might actually have been more expensive to build based on the stolen (though modified) plans than to simply design something for the Soviet industrial capabilities. The Americans obviously designed the Shuttle with their own industrial capabilities in mind, so replicating it was not very easy.

  97. @silviosilver
    @AltanBakshi

    No, I don't think cosmism has any hope of serving as a social glue or instilling in people a sense of duty to form families. This is certainly one disadvantage it has compared to traditional religion. I think nationalism could serve that function handily enough however. Nationalism has the added the advantage that it's easier (but not necessarily easy) to "turn down the dial" as needed compared to traditional religious belief. I mean, take the Amish or Haredis. Obviously their breeding practices cannot continue indefinitely without the world running hard up against its carrying capacity. (Short of that, who in his right mind would want to see 500 million haredis?) But what chance does anyone have trying to convince them to have fewer children? Only a totalitarian take-no-prisoners approach could alter the behavior of these scum people.


    to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years,
     
    I don't see the need to rush it. For me the religious promise of cosmism doesn't lie in the physical achievements of, say, reaching a certain destination in space or terraforming a planet, but in the 'hope' that some higher understanding of our purpose will become apparent to us through attempting to accomplish those physical goals.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    Only a totalitarian take-no-prisoners approach could alter the behavior of these scum people.

    Or order of their rebbes? Why Amishes are scum in your opinion? Young Amishes are given a choice if they want to live in normal society or stay with the Amishes, many choose to leave the Amish community, and they can still continue visiting their relatives in the Amish community. Thats a best proof that they are not a cult.

    but in the ‘hope’ that some higher understanding of our purpose will become apparent to us through attempting to accomplish those physical goals.

    I understand, still such ‘hope’ is too abstract ,too impersonal for masses to believe and pursue.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @AltanBakshi


    many choose to leave the Amish community, and they can still continue visiting their relatives in the Amish community
     
    My understanding was that they are given a “funeral” and all contact is broken off with them. Is it not so?

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi

    , @silviosilver
    @AltanBakshi


    Why Amishes are scum in your opinion?
     
    I was referring to Haredis with that comment. (What else am I supposed to think of that sick, supremacist cult?) Amish aren't nearly as bad, but I still wouldn't want to be surrounded by them.

    It remains to be seen how long they can maintain their ferocious fertility rates. Some people blithely assume that at some point their fertility rates must reduce, or that the growth of their populations will be stymied by apostasy, but I'm not so sure that either of those "must" occur.
  98. Woh.

    • Thanks: Blinky Bill
  99. @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    For clarification, could you define what you mean by 'God,' Bashibuzuk? Even in abstract terms. If you mean something like national or civilizational spirit, then such god would be possible for us, but you use word 'God,' with a capital first letter. Which implies that you believe that there is some kind of absolute power, or omnipotent deity. Once again Im not going to tell why we refute the existence of such 'God.' Im just interested what you mean by God.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Coconuts

    Which implies that you believe that there is some kind of absolute power, or omnipotent deity.

    Correction, I meant that you believe that one cant deny the possibility for such power or deity, right?

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @AltanBakshi

    I have briefly mentioned what I think gods are in my reply to Dmitry. Memetic information packages, attractors of human thought formed in a cultural semantic field of a given population. I should have added that this might also be connected with Jungian archetypes. That's how I see human gods, but there might also well be god (s) that are completely beyond human ability to grasp or understand. And there might also be the Absolute that we cannot even describe or meaningfully discuss in any way. This Absolute, transcendent and completely supramundane being would not be possibly proven or disproven because it would be entirely beyond our facility to analyze and describe phenomena. We wouldn't have the right words to talk about this Absolute. Even calling him Absolute would be a limitation to his transcendent character, for true Absolute must also be irreversibly immanent.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  100. @reiner Tor
    @songbird


    Arguably, the Buran was superior to the Shuttle.
     
    I don’t have a firm opinion on the question, but I know a Hungarian aviation magazine editor who is of the firm opinion that it was inferior. I think the rocket engine wasn’t reusable for example, and he pointed out that the American Shuttle was also theoretically capable of unmanned flight, but it was way less useful that way. The Buran was flying unmanned (it was a useless mission without cosmonauts) because the life sustaining module wasn’t yet ready, so while in theory it was similar in that respect, in practice it was actually inferior in that it wasn’t capable of manned flights.

    This guy is moderately Russophobic, though. (He is still fair and balanced enough that he vehemently attacked a newspaper article claiming that MiG-25 was not a sophisticated airplane “because it was made of stainless steel and not titanium alloy like the SR-71 Blackbird.” He pointed out that the SR-71 had a totally different role and wasn’t produced in very large numbers, unlike the MiG-25, and that if they had only needed a few dozens, then probably the Soviets would also have been able to use titanium alloys, whereas for a thousand planes the Americans also had to resort to using stainless steel at the time.) So overall I put some weight on his opinions despite his moderate Russophobia.

    Replies: @utu, @Vishnugupta, @songbird, @utu, @utu

    The Buran concept was superior when you take into account the Energia rocket which straight off the bat gave the Soviets a manned moon mission capability.It was also scalable with additional boosters to exceed the Saturn V enabling a direct ascent moon mission.Glaushko proposed setting up a two man moon base with this enhanced variant.

    The Energia was designed to be progressively more reusable starting with the boosters and followed by the main stage as well though a lot of work bordering on a complete redesign would be required.

    Though the facts on the ground are that the Buran only had one flight and the ceramic tiles had unacceptably high thermal damage which pushed back the second flight well into the 1990s which didn’t occur for obvious reasons.

    But it could be argued that the spinoffs specially the RD 170/180/191 engines were of greater value than what was gained by the US from the space shuttle program at much lower cost.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Vishnugupta


    at much lower cost.
     
    Though the basic design was stolen, and the cost was still nearly crippling.

    Replies: @Vishnugupta

  101. @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    For clarification, could you define what you mean by 'God,' Bashibuzuk? Even in abstract terms. If you mean something like national or civilizational spirit, then such god would be possible for us, but you use word 'God,' with a capital first letter. Which implies that you believe that there is some kind of absolute power, or omnipotent deity. Once again Im not going to tell why we refute the existence of such 'God.' Im just interested what you mean by God.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Coconuts

    I think some evolution in religious philosophy had gone on between Bashibuzuk’s first example of the relationship between the Old Testament God and his neighbours, and Christianity and Islam (probably later Judaism, I don’t know enough about that). The concept of God used by Christians starts to designate something with properties such that there can be only one of them, and it is something that doesn’t itself change and doesn’t come into existence, so it can’t die. Other spiritual beings like devils and angels and deified people can exist but only derivative from this single divine nature.

    Discussion and conflict then starts to revolve around which revelation or source of knowledge concerning this divine nature is the true one, what if anything it has communicated and by whom (Dmitry was talking about this).

    Something related seems to happen with pagan deities in the Greek and Roman world, where various gods are understood to have a set of essential properties and a set of accidental ones, so you can have many gods with varying accidental properties like names and appearances, certain stories and legends, but which all share an essence and so are really the same god.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Coconuts


    Atheism is often a form of religious thought. Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God. In both cases it is a matter of belief that might indeed be quite passionate in certain people.
     
    I was interested in this comment made by Bashibuzuk, and its teleological implications.

    Something related seems to happen with pagan deities in the Greek and Roman world, where various gods are understood to have a set of essential properties and a set of accidental ones, so you can have many gods with varying accidental properties like names and appearances, certain stories and legends, but which all share an essence and so are really the same god.
     
    This was later development started by Platon(and Socrates?) and his followers(Platonists). Similar process (sadly) happened with traditional Iranic and Indic Polytheism. Thats why Apostolic Christianity gives a great value for Platon and Aristoteles, they were forerunners who prepared the ground for the One true God.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    , @Bashibuzuk
    @Coconuts

    You are correct, the change in Judaic thought happened after Babylonia captivity and under the influence of the Mazda Yasna. It is not a coincidence that the Bible has been most probably put down in writing after that.

    Zoroaster was the first to proclaim that Yezdan (Ahura Mazda) was the only true creator God, the only true source of everything existing and that all the other gods (Devas) were demons under the power of Ahriman (Angra Manyu). Before Zoroaster, everyone including Semites, believed in the plurality of divine beings, which of course fits well with the Jungian psychology aspect of mythological elaboration.

    The angels are also a Zoroastrian innovation as is the concept of the messiah / redeemer and the eschalotological fight between good and evil at the end of times. Zoroastrian thought was the matrix that transformed the tribal Semitic creed of the Hebrews into the virulent Abrahamic religious meme that it has become in the late antiquity. A virulent spiritual program that ended up completely destroying native European religious systems that were thousand years old at the time of contact between European Paganism and Abrahamic Monotheism.

    Zoroaster paid this transgression against the plurality and diversity of the divine with his life. He was sacrificed to the Devas when he was captured by the Turanian nomads. This is also what my Slavic ancestors did to the early apostles of Christ.

    Replies: @Coconuts

  102. @The Spirit of Enoch Powell
    Is 9mm really such a weak calibre?

    3 dead in murder-suicide over snow removal dispute, prosecutors say

    https://thumbsnap.com/i/Fz3FgmrR.mp4

    One of the strangest videos I have seen in a while. People are so angry these days...

    Replies: @songbird, @Blinky Bill, @Sick of Orcs, @prime noticer

    Even .22LR can be sufficient in to save a life.

    It’s no fun being shot with anything.

  103. @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi


    Which implies that you believe that there is some kind of absolute power, or omnipotent deity.
     
    Correction, I meant that you believe that one cant deny the possibility for such power or deity, right?

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    I have briefly mentioned what I think gods are in my reply to Dmitry. Memetic information packages, attractors of human thought formed in a cultural semantic field of a given population. I should have added that this might also be connected with Jungian archetypes. That’s how I see human gods, but there might also well be god (s) that are completely beyond human ability to grasp or understand. And there might also be the Absolute that we cannot even describe or meaningfully discuss in any way. This Absolute, transcendent and completely supramundane being would not be possibly proven or disproven because it would be entirely beyond our facility to analyze and describe phenomena. We wouldn’t have the right words to talk about this Absolute. Even calling him Absolute would be a limitation to his transcendent character, for true Absolute must also be irreversibly immanent.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Bashibuzuk

    Thanks for clarification. I mostly disagree, sounds bit like Advainta Vedanta, but I value your opinion.

  104. @AltanBakshi
    @silviosilver


    Only a totalitarian take-no-prisoners approach could alter the behavior of these scum people.
     
    Or order of their rebbes? Why Amishes are scum in your opinion? Young Amishes are given a choice if they want to live in normal society or stay with the Amishes, many choose to leave the Amish community, and they can still continue visiting their relatives in the Amish community. Thats a best proof that they are not a cult.

    but in the ‘hope’ that some higher understanding of our purpose will become apparent to us through attempting to accomplish those physical goals.
     
    I understand, still such 'hope' is too abstract ,too impersonal for masses to believe and pursue.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @silviosilver

    many choose to leave the Amish community, and they can still continue visiting their relatives in the Amish community

    My understanding was that they are given a “funeral” and all contact is broken off with them. Is it not so?

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @reiner Tor

    "People only become full members of the Amish church when they are baptized as adults. Those who leave before baptism do not face the official excommunication and shunning that comes with leaving after baptism."

    https://amishamerica.com/why-do-amish-people-leave-their-communities/

    , @AltanBakshi
    @reiner Tor

    "People only become full members of the Amish church when they are baptized as adults. Those who leave before baptism do not face the official excommunication and shunning that comes with leaving after baptism."

    https://amishamerica.com/why-do-amish-people-leave-their-communities/

  105. @Vishnugupta
    @reiner Tor

    The Buran concept was superior when you take into account the Energia rocket which straight off the bat gave the Soviets a manned moon mission capability.It was also scalable with additional boosters to exceed the Saturn V enabling a direct ascent moon mission.Glaushko proposed setting up a two man moon base with this enhanced variant.

    The Energia was designed to be progressively more reusable starting with the boosters and followed by the main stage as well though a lot of work bordering on a complete redesign would be required.

    Though the facts on the ground are that the Buran only had one flight and the ceramic tiles had unacceptably high thermal damage which pushed back the second flight well into the 1990s which didn't occur for obvious reasons.

    But it could be argued that the spinoffs specially the RD 170/180/191 engines were of greater value than what was gained by the US from the space shuttle program at much lower cost.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    at much lower cost.

    Though the basic design was stolen, and the cost was still nearly crippling.

    • Replies: @Vishnugupta
    @reiner Tor

    I wouldn't say stolen..this is a charge levied on practically all USSR projects that look similar to their western counterparts like say the Tu 144.Its more a case of the laws of physics being the same for everyone and people independently arriving at similar solutions to identical problems given the state of technology at the time like how a lot of fourth generation fighters adopted the euro canard configuration.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  106. @Coconuts
    @AltanBakshi

    I think some evolution in religious philosophy had gone on between Bashibuzuk's first example of the relationship between the Old Testament God and his neighbours, and Christianity and Islam (probably later Judaism, I don't know enough about that). The concept of God used by Christians starts to designate something with properties such that there can be only one of them, and it is something that doesn't itself change and doesn't come into existence, so it can't die. Other spiritual beings like devils and angels and deified people can exist but only derivative from this single divine nature.

    Discussion and conflict then starts to revolve around which revelation or source of knowledge concerning this divine nature is the true one, what if anything it has communicated and by whom (Dmitry was talking about this).

    Something related seems to happen with pagan deities in the Greek and Roman world, where various gods are understood to have a set of essential properties and a set of accidental ones, so you can have many gods with varying accidental properties like names and appearances, certain stories and legends, but which all share an essence and so are really the same god.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Bashibuzuk

    Atheism is often a form of religious thought. Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God. In both cases it is a matter of belief that might indeed be quite passionate in certain people.

    I was interested in this comment made by Bashibuzuk, and its teleological implications.

    Something related seems to happen with pagan deities in the Greek and Roman world, where various gods are understood to have a set of essential properties and a set of accidental ones, so you can have many gods with varying accidental properties like names and appearances, certain stories and legends, but which all share an essence and so are really the same god.

    This was later development started by Platon(and Socrates?) and his followers(Platonists). Similar process (sadly) happened with traditional Iranic and Indic Polytheism. Thats why Apostolic Christianity gives a great value for Platon and Aristoteles, they were forerunners who prepared the ground for the One true God.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @AltanBakshi


    This was later development started by Platon(and Socrates?) and his followers(Platonists).
     
    Wrong. European Paganism, just like Hinduism had this universalist approach since probably the times of the Unetice Culture. The same thing happened in pre-Columbian Meso-America. It happened in India with a religion related to the European Paganism.

    And frankly, how could it be otherwise? Human thought is wired in a certain manner, our subconscious is revolving around some archetypal attractors that are largely similar among peoples.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  107. @reiner Tor
    @Vishnugupta


    at much lower cost.
     
    Though the basic design was stolen, and the cost was still nearly crippling.

    Replies: @Vishnugupta

    I wouldn’t say stolen..this is a charge levied on practically all USSR projects that look similar to their western counterparts like say the Tu 144.Its more a case of the laws of physics being the same for everyone and people independently arriving at similar solutions to identical problems given the state of technology at the time like how a lot of fourth generation fighters adopted the euro canard configuration.

    • Agree: Blinky Bill, mal
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Vishnugupta

    Just look it up, they literally downloaded the design. And there would have been another way, iirc, they just decided to do a near carbon copy of the American one. They certainly based their design on the American one.

    Replies: @Simpleguest

  108. @Coconuts
    @AltanBakshi

    I think some evolution in religious philosophy had gone on between Bashibuzuk's first example of the relationship between the Old Testament God and his neighbours, and Christianity and Islam (probably later Judaism, I don't know enough about that). The concept of God used by Christians starts to designate something with properties such that there can be only one of them, and it is something that doesn't itself change and doesn't come into existence, so it can't die. Other spiritual beings like devils and angels and deified people can exist but only derivative from this single divine nature.

    Discussion and conflict then starts to revolve around which revelation or source of knowledge concerning this divine nature is the true one, what if anything it has communicated and by whom (Dmitry was talking about this).

    Something related seems to happen with pagan deities in the Greek and Roman world, where various gods are understood to have a set of essential properties and a set of accidental ones, so you can have many gods with varying accidental properties like names and appearances, certain stories and legends, but which all share an essence and so are really the same god.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Bashibuzuk

    You are correct, the change in Judaic thought happened after Babylonia captivity and under the influence of the Mazda Yasna. It is not a coincidence that the Bible has been most probably put down in writing after that.

    Zoroaster was the first to proclaim that Yezdan (Ahura Mazda) was the only true creator God, the only true source of everything existing and that all the other gods (Devas) were demons under the power of Ahriman (Angra Manyu). Before Zoroaster, everyone including Semites, believed in the plurality of divine beings, which of course fits well with the Jungian psychology aspect of mythological elaboration.

    The angels are also a Zoroastrian innovation as is the concept of the messiah / redeemer and the eschalotological fight between good and evil at the end of times. Zoroastrian thought was the matrix that transformed the tribal Semitic creed of the Hebrews into the virulent Abrahamic religious meme that it has become in the late antiquity. A virulent spiritual program that ended up completely destroying native European religious systems that were thousand years old at the time of contact between European Paganism and Abrahamic Monotheism.

    Zoroaster paid this transgression against the plurality and diversity of the divine with his life. He was sacrificed to the Devas when he was captured by the Turanian nomads. This is also what my Slavic ancestors did to the early apostles of Christ.

    • Replies: @Coconuts
    @Bashibuzuk


    The angels are also a Zoroastrian innovation as is the concept of the messiah / redeemer and the eschalotological fight between good and evil at the end of times. Zoroastrian thought was the matrix that transformed the tribal Semitic creed of the Hebrews into the virulent Abrahamic religious meme that it has become in the late antiquity. A virulent spiritual program that ended up completely destroying native European religious systems that were thousand years old at the time of contact between European Paganism and Abrahamic Monotheism.
     
    I'd read that Persian religious thought had influenced the Jewish tradition, and given the geographical proximity and power of the Persians it isn't surprising. Greek philosophy seems to have also played some role in the development of Christianity, perhaps influencing the environment in which it originally emerged, certainly the way in which it was later interpreted.

    Finally I was thinking about the Roman Empire itself. Not too far from where I live there are a lot of remains of Roman frontier forts and military settlements and you can see in the votive altars and statues that the various people present were worshiping the gods of different peoples simultaneously, and that the Roman tendency to connect different local gods to Roman deities was strong. There were also temples to 'Eastern' mystery religions that were popular in the military in the last period of the Western Empire. Given the simultaneous prominence of the military's imperial cult in these areas, I wondered if Christianity had taken hold partly by being a more economic form of religiosity, melding all of these different cultic activities and tendencies into a single religion and set of ceremonies. This could also reflect the need for something that emphasised unity within the Empire as it was showing increasing tendencies to fragment.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  109. @reiner Tor
    @AltanBakshi


    many choose to leave the Amish community, and they can still continue visiting their relatives in the Amish community
     
    My understanding was that they are given a “funeral” and all contact is broken off with them. Is it not so?

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi

    “People only become full members of the Amish church when they are baptized as adults. Those who leave before baptism do not face the official excommunication and shunning that comes with leaving after baptism.”

    https://amishamerica.com/why-do-amish-people-leave-their-communities/

  110. @reiner Tor
    @AltanBakshi


    many choose to leave the Amish community, and they can still continue visiting their relatives in the Amish community
     
    My understanding was that they are given a “funeral” and all contact is broken off with them. Is it not so?

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AltanBakshi

    “People only become full members of the Amish church when they are baptized as adults. Those who leave before baptism do not face the official excommunication and shunning that comes with leaving after baptism.”

    https://amishamerica.com/why-do-amish-people-leave-their-communities/

  111. @AltanBakshi
    @Coconuts


    Atheism is often a form of religious thought. Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God. In both cases it is a matter of belief that might indeed be quite passionate in certain people.
     
    I was interested in this comment made by Bashibuzuk, and its teleological implications.

    Something related seems to happen with pagan deities in the Greek and Roman world, where various gods are understood to have a set of essential properties and a set of accidental ones, so you can have many gods with varying accidental properties like names and appearances, certain stories and legends, but which all share an essence and so are really the same god.
     
    This was later development started by Platon(and Socrates?) and his followers(Platonists). Similar process (sadly) happened with traditional Iranic and Indic Polytheism. Thats why Apostolic Christianity gives a great value for Platon and Aristoteles, they were forerunners who prepared the ground for the One true God.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    This was later development started by Platon(and Socrates?) and his followers(Platonists).

    Wrong. European Paganism, just like Hinduism had this universalist approach since probably the times of the Unetice Culture. The same thing happened in pre-Columbian Meso-America. It happened in India with a religion related to the European Paganism.

    And frankly, how could it be otherwise? Human thought is wired in a certain manner, our subconscious is revolving around some archetypal attractors that are largely similar among peoples.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Bashibuzuk

    To claim that people were panentheists or philosophical monists in Avestan Iran, Vedic India and Archaic Greece is just silly, just what Vedantin would say, and how they always reinterpret the past.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  112. @Bashibuzuk
    @AltanBakshi

    I have briefly mentioned what I think gods are in my reply to Dmitry. Memetic information packages, attractors of human thought formed in a cultural semantic field of a given population. I should have added that this might also be connected with Jungian archetypes. That's how I see human gods, but there might also well be god (s) that are completely beyond human ability to grasp or understand. And there might also be the Absolute that we cannot even describe or meaningfully discuss in any way. This Absolute, transcendent and completely supramundane being would not be possibly proven or disproven because it would be entirely beyond our facility to analyze and describe phenomena. We wouldn't have the right words to talk about this Absolute. Even calling him Absolute would be a limitation to his transcendent character, for true Absolute must also be irreversibly immanent.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    Thanks for clarification. I mostly disagree, sounds bit like Advainta Vedanta, but I value your opinion.

  113. @Bashibuzuk
    @AltanBakshi


    This was later development started by Platon(and Socrates?) and his followers(Platonists).
     
    Wrong. European Paganism, just like Hinduism had this universalist approach since probably the times of the Unetice Culture. The same thing happened in pre-Columbian Meso-America. It happened in India with a religion related to the European Paganism.

    And frankly, how could it be otherwise? Human thought is wired in a certain manner, our subconscious is revolving around some archetypal attractors that are largely similar among peoples.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    To claim that people were panentheists or philosophical monists in Avestan Iran, Vedic India and Archaic Greece is just silly, just what Vedantin would say, and how they always reinterpret the past.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @AltanBakshi

    I have never claimed that they were monists anywhere. I didn't write anything about monism. And this has nothing at all to do with Advaita.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  114. @Blinky Bill
    @Shortsword

    Why can't we all just get along?


    https://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam/usa-pompeo-10312020100244.html/pompeo-asia.jpg/@@images/2f6ee8c1-ed3f-4d80-9813-565132a1f752.jpeg

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcROo_rO6qf0RSeegBCCrT-lT1A8LuZxK0lkyQ&usqp.jpg

    Replies: @Hyperborean, @AnonFromTN

    Warning: NSFW

    [MORE]

    She’s a lonely, overworked waitress in a downbeat Chicago pizza joint, and he’s the president of the People’s Republic of China on a tour of the United States. Their stressful, boring lives are about to heat up like a pizza oven after a chance encounter outside Manny’s Pizza Barn. “Call me Xi Dada,” he says. From there, Delanie takes Xi Jinping by the hand and leads him on a whirlwind tour of of Chicago as they struggle to keep their hands off each other.

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @Hyperborean


    https://i.redd.it/60ph57vswv961.jpg

  115. The Rise and Fall of Religion.

    Every religion begins as a great cry of liberation from the conventions of the day. Every religion dies by being assimilated by the Establishment.

    The great benefit of religion to mental health is that it shows you this world and this existence is not of ultimate significance. The great effort of every Establishment is to deny this – is to keep people attached to earthly concerns – status, money, social convention. Religion reminds one that you are not your social role. The Establishment wants to convince you you are nothing but your social role – your entire value lies in your “use” to society (by how much you benefit the elite).

    So there is a constant tension between religion and the Establishment, such that the Establishment is constantly trying to coopt, assimilate, and redefine religion and turn it to Establishment ends (which focus on earthly life). Religion is a sort of “avenue of escape” that the Establishment is constantly trying to seal shut.

    Sadly, Christianity died in the West by being completely assimilated to Establishment concerns. In the first few centuries AD, Christianity was a refuge from earthly concerns, from money, wealth, status, honor, even from sex and family. By the 19th century, to be a good Christian meant being a good soldier, a prosperous merchant, a man of high status, a family man – in short, a good man of the Establishment, tied to earthly concerns, advancing the earthly concerns of his society, identified entirely with his social role.

    The avenue of escape had been finally, successfuly sealed, completely. (And the West waits with bated breath for the next Way of Liberation that will arise – probably many small ones)

    Under the more tag is my illustration of this principle in regard to each individual religion.

    [MORE]

    Buddhism – forget about all those stuffy rules, rituals, and practices of the Hindus! Forget about caste! Forget about asceticism! Free yourself even from all positive definition of the Absolute – it cannot even be conceptualized as Atman. Abide in Emptiness!

    Buddhism is basically Hinduism for export- without the rituals and conventions. Hinduism responded to this challenge by reformulating itself along Buddhist lines – Vedanta, considered the core of Hinduism today, is essentially Buddhist in conception just adapted to Hindu thought patterns.

    That was how Hinduism survived – freedom-within-rules (Judaism did a similar trick with Hasidism).

    Christianity- away with all those stuffy rules, rituals, and conventions of Judaism! All those pointless sacrifices! Don’t even be much concerned about survival or clothing or food, dont plan for themorrow even! All of that ties you to existence- God will take care of you! Away with the Law!

    Christianity is basically Prophetic Judaism without the Law.

    Although Protestatism later degenerated, originally it was surely a cry of liberation from the Establishment takeover of Catholicism (the Medici Popes were no longer even reaidually Christian). Luther in fact was heavily influenced by the Theologica Germanica, that great book of mysticism that is almost Buddhist – and mystics are the perennial dissidents against the Establishment.

    Original Judaism – can it be seen as a massive simplification of Egyptian religion and rejection of its excessive concern with one’s “career” after death – a form of concern for earthly existence? Perhaps ancient Paganism in general? It is well known that ancient Egypt was an extremely religious society with an obsessive concern with the afterlife (which is basically an extension of concern for this life). Babylonia society was very religious.

    One imagines these ancient religions had grown very cumbersome and overly laden with rules, rituals, and developed an excessive focus on life on this earth. Egyptian mummies are buried with money, gold, and often a retinue of servants. Such a conception of the afterlife is materialistic. And ancient Pagan religion was excessively “transactional” – I worship my God he will defend me.

    While Judaism obviously retained this prudential aspect, it began to stress the note of worshiping God for its own sake without expectation of reward. And while Judaism seems to us encumbered woth ritual and Law, one imagines compared to Egypt and Banylon, it was a cry of liberation and a refocus of attention away from materialism.

    In the 17th century, Judaism experienced another great crisis – the focus on the Law had again become too cumbersome and materialistic. The rise of Hasidism, with its mysticism, its emphasis on emotion and nature (the Bal Shem Tov was a great nature mystic who refused a better paid position to remain among the green hills he loved to wander). In Hasidic houses today, one sees plaques on the walls reminding one that “it is a great act of virtue to be constantly joyfull”.

    Like Hinduism, Judaism only survived by freedom-within-rules.

    Taoism – the world’s foremost dissident movement, arising necessarily in the world’s foremost culture of addiction to rules and conformity. Taoism could arise in mother culture but Confuciam China. And indeed Confucius is constantly mocked and made the butt of jokes in Chuang Tzu, one of the fiunders of Taoism.

    Mahayana Buddhism – the revolt against overly stuffy and conventional Theravada Buddhism.

    Chan Buddhism – the great revolt against stuffy Establishment Mahayana Buddhism, which was beginning to be overly conventional and assimilated to religion.

    • Thanks: Mr. Hack, Not Raul
  116. Although Protestatism later degenerated, originally it was surely a cry of liberation from the Establishment takeover of Catholicism. Luther in fact was heavily influenced by the Theologica Germanica, that great book of mysticism that is almost Buddhist – and mystics are the perennial dissidents against the Establishment.

    Are you sure?

    Interesting that for you later Lutherans are degenerated in comparison with the original message.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Luther was a genius, but also a very unstable and unbalanced man, full of passion and pride.

    While he was influenced by mysticism, and had enough perception to see that the Catholic Chutch of his day had become completely assimilated to the Establishment and no longer functioned as a genuine Way of Liberation, he was nowhere near "seeing through" society itself or Establishment values themselves. He himself wanted to become the Establishment.

    Perhaps he was halfway between a dissident and counter-culture as I define it in my other comment.

    Engaging with the mystics is a step on the path to liberation, but only a step.

    Like all Christians, it was very important for him to convert Jews or if, failing that, humiliate them - Christianity was a "replacement theology" religion, and so its self-esteem was - tragically- tied to Jewish submission or humiliation (like Islam, also tragically).

    It is only in modern times that Christians mostly have overcome this unfortunate psychological outlook. (And it appears that some Muslims are taking that step today)

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  117. @AltanBakshi
    @Bashibuzuk

    To claim that people were panentheists or philosophical monists in Avestan Iran, Vedic India and Archaic Greece is just silly, just what Vedantin would say, and how they always reinterpret the past.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    I have never claimed that they were monists anywhere. I didn’t write anything about monism. And this has nothing at all to do with Advaita.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Bashibuzuk

    Neo-Platonists believed that there is underlying reality or absolute and all gods are just different manifestations of that absolute, you claimed that such beliefs predated Platonists.

    Not all ancient Hindu schools believed that there is one absolute, but such belief was propagated by Vedantins, though their line of thought had its precedents in Upanishads, but not in Holy Vedas.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  118. I have been thinking lately about the difference between dissidents and counter-culture.

    A dissident is someone who accepts the basic world view of the Establishment and the values of the mainstream – and all Establishments and mainstream are the same since man organized himself in states.

    A dissident merely wants to tweak, or sometimes heavily modify, the way mainstream values are implemented in his society, often by returning to previous forms, but not always.

    For instance, the Establishment in America accepts racial hierarchies. The dissidents on Unz also accept racial hierarchies. The difference is only in how the racial hierarchy should be structured, and which race should occupy which position.

    Unz is a dissident website- it fully accepts the implicit assumptions of the Establishment and the mainstream, but wants the way these values are implemented to be heavily modified.

    A dissident wants to become the Establishment – but he does not question the values underlying the Establishment.

    A dissident ultimately is a sub-genre of the Establishment – the “loyal opposition”, in a way.

    A counter-culture rejects the values of the Establishment and the mainstream in toto – it rejects the very mental structure, the mental construct, through which the Establishment sees the world.

    I have often made the – serious – mistake of thinking I am in a counter-cultural environment when I am only in a dissident environment, where my challenges of Establishment values were met with unexpected hostility.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB


    I have often made the – serious – mistake of thinking I am in a counter-cultural environment when I am only in a dissident environment, where my challenges of Establishment values were met with unexpected hostility.
     
    Yep, you should contemplate the seriousness of your mistake, on your way to labour camp for counter cultural thinkers.
    How you could not understand the repercussions of you sharing your revolutionary ideas with mere dissidents?

    Replies: @AaronB

    , @Daniel Chieh
    @AaronB


    A counter-culture rejects the values of the Establishment and the mainstream in toto – it rejects the very mental structure, the mental construct, through which the Establishment sees the world.
     
    You are still allowing yourself to be confined by the use of punctuation and words. You need to become natural and grunt effusively(interpretive farting is also a good idea) - but only after you give your worldly good to Karlin.
  119. @reiner Tor
    @Shortsword

    I just realized that the first MC-21 with the PD-14 engine has already had its maiden flight in December. So it’s actually in a more advanced stage than I believed.

    I had thought that that flight was actually with the American engines.

    Replies: @Shortsword, @Mitleser

    • Thanks: Blinky Bill, reiner Tor, mal
  120. @Hyperborean
    @Blinky Bill

    Warning: NSFW



    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51sR3dkZ0VL.jpg


    She's a lonely, overworked waitress in a downbeat Chicago pizza joint, and he's the president of the People's Republic of China on a tour of the United States. Their stressful, boring lives are about to heat up like a pizza oven after a chance encounter outside Manny's Pizza Barn. "Call me Xi Dada," he says. From there, Delanie takes Xi Jinping by the hand and leads him on a whirlwind tour of of Chicago as they struggle to keep their hands off each other.
     
    https://www.amazon.com/Xis-One-Sandra-Coupland-ebook/dp/B01N1XZ33L

    Replies: @Blinky Bill

    [MORE]

  121. @AltanBakshi

    Although Protestatism later degenerated, originally it was surely a cry of liberation from the Establishment takeover of Catholicism. Luther in fact was heavily influenced by the Theologica Germanica, that great book of mysticism that is almost Buddhist – and mystics are the perennial dissidents against the Establishment.
     
    Are you sure?

    https://chiniquy.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/on-the-jews-and-their-lies-cover.jpg?w=490

    Interesting that for you later Lutherans are degenerated in comparison with the original message.

    Replies: @AaronB

    Luther was a genius, but also a very unstable and unbalanced man, full of passion and pride.

    While he was influenced by mysticism, and had enough perception to see that the Catholic Chutch of his day had become completely assimilated to the Establishment and no longer functioned as a genuine Way of Liberation, he was nowhere near “seeing through” society itself or Establishment values themselves. He himself wanted to become the Establishment.

    Perhaps he was halfway between a dissident and counter-culture as I define it in my other comment.

    Engaging with the mystics is a step on the path to liberation, but only a step.

    Like all Christians, it was very important for him to convert Jews or if, failing that, humiliate them – Christianity was a “replacement theology” religion, and so its self-esteem was – tragically- tied to Jewish submission or humiliation (like Islam, also tragically).

    It is only in modern times that Christians mostly have overcome this unfortunate psychological outlook. (And it appears that some Muslims are taking that step today)

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    But to him, it was not enough just humiliate or begrudgingly tolerate Jews like the Catholic church had done before, but to destroy Jews completely as a community. To burn their synagogues and homes, to put them into forced labour or slaughter them. So to you such man is a genius?

    Replies: @AaronB

  122. @Bashibuzuk
    @AltanBakshi

    I have never claimed that they were monists anywhere. I didn't write anything about monism. And this has nothing at all to do with Advaita.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    Neo-Platonists believed that there is underlying reality or absolute and all gods are just different manifestations of that absolute, you claimed that such beliefs predated Platonists.

    Not all ancient Hindu schools believed that there is one absolute, but such belief was propagated by Vedantins, though their line of thought had its precedents in Upanishads, but not in Holy Vedas.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @AltanBakshi

    Read my comments again. It has nothing to do with Vedanta or Neoplatonicism (although there is nothing wrong with any of them) and everything to do with Jungian archetypal representations in a cultural semiotic field. Also it was more about the memetic power of information systems than about any given religious system.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  123. @Malenfant
    @ImmortalRationalist


    > China will experience massive aging in the next generation similar to that of Japan, which will cripple Chinese prospects for world domination.

     

    No.

    Check out China's population pyramid: https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2020/

    Then compare it to America's, and Japan's. China is not at a structural disadvantage per se -- and this goes double when you consider the fact that China's population is about 4x larger than the USA's. They have many, many more young people than America does, and this isn't going to change any time soon.

    They're also not quite so burdened with structural catastrophes like American pension systems, out of control medical and legal/regulatory costs, etc. There are still strong family bonds. Old people are not a lead anchor in such a society.


    > He also argues that the Chinese are lying about their fertility rate, and the actual Chinese fertility rate is closer to 1.0.
     
    Even if that's true -- and it probably isn't -- the white American TFR isn't terribly far from 1.0. It's probably around 1.5 right now. And the USA has a much smaller population reservoir.

    > He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.

     

    This is evidence of ignorance and bias. The West has been an "atheistic society" de jure since roughly the late 18th century. This has become culturally apparent since roughly the middle 19th.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @AltanBakshi, @Not Only Wrathful

    Even if that’s true — and it probably isn’t — the white American TFR isn’t terribly far from 1.0. It’s probably around 1.5 right now

    The difference between 1 and 1.5 is big. The latter is literally 50% more children.

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @Not Only Wrathful

    Live births over the last 4 years for China.


    2016, 17,860,000
    2017, 17,230,000
    2018, 15,230,000
    2019, 14,650,000

     
    My estimate for the year 2020, 12,920,000

    The pundits always predict a decline in total births, but they always over do it.


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/China_single_age_population_pyramid_2020.png/797px-China_single_age_population_pyramid_2020.png

    Replies: @Malenfant

  124. @AltanBakshi
    @Bashibuzuk

    Neo-Platonists believed that there is underlying reality or absolute and all gods are just different manifestations of that absolute, you claimed that such beliefs predated Platonists.

    Not all ancient Hindu schools believed that there is one absolute, but such belief was propagated by Vedantins, though their line of thought had its precedents in Upanishads, but not in Holy Vedas.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    Read my comments again. It has nothing to do with Vedanta or Neoplatonicism (although there is nothing wrong with any of them) and everything to do with Jungian archetypal representations in a cultural semiotic field. Also it was more about the memetic power of information systems than about any given religious system.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Bashibuzuk

    My heresy radar is blimbing...

    Okay, okay you get pass, sorry if I misunderstood you...

    (Still nothing wrong with Vedanta?)

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  125. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Luther was a genius, but also a very unstable and unbalanced man, full of passion and pride.

    While he was influenced by mysticism, and had enough perception to see that the Catholic Chutch of his day had become completely assimilated to the Establishment and no longer functioned as a genuine Way of Liberation, he was nowhere near "seeing through" society itself or Establishment values themselves. He himself wanted to become the Establishment.

    Perhaps he was halfway between a dissident and counter-culture as I define it in my other comment.

    Engaging with the mystics is a step on the path to liberation, but only a step.

    Like all Christians, it was very important for him to convert Jews or if, failing that, humiliate them - Christianity was a "replacement theology" religion, and so its self-esteem was - tragically- tied to Jewish submission or humiliation (like Islam, also tragically).

    It is only in modern times that Christians mostly have overcome this unfortunate psychological outlook. (And it appears that some Muslims are taking that step today)

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    But to him, it was not enough just humiliate or begrudgingly tolerate Jews like the Catholic church had done before, but to destroy Jews completely as a community. To burn their synagogues and homes, to put them into forced labour or slaughter them. So to you such man is a genius?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Sure.

    You have a tendency to see things in black and white, and expect others to also. I have no problem seeing the good and the bad in people.

    The psychological term for your way of thinking is called "splitting" - people have some negative traits, so you "split" them off from the good traits and put them entirely in the negative camp.

    I am also not as ethnocentric or chauvinistic as you - I do not lose the use of my reason just because someone is hostile to the group I belong to.

    In Buddhist terms, Luther is not bad but simply suffers under a delusion. Specifically, his delusion is that for him to have worth, certain others must be divested of worth. This is one of the most common delusions of mankind, and a primary source of suffering for many people.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  126. @Not Only Wrathful
    @Malenfant


    Even if that’s true — and it probably isn’t — the white American TFR isn’t terribly far from 1.0. It’s probably around 1.5 right now
     
    The difference between 1 and 1.5 is big. The latter is literally 50% more children.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill

    Live births over the last 4 years for China.

    2016, 17,860,000
    2017, 17,230,000
    2018, 15,230,000
    2019, 14,650,000

    My estimate for the year 2020, 12,920,000

    The pundits always predict a decline in total births, but they always over do it.

    • Replies: @Malenfant
    @Blinky Bill

    USA, 2018: 3,791,712 live births.

    ...Of which only about half were white.

    So to @Not Only Wrathful's point -- the difference between 1.0 and 1.5 may seem large, but, given their vastly larger population base, China can keep up at 1.0 for a hell of a lot longer than white Americans can survive at 1.5. They'll still have far more births, more children, more energy.

    And that's granting China is at a 1.0 TFR, which is an assumption. (And seemingly a rather prejudiced one.) Official statistics have it at 1.69. In other words, the Chinese TFR is plausibly higher than the white American TFR.

  127. @Bashibuzuk
    @AltanBakshi

    Read my comments again. It has nothing to do with Vedanta or Neoplatonicism (although there is nothing wrong with any of them) and everything to do with Jungian archetypal representations in a cultural semiotic field. Also it was more about the memetic power of information systems than about any given religious system.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    My heresy radar is blimbing…

    Okay, okay you get pass, sorry if I misunderstood you…

    (Still nothing wrong with Vedanta?)

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @AltanBakshi

    (Still nothing wrong with Vedanta?)

    The different belief systems correspond to different psychological profiles. There is nothing wrong with that: different people are just different. If no one is forced, manipulated of coerced to subscribe to a particular belief system, then people will find their way according to their karma. There would be no distortion.

  128. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    But to him, it was not enough just humiliate or begrudgingly tolerate Jews like the Catholic church had done before, but to destroy Jews completely as a community. To burn their synagogues and homes, to put them into forced labour or slaughter them. So to you such man is a genius?

    Replies: @AaronB

    Sure.

    You have a tendency to see things in black and white, and expect others to also. I have no problem seeing the good and the bad in people.

    The psychological term for your way of thinking is called “splitting” – people have some negative traits, so you “split” them off from the good traits and put them entirely in the negative camp.

    I am also not as ethnocentric or chauvinistic as you – I do not lose the use of my reason just because someone is hostile to the group I belong to.

    In Buddhist terms, Luther is not bad but simply suffers under a delusion. Specifically, his delusion is that for him to have worth, certain others must be divested of worth. This is one of the most common delusions of mankind, and a primary source of suffering for many people.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    Hmm, so there should there be no limits for extreme behaviour? Is it okay for a religious leader to want to destroy those who do not belong to his religion, in my opinion you are justifying radical Islamist behaviour, I can also say that one should see good in then, but what that helps with anything? Of course everybody has something good in them, thats self evident.

    I may be a bit chauvinist, but an ethnocentrist? Thats a new one, maybe Im not a rootless cosmopolitan, but Im definitely somewhat rootless nomad, and I feel at home in quite different places. There is no one nation or ethnic group to which I feel loyalty, but multiple ones.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  129. @AaronB
    I have been thinking lately about the difference between dissidents and counter-culture.

    A dissident is someone who accepts the basic world view of the Establishment and the values of the mainstream - and all Establishments and mainstream are the same since man organized himself in states.

    A dissident merely wants to tweak, or sometimes heavily modify, the way mainstream values are implemented in his society, often by returning to previous forms, but not always.

    For instance, the Establishment in America accepts racial hierarchies. The dissidents on Unz also accept racial hierarchies. The difference is only in how the racial hierarchy should be structured, and which race should occupy which position.

    Unz is a dissident website- it fully accepts the implicit assumptions of the Establishment and the mainstream, but wants the way these values are implemented to be heavily modified.

    A dissident wants to become the Establishment - but he does not question the values underlying the Establishment.

    A dissident ultimately is a sub-genre of the Establishment - the "loyal opposition", in a way.

    A counter-culture rejects the values of the Establishment and the mainstream in toto - it rejects the very mental structure, the mental construct, through which the Establishment sees the world.

    I have often made the - serious - mistake of thinking I am in a counter-cultural environment when I am only in a dissident environment, where my challenges of Establishment values were met with unexpected hostility.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Daniel Chieh

    I have often made the – serious – mistake of thinking I am in a counter-cultural environment when I am only in a dissident environment, where my challenges of Establishment values were met with unexpected hostility.

    Yep, you should contemplate the seriousness of your mistake, on your way to labour camp for counter cultural thinkers.
    How you could not understand the repercussions of you sharing your revolutionary ideas with mere dissidents?

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk
    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Indeed :)

    While you joke, you would indeed like to send me to the labour camps.

    And while you are powerless and will remain so, I think we are entering once again an era of political fragility and the return of the labor camps- metaphorical and real - and one must re-learn the arts of political camouflage and subterfuge. Taoism can help greatly in this.

    The great era of liberalism, where one can openly express one's ideas, is over. Did it ever really exist? Probably not for the masses, and that freedom was never as strong as its mythologers would have it, but it was real at least among some intellectuals.

    Karlin mentions the return of the "secret salons" of the 18th century, where radical thinkers discussed exciting new ideas outside the gaze of the conservative Church. I was reading that letter writing became a major literary form, often with an eye to future publication, because it was a useful medium to discuss - and develop into mature form - subversive ideas outside the public eye.

    We are entering one of mankinds periodic Ages of Anxiety, Stupidity, and Control. You should be flattered - in a way you represent the spirit of the age :) In this new age thinking may become an exciting and daring act once again. It has been suggested that mankind invents feminine modesty and prudery in order to stimulate the sexual imagination and add an element of thrill and daring to relations between men and women. Too easy access to sex and completely uncovered bodies become boring.

    To really stimulate interesting thought, it may be necessary to create an oppressive environment. Too much freedom may be inimical to free-thinking.

    Certainly the history of novel ideas is as a reaction against inherited stupidities. Exciting new thinking may require the creation of a stupid Establishment to react against, of a system of inherited stupidities.

    If so, counter-culture and Establishment may need each other and play off each other. The victory of either may spell death. Too much counter-culture or too much Establishment - too much chaos or too much order - may spell death.

    If so, stupidity may have its rights - and in the higher economy of life, may be as necessary as intelligence.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  130. @AltanBakshi
    @Bashibuzuk

    My heresy radar is blimbing...

    Okay, okay you get pass, sorry if I misunderstood you...

    (Still nothing wrong with Vedanta?)

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    (Still nothing wrong with Vedanta?)

    The different belief systems correspond to different psychological profiles. There is nothing wrong with that: different people are just different. If no one is forced, manipulated of coerced to subscribe to a particular belief system, then people will find their way according to their karma. There would be no distortion.

  131. @reiner Tor
    @songbird


    Arguably, the Buran was superior to the Shuttle.
     
    I don’t have a firm opinion on the question, but I know a Hungarian aviation magazine editor who is of the firm opinion that it was inferior. I think the rocket engine wasn’t reusable for example, and he pointed out that the American Shuttle was also theoretically capable of unmanned flight, but it was way less useful that way. The Buran was flying unmanned (it was a useless mission without cosmonauts) because the life sustaining module wasn’t yet ready, so while in theory it was similar in that respect, in practice it was actually inferior in that it wasn’t capable of manned flights.

    This guy is moderately Russophobic, though. (He is still fair and balanced enough that he vehemently attacked a newspaper article claiming that MiG-25 was not a sophisticated airplane “because it was made of stainless steel and not titanium alloy like the SR-71 Blackbird.” He pointed out that the SR-71 had a totally different role and wasn’t produced in very large numbers, unlike the MiG-25, and that if they had only needed a few dozens, then probably the Soviets would also have been able to use titanium alloys, whereas for a thousand planes the Americans also had to resort to using stainless steel at the time.) So overall I put some weight on his opinions despite his moderate Russophobia.

    Replies: @utu, @Vishnugupta, @songbird, @utu, @utu

    I guess the Buran would not have had a Challenger incident because Russia didn’t do sea recovery, so they couldn’t splash down the boosters and attempt recovery, which actually was cost neutral at best.

    For practical purposes, the Shuttle engines were not as reusable as they were supposed to be, since they were lifting the tank. They were put under more stress than they were designed for, and needed to be disassembled and entirely rebuilt each time.

    I don’t believe the Buran’s engines needed to be fired to achieve orbit. Or if they did, it was light use.

    Though I doubt either system made sense. Lot of danger in side loading anything with thermal tiles, for one. The Dreamchaser toploads under a faring and can land on any commercial airstrip. With miniaturization, it probably doesn’t make sense to build a spaceplane as big as the Shuttle.

  132. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB


    I have often made the – serious – mistake of thinking I am in a counter-cultural environment when I am only in a dissident environment, where my challenges of Establishment values were met with unexpected hostility.
     
    Yep, you should contemplate the seriousness of your mistake, on your way to labour camp for counter cultural thinkers.
    How you could not understand the repercussions of you sharing your revolutionary ideas with mere dissidents?

    Replies: @AaronB

    Indeed 🙂

    While you joke, you would indeed like to send me to the labour camps.

    And while you are powerless and will remain so, I think we are entering once again an era of political fragility and the return of the labor camps- metaphorical and real – and one must re-learn the arts of political camouflage and subterfuge. Taoism can help greatly in this.

    The great era of liberalism, where one can openly express one’s ideas, is over. Did it ever really exist? Probably not for the masses, and that freedom was never as strong as its mythologers would have it, but it was real at least among some intellectuals.

    Karlin mentions the return of the “secret salons” of the 18th century, where radical thinkers discussed exciting new ideas outside the gaze of the conservative Church. I was reading that letter writing became a major literary form, often with an eye to future publication, because it was a useful medium to discuss – and develop into mature form – subversive ideas outside the public eye.

    We are entering one of mankinds periodic Ages of Anxiety, Stupidity, and Control. You should be flattered – in a way you represent the spirit of the age 🙂 In this new age thinking may become an exciting and daring act once again. It has been suggested that mankind invents feminine modesty and prudery in order to stimulate the sexual imagination and add an element of thrill and daring to relations between men and women. Too easy access to sex and completely uncovered bodies become boring.

    To really stimulate interesting thought, it may be necessary to create an oppressive environment. Too much freedom may be inimical to free-thinking.

    Certainly the history of novel ideas is as a reaction against inherited stupidities. Exciting new thinking may require the creation of a stupid Establishment to react against, of a system of inherited stupidities.

    If so, counter-culture and Establishment may need each other and play off each other. The victory of either may spell death. Too much counter-culture or too much Establishment – too much chaos or too much order – may spell death.

    If so, stupidity may have its rights – and in the higher economy of life, may be as necessary as intelligence.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB


    While you joke, you would indeed like to send me to the labour camps.
     
    Dont be such a neurotic and paranoid wacko.

    Im a supporter of Russian and Chinese Imperialism, traditionalist and a Buddhist, not a Nazi or Commie, in a nutshell.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @AaronB

  133. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Sure.

    You have a tendency to see things in black and white, and expect others to also. I have no problem seeing the good and the bad in people.

    The psychological term for your way of thinking is called "splitting" - people have some negative traits, so you "split" them off from the good traits and put them entirely in the negative camp.

    I am also not as ethnocentric or chauvinistic as you - I do not lose the use of my reason just because someone is hostile to the group I belong to.

    In Buddhist terms, Luther is not bad but simply suffers under a delusion. Specifically, his delusion is that for him to have worth, certain others must be divested of worth. This is one of the most common delusions of mankind, and a primary source of suffering for many people.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    Hmm, so there should there be no limits for extreme behaviour? Is it okay for a religious leader to want to destroy those who do not belong to his religion, in my opinion you are justifying radical Islamist behaviour, I can also say that one should see good in then, but what that helps with anything? Of course everybody has something good in them, thats self evident.

    I may be a bit chauvinist, but an ethnocentrist? Thats a new one, maybe Im not a rootless cosmopolitan, but Im definitely somewhat rootless nomad, and I feel at home in quite different places. There is no one nation or ethnic group to which I feel loyalty, but multiple ones.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    Oh, I forgot to mention that those Islamists are also fighting against the establishment.

  134. @(((They))) Live
    @songbird

    Yes IMO the Buran was "better" than the Shuttle, the Soviets only launched the Buran once, the clowns at NASA continued with the Shuttle for decades, with a $1.6 billion launch cost and 14 dead astronauts, well done NASA, the minute you hear some one praise the Shuttle program, you know you're talking to a retard

    I think the Soviets only built the Buran because they didn't understand how pork powered rockets work, most of the engineers would have known it was bad idea, but maybe the Yanks are up to something that we can't figure out, so we should build one too

    Replies: @Simpleguest, @songbird

    Despite the idea that there were these two ideological systems that were competing during the Cold War, there seems to have been a lot of copycatism. Not just on technology programs like the Shuttle or Concorde, but in foreign policy, drowning worthless African regimes with foreign aid.

  135. If the Buran was better, I wonder it it was due to political differences.

    Congress is a good system for pork and probably a bad one for space.

  136. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry

    A people deprived of transcendance would not reproduce. They would literally have no future. A people who have lost their gods would become something else if they adopt the gods of their conquerors. Any people holding strongly to their creed would not disappear, unless physically exterminated.

    In the Genesis, the creation myth is natrated by using plural Elohim for God. El or Elah was widely distributed among the Semitic tribes as the name of their god and in the earliest times, the God of Abraham was just the tribal spirit of a Northern Arabian population. Interestingly enough, the word Allah derives directly from this Semitic root. The early Hebrews did not deny the reality of other divine beings: Baals etc, rather they believed their God being the strongest one and the right one, while others were seen as demons masquerading as gods. Later on, the early Christians did exactly the same with the gods of pagan populations they converted. The only ones who flatly deny the existence of any other higher being are the Muslims, their affirmation of faith (Shahada) is the proclamation that there is no other god but Allah.

    Gods are basically memetic packages of information associated with their own semantic fields. The soul of a people is their culture: the information system that allows this people to find meaning in their existence. There is no meaningful existence without cukture, no culture without myths, there are no myths without gods and heroes. Abrahamic faiths have displaced, negated and destroyed the cultures of the converted populations. They have captured their souls and made them slaves to their Semitic God.

    This is why Jews deny the humanity of the Goyim, that is why they basically consider them as soulless animals : Akums whose spiritual nature is inherently inferior to a Hebrew. That is why Christianity sees all non-Christian as irredeemably damned, unless they accept Christ. And it is for this reason that Muslims consider all Kuffar as ignorants who will not find the Straight Path to Salvation (As-Seerat Al Mustakeem). The Abrahamic God, shared by these religions is a virulent meme, a theological virus infecting human consciousness, destroying and digesting the previous native theological memetic package and thriving in the infected populace brains.

    The mystics spoke of Egregores arising from the consciousness of the multitudes, God is fed through such an egregor. If you completely annihilate the egregor related to a God, this God dies. That is why in the ancient time the Christians heard the proclamation: "The Great God Pan has died".

    Ancient people were aware of these things, modern people are too blind to understand that what lives through them is their ancestors information, in both genetic and spiritual terms.

    Replies: @Morton's toes, @AP, @Dmitry

    The Abrahamic God, shared by these religions is a virulent meme, a theological virus infecting human consciousness, destroying and digesting the previous native theological memetic package and thriving in the infected populace brains.

    Given that peoples “infected” with this “virus” have been he most accomplished, humane and refined in history (especially compared to most pagans*) perhaps “virus” is not the most realistic metaphor? Maybe rather, a cure? Maybe a software upgrade? Evolution? Virus metaphor might work for post-Christian -isms though.

    *I mean the transformation of Americans from bloodthirsty demon-worshipping Aztec or Mayan pagans to Baroque-music producing, relatively civilized Mexicans has been evolutionary, not some sort of “illness.”

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @AP

    Sure, but from the point of view of the native cultures and religions the Abrahamic "religious package" was certainly destructive. It erased the previous belief systems and installed its own belief system. That's what a virus does: taking control of the system to spread its copies. Interestingly enough, the pagan religious traditions usually did not proselytize, they accepted different creeds and accomodated them into a whole.

    Replies: @AP

  137. @Blinky Bill
    @Shortsword

    Why can't we all just get along?


    https://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam/usa-pompeo-10312020100244.html/pompeo-asia.jpg/@@images/2f6ee8c1-ed3f-4d80-9813-565132a1f752.jpeg

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcROo_rO6qf0RSeegBCCrT-lT1A8LuZxK0lkyQ&usqp.jpg

    Replies: @Hyperborean, @AnonFromTN

    Why can’t we all just get along?

    Wolves and sheep can get along only in a fantasy world.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @AnonFromTN


    Wolves and sheep can get along only in a fantasy world.
     
    Which ones are wolves and which ones sheep? And do they know who they are?

    (Sorry, a Socratic moment :).

    Replies: @AnonFromTN

  138. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Indeed :)

    While you joke, you would indeed like to send me to the labour camps.

    And while you are powerless and will remain so, I think we are entering once again an era of political fragility and the return of the labor camps- metaphorical and real - and one must re-learn the arts of political camouflage and subterfuge. Taoism can help greatly in this.

    The great era of liberalism, where one can openly express one's ideas, is over. Did it ever really exist? Probably not for the masses, and that freedom was never as strong as its mythologers would have it, but it was real at least among some intellectuals.

    Karlin mentions the return of the "secret salons" of the 18th century, where radical thinkers discussed exciting new ideas outside the gaze of the conservative Church. I was reading that letter writing became a major literary form, often with an eye to future publication, because it was a useful medium to discuss - and develop into mature form - subversive ideas outside the public eye.

    We are entering one of mankinds periodic Ages of Anxiety, Stupidity, and Control. You should be flattered - in a way you represent the spirit of the age :) In this new age thinking may become an exciting and daring act once again. It has been suggested that mankind invents feminine modesty and prudery in order to stimulate the sexual imagination and add an element of thrill and daring to relations between men and women. Too easy access to sex and completely uncovered bodies become boring.

    To really stimulate interesting thought, it may be necessary to create an oppressive environment. Too much freedom may be inimical to free-thinking.

    Certainly the history of novel ideas is as a reaction against inherited stupidities. Exciting new thinking may require the creation of a stupid Establishment to react against, of a system of inherited stupidities.

    If so, counter-culture and Establishment may need each other and play off each other. The victory of either may spell death. Too much counter-culture or too much Establishment - too much chaos or too much order - may spell death.

    If so, stupidity may have its rights - and in the higher economy of life, may be as necessary as intelligence.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    While you joke, you would indeed like to send me to the labour camps.

    Dont be such a neurotic and paranoid wacko.

    Im a supporter of Russian and Chinese Imperialism, traditionalist and a Buddhist, not a Nazi or Commie, in a nutshell.

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @AltanBakshi


    Im a supporter of Russian and Chinese Imperialism, traditionalist and a Buddhist, not a Nazi or Commie, in a nutshell.
     
    After reading hundreds of your comments AltanBakshi, I have to agree this is a very accurate self description.
    , @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Lol, Chinese imperialists are operating re-education camps as we speak and sending writers they don't like to jail. Russian imperialists and traditionalists sent dissidents and writers to prison and Siberia. European traditional nationalists to prison.

    But I'm a neurotic wacko for describing your position accurately :)

    I also said metaphorical labor camps as well - I was referring to other forms of repression and persecution of free thinkers, of which there are many, and which I have no doubt you support. You seem like the type who would be quite thuggis against free thinkers, like Daniel Chieh, who glorifies violent repression.

    Your Buddhism seems quite doubtful to me, to say the least :) Doesn't quite square with your imperialism and support for aggression.

    My Buddhism may be unorthodox, but it has support in some language in some texts and among certain canonical Buddhist writers - support for aggression, imperialism, hatred and dislike of certain ethnicities, being very attached to political outcomes, does not even have that level of support.

    But I am fine with you calling yourself what you like. What you are is on display here - and no fairy tales about you tolerating free thinkers, please.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @AltanBakshi

  139. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk


    The Abrahamic God, shared by these religions is a virulent meme, a theological virus infecting human consciousness, destroying and digesting the previous native theological memetic package and thriving in the infected populace brains.
     
    Given that peoples “infected” with this “virus” have been he most accomplished, humane and refined in history (especially compared to most pagans*) perhaps “virus” is not the most realistic metaphor? Maybe rather, a cure? Maybe a software upgrade? Evolution? Virus metaphor might work for post-Christian -isms though.

    *I mean the transformation of Americans from bloodthirsty demon-worshipping Aztec or Mayan pagans to Baroque-music producing, relatively civilized Mexicans has been evolutionary, not some sort of “illness.”

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    Sure, but from the point of view of the native cultures and religions the Abrahamic “religious package” was certainly destructive. It erased the previous belief systems and installed its own belief system. That’s what a virus does: taking control of the system to spread its copies. Interestingly enough, the pagan religious traditions usually did not proselytize, they accepted different creeds and accomodated them into a whole.

    • Agree: AltanBakshi
    • Replies: @AP
    @Bashibuzuk

    Religions and cultures don’t have a point of view, people do. This upgrade from primitive paganism liberated the people from their subjugation to nature (making them not slaves or subjects to it and it’s gods, but heirs and children of the Creator Himself), improved the lives of the people. In Northern Europe, primitive dwellings and forts were replaced by soaring cathedrals and sturdy beautiful castles, cities appeared, music and visual arts became complex in their beauty. The drive to understand and master the natural world that their Father gave them resulted in technology that made people almost like gods; they used it to eliminate various plagues, to traverse the whole world, settle it, and to liberate other peoples from their darkness.

    It’s just weird to consider such a process to be an infectious one. Infections generally make one weak, or even kill them. The peoples who adopted the Christian faith in contrast became masters of this world.

    Now, the ideologies that weaken or go against that faith can indeed be compared to aversive viruses.

    Replies: @AnonFromTN, @Bashibuzuk, @EldnahYm, @Dmitry

  140. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    Hmm, so there should there be no limits for extreme behaviour? Is it okay for a religious leader to want to destroy those who do not belong to his religion, in my opinion you are justifying radical Islamist behaviour, I can also say that one should see good in then, but what that helps with anything? Of course everybody has something good in them, thats self evident.

    I may be a bit chauvinist, but an ethnocentrist? Thats a new one, maybe Im not a rootless cosmopolitan, but Im definitely somewhat rootless nomad, and I feel at home in quite different places. There is no one nation or ethnic group to which I feel loyalty, but multiple ones.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    Oh, I forgot to mention that those Islamists are also fighting against the establishment.

  141. @AnonFromTN
    @Blinky Bill


    Why can’t we all just get along?
     
    Wolves and sheep can get along only in a fantasy world.

    Replies: @Beckow

    Wolves and sheep can get along only in a fantasy world.

    Which ones are wolves and which ones sheep? And do they know who they are?

    (Sorry, a Socratic moment :).

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    @Beckow


    Which ones are wolves and which ones sheep?
     
    At any given moment, whoever is weaker is sheep. However, after the crash of the Empire the tables would be turned. Considering the hatred of the Empire by ~80-85% of world population, many would cheer former sheep along when they become wolves and brutally tear still warm corpse. It won't be a pretty sight.

    Replies: @Beckow

  142. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB


    While you joke, you would indeed like to send me to the labour camps.
     
    Dont be such a neurotic and paranoid wacko.

    Im a supporter of Russian and Chinese Imperialism, traditionalist and a Buddhist, not a Nazi or Commie, in a nutshell.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @AaronB

    Im a supporter of Russian and Chinese Imperialism, traditionalist and a Buddhist, not a Nazi or Commie, in a nutshell.

    After reading hundreds of your comments AltanBakshi, I have to agree this is a very accurate self description.

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk, AnonFromTN
  143. @Beckow
    @AnonFromTN


    Wolves and sheep can get along only in a fantasy world.
     
    Which ones are wolves and which ones sheep? And do they know who they are?

    (Sorry, a Socratic moment :).

    Replies: @AnonFromTN

    Which ones are wolves and which ones sheep?

    At any given moment, whoever is weaker is sheep. However, after the crash of the Empire the tables would be turned. Considering the hatred of the Empire by ~80-85% of world population, many would cheer former sheep along when they become wolves and brutally tear still warm corpse. It won’t be a pretty sight.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @AnonFromTN

    I agree that what is coming won't be pretty. The contradictions have been allowed to accumulate longer than usually in the past - and contradictions are really just growth of hostility and hatred. The unique mono-power dominance plus the nukes have frozen the world for 2-3 generations. It might unravel.

    I am still troubled by the "wolves and sheep" analogy, it is too black and white and it suggests deterministic behaviour. Today we find an element of "self-hatred" in the West suggesting a "Waiting for the Barbarians" moment. As the poem suggests, many see the hated enemy Barbarians as a solution. It never works out that way. The "wolves" might have to work their way through the collapse on their own. As Job told his wife: "Just look away from the evil". Quite simple, but she couldn't resist.

  144. @Bashibuzuk
    @AP

    Sure, but from the point of view of the native cultures and religions the Abrahamic "religious package" was certainly destructive. It erased the previous belief systems and installed its own belief system. That's what a virus does: taking control of the system to spread its copies. Interestingly enough, the pagan religious traditions usually did not proselytize, they accepted different creeds and accomodated them into a whole.

    Replies: @AP

    Religions and cultures don’t have a point of view, people do. This upgrade from primitive paganism liberated the people from their subjugation to nature (making them not slaves or subjects to it and it’s gods, but heirs and children of the Creator Himself), improved the lives of the people. In Northern Europe, primitive dwellings and forts were replaced by soaring cathedrals and sturdy beautiful castles, cities appeared, music and visual arts became complex in their beauty. The drive to understand and master the natural world that their Father gave them resulted in technology that made people almost like gods; they used it to eliminate various plagues, to traverse the whole world, settle it, and to liberate other peoples from their darkness.

    It’s just weird to consider such a process to be an infectious one. Infections generally make one weak, or even kill them. The peoples who adopted the Christian faith in contrast became masters of this world.

    Now, the ideologies that weaken or go against that faith can indeed be compared to aversive viruses.

    • LOL: sher singh
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    @AP


    The peoples who adopted the Christian faith in contrast became masters of this world.
     
    That’s a convenient view, but the reality is exactly opposite. The peoples who adopted Christian faith lost mastery of their world, became “flock” (we all know what animal this word applies to) of the Pope or his Orthodox equivalent. That’s exactly why in many countries nationalists often turn to local pre-Christian belief systems. Those belief systems are just as non-sensical, the only advantage being that they are local, not imported.

    Replies: @AP

    , @Bashibuzuk
    @AP

    Well, the difference between a parasite and a symbiont is a small one. And it mainly depends on the function of the immune system. The Indo-European native religious traditions existed for many thousand years prior to their eradication by the Semitic Abrahamic religious package. These traditions were very stable and allowed for the survival and cultural development of the European man.

    The Abrahamic religious package allowed for an increased centralisation and stratification of the social systems. It also worked towards erasing of the tribal differences and allegiances to the clan. This process of human uniformisation gave the memetic package more human ressources to exploit towards its self propagtion.

    But when the brainwashed population lost its psychological and cultural common sense (its semiotic immune system), this same Abrahamic package allowed for the infilration of the more damaging variants (the Judaic and the Islamic ones). It also produced mutant strains of universalism, humanism and liberalism through a phenomenon of enlightenment akin to a phenotype conversion. Finally it produced Communism, both the traditonal Bolshevik kind and the Frankfurt school cultural type.

    A viral infection takes some time to complete itself. In the case of ethnic groups the religious virii take centuries to completely rewire the physiology of the host. But sooner or later a virus is either cured, or it is integrated into its host genome and becomes avirulent or it kills its host.

    Today we witness the ongoing demise of the "Judeo-Christian" civilization. Only the Judaic part is standing strong, the Christian is degraded. The Abrahamic religious package has possibly completed its transformative action on the psyche of the European man. Unless the final stage is the Islamic overtake of Europe, which we will know im the comming decades.

    Replies: @AP

    , @EldnahYm
    @AP

    You are simply crediting all advances that occurred after Christianity's adoption to Christianity. If you're going to adopt these assumptions, you have no basis for denying the modern critic of Christianity who blames it for modern liberalism, mass immigration, minoritarianism, atomism, relativism, dysgenics etc. But I bet you will not accept this.

    Most of the northern European advances you credit to "Christianity" could instead be credited to something like "Roman technology" and Christianity be looked at as an ideology free-riding on a Roman civilizational model which pre-dates the adoption of Christianity.

    Besides, in other parts of the world we have alternative models where your story about Christianity simply doesn't work. In China Christianity is a dangerous foreign cult which undermines national unity, opens it to malign foreign influence, and leads to wars, and has been that way for hundreds of years. Modern Japan's rise is partly the result of successful persecution of Christianity.

    One could also spend ages nitpicking your simple story of a linear advance from the adoption of Christianity onwards. From a human welfare standpoint, all of those fancy buildings didn't do the majority of people much good, and the world remained Malthusian until relatively recently. From the perspective of who built the fanciest stuff, even you have to admit that the picture isn't as nice as you described. At the very least, the post-Classical, pre-Renaissance world had regressed in many ways.

    Crediting Christianity with medical advances is a particularly big stretch on your part. Medical practices in Europe were worse than useless for treating infectious diseases. Europe was a backwater in this respect. The Chinese had variolation to treat smallpox centuries before the Europeans, and the Europeans were the last part of the civilized world to learn of it.

    I say all this not to advance the thesis that Christianity is responsible for all modern ills and that all of the advances in northern Europe described had nothing to do with Christianity. I think that thesis would be an exaggeration. Certain forms of Christianity have been used to spread literacy, universalistic religions probably do have an advantage for larger scale societies as opposed to smaller, tribal ones, and the pathetic state of medicine in Europe has to be blamed on the retention of Classical ideas. Roman doctors, whether Pagan or Christian, were on the wrong track with regard to infectious disease. Nor do I believe something so laughable as the idea that all medieval technological advances are linked to Roman ideas. Besides, any honest person will have to grapple with the fact that Christian ideas are highly varied. But your story is even more of a caricature than the one I could present, one which I don't even believe.

    Replies: @Coconuts, @AP

    , @Dmitry
    @AP

    Within a short time after the adoption of Christianity that had been created in the Middle East, Europe fell into many centuries of Dark Ages (let's say, from 524 - with the execution of Boethius, to 15th century Florence - or around 900 years), and would only rise again alongside rediscovery of the knowledge of civilization in texts inherited from the Ancient World, during the Renaissance.

    Of course, adoption of Christianity was not a cause of the collapse of civilization, but adopting exotic religions created by people Romans had conquered, is viewed typically by historians since Edward Gibbon, as being a symptom of the increasing weakness and fracturing of the Roman world.

    Christianity was valuable in leading to rebirth of civilization in Europe, through preservation of texts from the Ancient World in monasteries, and training people in skills needed to access them, and establishment of institutions and associations of learning, and of Latin as a European-wide language of scholars. The key things about which knowledge was preserved as a byproduct of Church activities, was originally created by civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome - so there is a preservation of Ancient knowledge by the Church, but the value was more preservation of knowledge than production of it.

    Replies: @AP

  145. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk

    Religions and cultures don’t have a point of view, people do. This upgrade from primitive paganism liberated the people from their subjugation to nature (making them not slaves or subjects to it and it’s gods, but heirs and children of the Creator Himself), improved the lives of the people. In Northern Europe, primitive dwellings and forts were replaced by soaring cathedrals and sturdy beautiful castles, cities appeared, music and visual arts became complex in their beauty. The drive to understand and master the natural world that their Father gave them resulted in technology that made people almost like gods; they used it to eliminate various plagues, to traverse the whole world, settle it, and to liberate other peoples from their darkness.

    It’s just weird to consider such a process to be an infectious one. Infections generally make one weak, or even kill them. The peoples who adopted the Christian faith in contrast became masters of this world.

    Now, the ideologies that weaken or go against that faith can indeed be compared to aversive viruses.

    Replies: @AnonFromTN, @Bashibuzuk, @EldnahYm, @Dmitry

    The peoples who adopted the Christian faith in contrast became masters of this world.

    That’s a convenient view, but the reality is exactly opposite. The peoples who adopted Christian faith lost mastery of their world, became “flock” (we all know what animal this word applies to) of the Pope or his Orthodox equivalent. That’s exactly why in many countries nationalists often turn to local pre-Christian belief systems. Those belief systems are just as non-sensical, the only advantage being that they are local, not imported.

    • Replies: @AP
    @AnonFromTN

    It is you who writes opposites. In the Christian view we are children and heirs of God, made in His image.Thus we see ideas about inherent rights of nan, abolition of slavery, become widespread. Under paganism man was subject to nature; it makes sense for extreme nationalists to like paganism because they subjugate man to the Nation. The combination of individualism and universalism arising from Christianity provides for more freedom than under pagans or nationalist totalitarians.

    Replies: @AnonFromTN, @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi

  146. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB


    While you joke, you would indeed like to send me to the labour camps.
     
    Dont be such a neurotic and paranoid wacko.

    Im a supporter of Russian and Chinese Imperialism, traditionalist and a Buddhist, not a Nazi or Commie, in a nutshell.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @AaronB

    Lol, Chinese imperialists are operating re-education camps as we speak and sending writers they don’t like to jail. Russian imperialists and traditionalists sent dissidents and writers to prison and Siberia. European traditional nationalists to prison.

    But I’m a neurotic wacko for describing your position accurately 🙂

    I also said metaphorical labor camps as well – I was referring to other forms of repression and persecution of free thinkers, of which there are many, and which I have no doubt you support. You seem like the type who would be quite thuggis against free thinkers, like Daniel Chieh, who glorifies violent repression.

    Your Buddhism seems quite doubtful to me, to say the least 🙂 Doesn’t quite square with your imperialism and support for aggression.

    My Buddhism may be unorthodox, but it has support in some language in some texts and among certain canonical Buddhist writers – support for aggression, imperialism, hatred and dislike of certain ethnicities, being very attached to political outcomes, does not even have that level of support.

    But I am fine with you calling yourself what you like. What you are is on display here – and no fairy tales about you tolerating free thinkers, please.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @AaronB


    You seem like the type who would be quite thuggis against free thinkers, like Daniel Chieh, who glorifies violent repression.
     
    Tell us more about these sexy masochistic fantasies you have of me.
    , @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    So those who dislike your arguments - are automatically against free speech? How narcissistic one can be?

    Only an utter idiot would jail you, or send you to labour camp, making martyr out of you, would be the only way how your ideas would get some prestige.

    If we start to speak about what kind of hypothetical justice system in my ideal society would be, then in such society you would not be punished for some online writings, but you would get 20 lashes (with bamboo cane) if you would irritate publicly people with your idiotic stuff. Really you have a messiah or some kind of martyr complex if you think that random people on internet dream about jailing you or something.

    (Im not now writing about you, but I would prefer system of internal exile over labour camps, in most cases at least)

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AaronB

  147. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk

    Religions and cultures don’t have a point of view, people do. This upgrade from primitive paganism liberated the people from their subjugation to nature (making them not slaves or subjects to it and it’s gods, but heirs and children of the Creator Himself), improved the lives of the people. In Northern Europe, primitive dwellings and forts were replaced by soaring cathedrals and sturdy beautiful castles, cities appeared, music and visual arts became complex in their beauty. The drive to understand and master the natural world that their Father gave them resulted in technology that made people almost like gods; they used it to eliminate various plagues, to traverse the whole world, settle it, and to liberate other peoples from their darkness.

    It’s just weird to consider such a process to be an infectious one. Infections generally make one weak, or even kill them. The peoples who adopted the Christian faith in contrast became masters of this world.

    Now, the ideologies that weaken or go against that faith can indeed be compared to aversive viruses.

    Replies: @AnonFromTN, @Bashibuzuk, @EldnahYm, @Dmitry

    Well, the difference between a parasite and a symbiont is a small one. And it mainly depends on the function of the immune system. The Indo-European native religious traditions existed for many thousand years prior to their eradication by the Semitic Abrahamic religious package. These traditions were very stable and allowed for the survival and cultural development of the European man.

    The Abrahamic religious package allowed for an increased centralisation and stratification of the social systems. It also worked towards erasing of the tribal differences and allegiances to the clan. This process of human uniformisation gave the memetic package more human ressources to exploit towards its self propagtion.

    But when the brainwashed population lost its psychological and cultural common sense (its semiotic immune system), this same Abrahamic package allowed for the infilration of the more damaging variants (the Judaic and the Islamic ones). It also produced mutant strains of universalism, humanism and liberalism through a phenomenon of enlightenment akin to a phenotype conversion. Finally it produced Communism, both the traditonal Bolshevik kind and the Frankfurt school cultural type.

    A viral infection takes some time to complete itself. In the case of ethnic groups the religious virii take centuries to completely rewire the physiology of the host. But sooner or later a virus is either cured, or it is integrated into its host genome and becomes avirulent or it kills its host.

    Today we witness the ongoing demise of the “Judeo-Christian” civilization. Only the Judaic part is standing strong, the Christian is degraded. The Abrahamic religious package has possibly completed its transformative action on the psyche of the European man. Unless the final stage is the Islamic overtake of Europe, which we will know im the comming decades.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Bashibuzuk


    Well, the difference between a parasite and a symbiont is a small one.
     
    Not really. All complex multicellular organisms derive from a symbiotic process. The difference between a human and a bacterium or other single-called organism without organelles is a huge, not small. As is the difference between Europeans reaching the moon and producing cathedrals and Bach, versus those living in earthen huts and chanting to their tree gods around a decorated pole.

    The Indo-European native religious traditions existed for many thousand years prior to their eradication by the Semitic Abrahamic religious package. These traditions were very stable and allowed for the survival and cultural development of the European man

     

    Indeed. Bacteria have been around longer than people and may still be around after people leave this world. Would that make complex life an infection of some sort?

    This process of human uniformisation gave the memetic package more human ressources to exploit towards its self propagtion
     
    This is only half the story. The increased complexity that came with Christianity resulted not only in increased universalism but also in increased individualism. Not only societies, but also each person living within them became far more complex, intelligent, and interesting.

    Today we witness the ongoing demise of the “Judeo-Christian” civilization
     
    Maybe, or maybe it will recover. If not - well, a bacterium cannot succumb to cancer. This is a problem of complex and beautiful organisms.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  148. @AnonFromTN
    @AP


    The peoples who adopted the Christian faith in contrast became masters of this world.
     
    That’s a convenient view, but the reality is exactly opposite. The peoples who adopted Christian faith lost mastery of their world, became “flock” (we all know what animal this word applies to) of the Pope or his Orthodox equivalent. That’s exactly why in many countries nationalists often turn to local pre-Christian belief systems. Those belief systems are just as non-sensical, the only advantage being that they are local, not imported.

    Replies: @AP

    It is you who writes opposites. In the Christian view we are children and heirs of God, made in His image.Thus we see ideas about inherent rights of nan, abolition of slavery, become widespread. Under paganism man was subject to nature; it makes sense for extreme nationalists to like paganism because they subjugate man to the Nation. The combination of individualism and universalism arising from Christianity provides for more freedom than under pagans or nationalist totalitarians.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    @AP


    The combination of individualism and universalism arising from Christianity provides for more freedom
     
    More freedom, my foot! That’s exactly what we see even as we write: more freedom.
    , @Bashibuzuk
    @AP


    Under paganism man was subject to nature
     
    I am not sure this is exact. How was the ancient Greek neoplatonic pagan more subject to nature than his Jewish or Christian counterpart ?

    Given the destructive action of the Abrahamic religions, we have no trace left of the Slav paganism and very little left of the German/Scandinavian and Celtic paganisms. Therefore we have no idea of how complex or deep these religious systems possibly were. All we know is that these belief systems existed for thousands of years and would probably continued their existence under some form if not for their encounter with the exotic and virulent Abrahamic belief system.

    I would actually love to know what were exactly the beliefs and convictions of the Wendish priests of Rhetra, but they were hunted down and killed, their Gods were assigned by the victorious Catholic crusaders among the demons to be forgotten and erased.

    These Gods were the Gods of our ancestors during thousands of years. We are not Abraham's children. I don't see why the ancestors of Hebrews and Arabs should be seen as more worthy of respect than our own European ancestors.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/O98_Idol_von_Sbrutsch_mit_Darstellung_von_Unterwelt%2C_Erde_und_des_Himmels%2C_zirka_10._Jh._n._Chr..JPG

    This Archetype was worshipped by your ancestors for thousands of years AP. Probably since the unified paneuropean cultural realm of the Unetice. But if you think that praying to a crucified Jew is more appropriate, then so be it. We all free now to respect what we have chosen to respect.

    Replies: @Morton's toes, @AP

    , @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    I understand your point, and Christianity has in my opinion done much, much more good than bad. But abolition of slavery is not thanks to traditional or apostolic Christianity.

    It is said in the New Testament that even though master hits you, you must be faithful to your master as to God. Though in some versions of Bible the word servant and not slave is used, but in reality those servants were much more slaves in a modern sense than servants. Also it was basic stuff for Early Medieval Christian Kingdoms to buy and sell slaves, Church didnt see much problem with it, though freeing of Christian slaves was seen as a pious act. Still Roman or Germanic Christians did not think in anyway that slavery was in conflict with their faith, I actually once had a long debate about this topic.

    Christianity would be perfect as a theistic religion, if it would just accept that its not absolutely necessary for everyone, but maybe that would be death for authentic Christianity, religious vigour would be lost, and its precisely what has happened to various Mainline Protestant sects, like Lutherans and Episcopalians.

  149. @AaronB
    I have been thinking lately about the difference between dissidents and counter-culture.

    A dissident is someone who accepts the basic world view of the Establishment and the values of the mainstream - and all Establishments and mainstream are the same since man organized himself in states.

    A dissident merely wants to tweak, or sometimes heavily modify, the way mainstream values are implemented in his society, often by returning to previous forms, but not always.

    For instance, the Establishment in America accepts racial hierarchies. The dissidents on Unz also accept racial hierarchies. The difference is only in how the racial hierarchy should be structured, and which race should occupy which position.

    Unz is a dissident website- it fully accepts the implicit assumptions of the Establishment and the mainstream, but wants the way these values are implemented to be heavily modified.

    A dissident wants to become the Establishment - but he does not question the values underlying the Establishment.

    A dissident ultimately is a sub-genre of the Establishment - the "loyal opposition", in a way.

    A counter-culture rejects the values of the Establishment and the mainstream in toto - it rejects the very mental structure, the mental construct, through which the Establishment sees the world.

    I have often made the - serious - mistake of thinking I am in a counter-cultural environment when I am only in a dissident environment, where my challenges of Establishment values were met with unexpected hostility.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Daniel Chieh

    A counter-culture rejects the values of the Establishment and the mainstream in toto – it rejects the very mental structure, the mental construct, through which the Establishment sees the world.

    You are still allowing yourself to be confined by the use of punctuation and words. You need to become natural and grunt effusively(interpretive farting is also a good idea) – but only after you give your worldly good to Karlin.

  150. @reiner Tor
    @songbird


    Arguably, the Buran was superior to the Shuttle.
     
    I don’t have a firm opinion on the question, but I know a Hungarian aviation magazine editor who is of the firm opinion that it was inferior. I think the rocket engine wasn’t reusable for example, and he pointed out that the American Shuttle was also theoretically capable of unmanned flight, but it was way less useful that way. The Buran was flying unmanned (it was a useless mission without cosmonauts) because the life sustaining module wasn’t yet ready, so while in theory it was similar in that respect, in practice it was actually inferior in that it wasn’t capable of manned flights.

    This guy is moderately Russophobic, though. (He is still fair and balanced enough that he vehemently attacked a newspaper article claiming that MiG-25 was not a sophisticated airplane “because it was made of stainless steel and not titanium alloy like the SR-71 Blackbird.” He pointed out that the SR-71 had a totally different role and wasn’t produced in very large numbers, unlike the MiG-25, and that if they had only needed a few dozens, then probably the Soviets would also have been able to use titanium alloys, whereas for a thousand planes the Americans also had to resort to using stainless steel at the time.) So overall I put some weight on his opinions despite his moderate Russophobia.

    Replies: @utu, @Vishnugupta, @songbird, @utu, @utu

    How the Soviets stole a space shuttle
    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18686090

  151. @AP
    @AnonFromTN

    It is you who writes opposites. In the Christian view we are children and heirs of God, made in His image.Thus we see ideas about inherent rights of nan, abolition of slavery, become widespread. Under paganism man was subject to nature; it makes sense for extreme nationalists to like paganism because they subjugate man to the Nation. The combination of individualism and universalism arising from Christianity provides for more freedom than under pagans or nationalist totalitarians.

    Replies: @AnonFromTN, @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi

    The combination of individualism and universalism arising from Christianity provides for more freedom

    More freedom, my foot! That’s exactly what we see even as we write: more freedom.

  152. @AP
    @AnonFromTN

    It is you who writes opposites. In the Christian view we are children and heirs of God, made in His image.Thus we see ideas about inherent rights of nan, abolition of slavery, become widespread. Under paganism man was subject to nature; it makes sense for extreme nationalists to like paganism because they subjugate man to the Nation. The combination of individualism and universalism arising from Christianity provides for more freedom than under pagans or nationalist totalitarians.

    Replies: @AnonFromTN, @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi

    Under paganism man was subject to nature

    I am not sure this is exact. How was the ancient Greek neoplatonic pagan more subject to nature than his Jewish or Christian counterpart ?

    Given the destructive action of the Abrahamic religions, we have no trace left of the Slav paganism and very little left of the German/Scandinavian and Celtic paganisms. Therefore we have no idea of how complex or deep these religious systems possibly were. All we know is that these belief systems existed for thousands of years and would probably continued their existence under some form if not for their encounter with the exotic and virulent Abrahamic belief system.

    I would actually love to know what were exactly the beliefs and convictions of the Wendish priests of Rhetra, but they were hunted down and killed, their Gods were assigned by the victorious Catholic crusaders among the demons to be forgotten and erased.

    These Gods were the Gods of our ancestors during thousands of years. We are not Abraham’s children. I don’t see why the ancestors of Hebrews and Arabs should be seen as more worthy of respect than our own European ancestors.

    This Archetype was worshipped by your ancestors for thousands of years AP. Probably since the unified paneuropean cultural realm of the Unetice. But if you think that praying to a crucified Jew is more appropriate, then so be it. We all free now to respect what we have chosen to respect.

    • Replies: @Morton's toes
    @Bashibuzuk


    I would actually love to know what were exactly the beliefs and convictions of the Wendish priests of Rhetra, but they were hunted down and killed, their Gods were assigned by the victorious Catholic crusaders among the demons to be forgotten and erased.
     
    There is a fellow, Leo Zagami, alternately fascinating and drooling loon, who claims nothing was erased. Everything was preserved in the Vatican archives. When Malachi Martin described Satanists inside the Vatican, he was exaggerating what would be better described as eclectic scholars who are not bashful about their investigations all over the darn place.

    Zagami is an occultist so he has that Get Out of Jail Free card that his books are filled with misdirections and blinds intentionally and the dedicated-sincere can go through them straight.

    I have only read a couple of his books and they are quite maddening.

    For example I have read this one:

    https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Illuminati-Decline-Satanism-Society/dp/1986894657

    Some of what is in there is great but there is so little of it that efficiency plummets.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    , @AP
    @Bashibuzuk


    Under paganism man was subject to nature

    I am not sure this is exact. How was the ancient Greek neoplatonic pagan more subject to nature than his Jewish or Christian counterpart ?
     
    I was referring particularly to the forest barbarians; pre-Christian Greeks and Romans lacked the drive to expand horizons and dominate nature through technology for different reasons. My quotes from Berdyaev in the other post capture this. Spengler had similar observations but he did not attribute the difference between Classical ("Appolinian") and Western ("Faustian") to Christianity despite noting that it was under Christianity when the Westerners came to dominated the world.

    Given the destructive action of the Abrahamic religions, we have no trace left of the Slav paganism and very little left of the German/Scandinavian and Celtic paganisms. Therefore we have no idea of how complex or deep these religious systems possibly were.
     
    They could not have been so deep and complex if they have left no written records suggesting complexity. Nor did those people lead lifestyles or produce lasting cultural or architectural monuments implying complexity.

    All we know is that these belief systems existed for thousands of years and would probably continued their existence under some form if not for their encounter with the exotic and virulent Abrahamic belief system.
     
    As would the Iroquois, Sami, Chukchi, etc.

    I would actually love to know what were exactly the beliefs and convictions of the Wendish priests of Rhetra, but they were hunted down and killed
     
    I would too. I would love to hear the sounds of the songs sung by our homo erectus and Neanderthal ancestors also, but am glad that we have evolved beyond them.

    These Gods were the Gods of our ancestors during thousands of years. We are not Abraham’s children. I don’t see why the ancestors of Hebrews and Arabs should be seen as more worthy of respect than our own European ancestors.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/O98_Idol_von_Sbrutsch_mit_Darstellung_von_Unterwelt%2C_Erde_und_des_Himmels%2C_zirka_10._Jh._n._Chr..JPG

     

    That is a decorated pole. This is far more beautiful and built soon after the decorated poles were thrown away:

    https://www.askideas.com/media/51/Beautiful-Interior-View-Of-The-Saint-Sophia-Cathedral.jpg

    It was a project of my Rus ancestors.

    Here is another:

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/58/7f/73/587f73134ae1923126a17b2c58097f17.jpg

    More impressive than the crude objects of the primitive pagans.

    But if you think that praying to a crucified Jew
     
    The Son of God is for everyone. He is Universal. He inspired the world's greatest arts, literature, music, science, and His followers liberated much of the world from darkness. Unlike the faith of the decorated poles.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Mr. Hack, @Philip Owen

  153. @reiner Tor
    @songbird


    Arguably, the Buran was superior to the Shuttle.
     
    I don’t have a firm opinion on the question, but I know a Hungarian aviation magazine editor who is of the firm opinion that it was inferior. I think the rocket engine wasn’t reusable for example, and he pointed out that the American Shuttle was also theoretically capable of unmanned flight, but it was way less useful that way. The Buran was flying unmanned (it was a useless mission without cosmonauts) because the life sustaining module wasn’t yet ready, so while in theory it was similar in that respect, in practice it was actually inferior in that it wasn’t capable of manned flights.

    This guy is moderately Russophobic, though. (He is still fair and balanced enough that he vehemently attacked a newspaper article claiming that MiG-25 was not a sophisticated airplane “because it was made of stainless steel and not titanium alloy like the SR-71 Blackbird.” He pointed out that the SR-71 had a totally different role and wasn’t produced in very large numbers, unlike the MiG-25, and that if they had only needed a few dozens, then probably the Soviets would also have been able to use titanium alloys, whereas for a thousand planes the Americans also had to resort to using stainless steel at the time.) So overall I put some weight on his opinions despite his moderate Russophobia.

    Replies: @utu, @Vishnugupta, @songbird, @utu, @utu

    How the Soviets stole a space shuttle
    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18686090

  154. @Bashibuzuk
    @AP

    Well, the difference between a parasite and a symbiont is a small one. And it mainly depends on the function of the immune system. The Indo-European native religious traditions existed for many thousand years prior to their eradication by the Semitic Abrahamic religious package. These traditions were very stable and allowed for the survival and cultural development of the European man.

    The Abrahamic religious package allowed for an increased centralisation and stratification of the social systems. It also worked towards erasing of the tribal differences and allegiances to the clan. This process of human uniformisation gave the memetic package more human ressources to exploit towards its self propagtion.

    But when the brainwashed population lost its psychological and cultural common sense (its semiotic immune system), this same Abrahamic package allowed for the infilration of the more damaging variants (the Judaic and the Islamic ones). It also produced mutant strains of universalism, humanism and liberalism through a phenomenon of enlightenment akin to a phenotype conversion. Finally it produced Communism, both the traditonal Bolshevik kind and the Frankfurt school cultural type.

    A viral infection takes some time to complete itself. In the case of ethnic groups the religious virii take centuries to completely rewire the physiology of the host. But sooner or later a virus is either cured, or it is integrated into its host genome and becomes avirulent or it kills its host.

    Today we witness the ongoing demise of the "Judeo-Christian" civilization. Only the Judaic part is standing strong, the Christian is degraded. The Abrahamic religious package has possibly completed its transformative action on the psyche of the European man. Unless the final stage is the Islamic overtake of Europe, which we will know im the comming decades.

    Replies: @AP

    Well, the difference between a parasite and a symbiont is a small one.

    Not really. All complex multicellular organisms derive from a symbiotic process. The difference between a human and a bacterium or other single-called organism without organelles is a huge, not small. As is the difference between Europeans reaching the moon and producing cathedrals and Bach, versus those living in earthen huts and chanting to their tree gods around a decorated pole.

    The Indo-European native religious traditions existed for many thousand years prior to their eradication by the Semitic Abrahamic religious package. These traditions were very stable and allowed for the survival and cultural development of the European man

    Indeed. Bacteria have been around longer than people and may still be around after people leave this world. Would that make complex life an infection of some sort?

    This process of human uniformisation gave the memetic package more human ressources to exploit towards its self propagtion

    This is only half the story. The increased complexity that came with Christianity resulted not only in increased universalism but also in increased individualism. Not only societies, but also each person living within them became far more complex, intelligent, and interesting.

    Today we witness the ongoing demise of the “Judeo-Christian” civilization

    Maybe, or maybe it will recover. If not – well, a bacterium cannot succumb to cancer. This is a problem of complex and beautiful organisms.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @AP

    I don't think going to the moon has anything to do with adopting an Abrahamic religion. Also, Roman Empire and ancient Greece were pagan and yet produced beautiful and complex cultures. As did Sumerians and Egyptians and ancient Aryans from the Sintashta Arkaim. Neither of these cultures was inferior to the Ancient Hebrew culture, they were equal or arguably superior. Therefore, the European man would have still produced science and culture even without converting to an Abrahamic religion.

    Replies: @AP

  155. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Lol, Chinese imperialists are operating re-education camps as we speak and sending writers they don't like to jail. Russian imperialists and traditionalists sent dissidents and writers to prison and Siberia. European traditional nationalists to prison.

    But I'm a neurotic wacko for describing your position accurately :)

    I also said metaphorical labor camps as well - I was referring to other forms of repression and persecution of free thinkers, of which there are many, and which I have no doubt you support. You seem like the type who would be quite thuggis against free thinkers, like Daniel Chieh, who glorifies violent repression.

    Your Buddhism seems quite doubtful to me, to say the least :) Doesn't quite square with your imperialism and support for aggression.

    My Buddhism may be unorthodox, but it has support in some language in some texts and among certain canonical Buddhist writers - support for aggression, imperialism, hatred and dislike of certain ethnicities, being very attached to political outcomes, does not even have that level of support.

    But I am fine with you calling yourself what you like. What you are is on display here - and no fairy tales about you tolerating free thinkers, please.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @AltanBakshi

    You seem like the type who would be quite thuggis against free thinkers, like Daniel Chieh, who glorifies violent repression.

    Tell us more about these sexy masochistic fantasies you have of me.

    • LOL: AltanBakshi
  156. I wrote somewhere on this site that Greta’s main problem is not even Asperger’s, but stupidity.
    Here is confirmation:
    https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-11-17-observers-shocked-greta-thunbergs-inability-to-answer.html?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com&utm_campaign=dbr

    • Replies: @Aedib
    @AnonFromTN

    What do you think about the pompous and self-righteous speeches of Eurocrats? They feel the little clown Borrell was humiliated in Moscow and threat Russia with “terrible retaliations”.

    Replies: @AnonfromTN, @Passer by

  157. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk

    Religions and cultures don’t have a point of view, people do. This upgrade from primitive paganism liberated the people from their subjugation to nature (making them not slaves or subjects to it and it’s gods, but heirs and children of the Creator Himself), improved the lives of the people. In Northern Europe, primitive dwellings and forts were replaced by soaring cathedrals and sturdy beautiful castles, cities appeared, music and visual arts became complex in their beauty. The drive to understand and master the natural world that their Father gave them resulted in technology that made people almost like gods; they used it to eliminate various plagues, to traverse the whole world, settle it, and to liberate other peoples from their darkness.

    It’s just weird to consider such a process to be an infectious one. Infections generally make one weak, or even kill them. The peoples who adopted the Christian faith in contrast became masters of this world.

    Now, the ideologies that weaken or go against that faith can indeed be compared to aversive viruses.

    Replies: @AnonFromTN, @Bashibuzuk, @EldnahYm, @Dmitry

    You are simply crediting all advances that occurred after Christianity’s adoption to Christianity. If you’re going to adopt these assumptions, you have no basis for denying the modern critic of Christianity who blames it for modern liberalism, mass immigration, minoritarianism, atomism, relativism, dysgenics etc. But I bet you will not accept this.

    Most of the northern European advances you credit to “Christianity” could instead be credited to something like “Roman technology” and Christianity be looked at as an ideology free-riding on a Roman civilizational model which pre-dates the adoption of Christianity.

    Besides, in other parts of the world we have alternative models where your story about Christianity simply doesn’t work. In China Christianity is a dangerous foreign cult which undermines national unity, opens it to malign foreign influence, and leads to wars, and has been that way for hundreds of years. Modern Japan’s rise is partly the result of successful persecution of Christianity.

    One could also spend ages nitpicking your simple story of a linear advance from the adoption of Christianity onwards. From a human welfare standpoint, all of those fancy buildings didn’t do the majority of people much good, and the world remained Malthusian until relatively recently. From the perspective of who built the fanciest stuff, even you have to admit that the picture isn’t as nice as you described. At the very least, the post-Classical, pre-Renaissance world had regressed in many ways.

    Crediting Christianity with medical advances is a particularly big stretch on your part. Medical practices in Europe were worse than useless for treating infectious diseases. Europe was a backwater in this respect. The Chinese had variolation to treat smallpox centuries before the Europeans, and the Europeans were the last part of the civilized world to learn of it.

    I say all this not to advance the thesis that Christianity is responsible for all modern ills and that all of the advances in northern Europe described had nothing to do with Christianity. I think that thesis would be an exaggeration. Certain forms of Christianity have been used to spread literacy, universalistic religions probably do have an advantage for larger scale societies as opposed to smaller, tribal ones, and the pathetic state of medicine in Europe has to be blamed on the retention of Classical ideas. Roman doctors, whether Pagan or Christian, were on the wrong track with regard to infectious disease. Nor do I believe something so laughable as the idea that all medieval technological advances are linked to Roman ideas. Besides, any honest person will have to grapple with the fact that Christian ideas are highly varied. But your story is even more of a caricature than the one I could present, one which I don’t even believe.

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk
    • Replies: @Coconuts
    @EldnahYm


    Most of the northern European advances you credit to “Christianity” could instead be credited to something like “Roman technology” and Christianity be looked at as an ideology free-riding on a Roman civilizational model which pre-dates the adoption of Christianity.
     
    Probably what Bacon, Descartes, Newton and so on did during the 'Second Scientific Revolution' qualifies as something novel, its own kind of thing and previously unknown, even though the starting point was the Aristotelian tradition and some of the Roman and medieval engineering and other innovations as they existed in their period. They initiated a kind of revenge of natural philosophy over religion and traditional philosophy which is still ongoing.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @EldnahYm

    , @AP
    @EldnahYm


    You are simply crediting all advances that occurred after Christianity’s adoption to Christianity.
     
    Yes. It's rather logical, given that for centuries prior to Christianity Northern Europeans didn't accomplish much, and Greeks and Romans while brilliant theorists were not so focused on transforming the world.

    If you’re going to adopt these assumptions, you have no basis for denying the modern critic of Christianity who blames it for modern liberalism, mass immigration, minoritarianism, atomism, relativism, dysgenics etc. But I bet you will not accept this.
     
    These problems are all due to the erosion of Christianity. The Classical world also experienced an erosion - Christianity then stepped in, and everything turned out better.

    Most of the northern European advances you credit to “Christianity” could instead be credited to something like “Roman technology” and Christianity be looked at as an ideology free-riding on a Roman civilizational model which pre-dates the adoption of Christianity.
     
    You put it backwards. Christianity came first, and transmitted the Roman and Greek knowledge while combining it with a non-Classical weltanschauung - the Christian drive to not only further contemplate and study the natural world as the Ancients did but also to control it. So already in medieval times practical refinements were being made, and systems were created (universities, scientific method) that would maximize advancement. So already monks were trying to come up with perpetual motion machines or to transform materials into gold, not just theorizing.

    Besides, in other parts of the world we have alternative models where your story about Christianity simply doesn’t work.
     
    Places like China or India had a thousands of years head start but were eclipsed by the Christian Europeans who had recently emerged from barbarism.

    Crediting Christianity with medical advances is a particularly big stretch on your part. Medical practices in Europe were worse than useless for treating infectious diseases. Europe was a backwater in this respect.
     
    Correct. I didn't mention medical advances overall. I think medieval Europeans pioneered use of quarantines and invented eyeglasses.

    The Chinese had variolation to treat smallpox centuries before the Europeans, and the Europeans were the last part of the civilized world to learn of it.
     
    Chinese came up with variolation in the 15th century. Yet centuries later Europeans invented vaccines; Pasteur was a very devout Christian.

    Replies: @EldnahYm, @AltanBakshi

  158. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk


    Well, the difference between a parasite and a symbiont is a small one.
     
    Not really. All complex multicellular organisms derive from a symbiotic process. The difference between a human and a bacterium or other single-called organism without organelles is a huge, not small. As is the difference between Europeans reaching the moon and producing cathedrals and Bach, versus those living in earthen huts and chanting to their tree gods around a decorated pole.

    The Indo-European native religious traditions existed for many thousand years prior to their eradication by the Semitic Abrahamic religious package. These traditions were very stable and allowed for the survival and cultural development of the European man

     

    Indeed. Bacteria have been around longer than people and may still be around after people leave this world. Would that make complex life an infection of some sort?

    This process of human uniformisation gave the memetic package more human ressources to exploit towards its self propagtion
     
    This is only half the story. The increased complexity that came with Christianity resulted not only in increased universalism but also in increased individualism. Not only societies, but also each person living within them became far more complex, intelligent, and interesting.

    Today we witness the ongoing demise of the “Judeo-Christian” civilization
     
    Maybe, or maybe it will recover. If not - well, a bacterium cannot succumb to cancer. This is a problem of complex and beautiful organisms.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    I don’t think going to the moon has anything to do with adopting an Abrahamic religion. Also, Roman Empire and ancient Greece were pagan and yet produced beautiful and complex cultures. As did Sumerians and Egyptians and ancient Aryans from the Sintashta Arkaim. Neither of these cultures was inferior to the Ancient Hebrew culture, they were equal or arguably superior. Therefore, the European man would have still produced science and culture even without converting to an Abrahamic religion.

    • Agree: AltanBakshi
    • Replies: @AP
    @Bashibuzuk


    I don’t think going to the moon has anything to do with adopting an Abrahamic religion
     
    I doubt a non-Christian people would have gone to the moon. The Greeks and Romans never bothered to to cross the Atlantic.

    Also, Roman Empire and ancient Greece were pagan and yet produced beautiful and complex cultures.
     
    I was focused on the northern barbarian peoples who were transformed by Christianity. Rome and Greece were complex and produced beauty, but they were a dead end. What do you think of these words by the Russian philosopher Berdyaev? (Spengler's view of Classical technology was the same as that of Berdyaev)

    To assert that Christianity is hostile to man’s activity contradicts, in the first place, history. The greatest possible human activity was manifested during the Christian epoch and the most dynamic development belongs to nations that have embraced Christianity—the nations of the West. It has proved itself to be a force building up and directing history. Even its foes were forced to admit that the nations of the ancient civilizations of the East—China, India, Persia—nations which refused to accept Christianity—fell out of step with the world’s history: they stagnated, they lived in the past, they did not face the future. It was only Christianity that made nations capable of looking towards what was to come.

    This can be explained by the messianic nature of Christianity, by the faith that the world was going
    forward to its definite, all-explaining goal—the kingdom of God. The very conception of history as
    a dynamic process, possessing a meaning of its own and advancing towards the highest aim, was created by Christianity. Such a conception became possible because, in the midst of history, Christ, the Saviour of the world, came into it, or in other words, the meaning of the world’s processes was incarnated. The Greeks and the whole of ancient civilization had no true conception of history; their minds were not directed forward; they conceived the world as a revolving circle. The Greek was meditative, not active. He had an aesthetic love for the beauty of the cosmos, for the world’s harmony; his religion was closely related to the myths of the past, and in this past the myths played an important part.

    Christianity, on the other hand, lives not only in the past, but in the future as well. It is looking forward to the second coming of Christ, to the kingdom of God, to the end of the world, when the whole meaning of existence will be realized. The dynamism which was introduced by Christianity into the history of human societies is related to this seeking for God’s kingdom—to the seeking for perfect life. Christianity alone knows aught of this intense seeking, this dissatisfaction with the existing world; it alone has implanted this anxiety in the soul. Man dares to be satisfied only with a perfection as complete as that of the Heavenly Father...

    The Greco-Roman civilization, aristocratic in its very principles, despised work and looked upon it as the portion of the slaves; it is only since Christianity, since the Gospel, that work and those who do it have been sanctified. Christ himself worked: “The labourer is worthy of his hire.” The parables concerning the talents and the vineyard speak of human labour, of human activity, of human creative gifts: man must return his talents multiplied to God (Matt, xxv, 14-30; xxi, 28-31). The activity of man^ must be fruitful; he is told to till the soil; he must return increased all that he has received. Nowhere does the Gospel justify passivity. Christianity established the dignity of every man, ‘fashioned in God’s image and after his likeness,’ and it opens an endless vista of perfection, a perfection not only of individuals but of social meaning. Christianity affirms that man is a spiritual being, and spirit is ever active; that is the definition of spirit. Matter is passive and inert. A spiritual being cannot but strive towards eternity, perfection, the fullness of life, and such a striving implies movement, dynamic development, activity.

    It was Christianity that set man free from the power of Nature, from the elemental forces in the midst of which ancient heathen man lived. In the pagan world man saw demons and spirits everywhere: he was afraid of them and felt that he was subject to them. Christianity released man from this dread of the chaos of dark demoniacal forces underlying Nature, it freed the human spirit from oppression; it raised man and subjected his fate to God, not to elemental natural forces, to the inner, not to the outward. Man could not learn to know Nature scientifically and conquer it technically so long as he thought it was peopled with spirits upon whom his own life depended. Christianity set man free from this pandemonism, thereby spiritually preparing the development of natural science and technical progress, the conquest of nature and its subjection to mankind.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @sher singh

  159. @Blinky Bill
    @Not Only Wrathful

    Live births over the last 4 years for China.


    2016, 17,860,000
    2017, 17,230,000
    2018, 15,230,000
    2019, 14,650,000

     
    My estimate for the year 2020, 12,920,000

    The pundits always predict a decline in total births, but they always over do it.


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/China_single_age_population_pyramid_2020.png/797px-China_single_age_population_pyramid_2020.png

    Replies: @Malenfant

    USA, 2018: 3,791,712 live births.

    …Of which only about half were white.

    So to ’s point — the difference between 1.0 and 1.5 may seem large, but, given their vastly larger population base, China can keep up at 1.0 for a hell of a lot longer than white Americans can survive at 1.5. They’ll still have far more births, more children, more energy.

    And that’s granting China is at a 1.0 TFR, which is an assumption. (And seemingly a rather prejudiced one.) Official statistics have it at 1.69. In other words, the Chinese TFR is plausibly higher than the white American TFR.

  160. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Lol, Chinese imperialists are operating re-education camps as we speak and sending writers they don't like to jail. Russian imperialists and traditionalists sent dissidents and writers to prison and Siberia. European traditional nationalists to prison.

    But I'm a neurotic wacko for describing your position accurately :)

    I also said metaphorical labor camps as well - I was referring to other forms of repression and persecution of free thinkers, of which there are many, and which I have no doubt you support. You seem like the type who would be quite thuggis against free thinkers, like Daniel Chieh, who glorifies violent repression.

    Your Buddhism seems quite doubtful to me, to say the least :) Doesn't quite square with your imperialism and support for aggression.

    My Buddhism may be unorthodox, but it has support in some language in some texts and among certain canonical Buddhist writers - support for aggression, imperialism, hatred and dislike of certain ethnicities, being very attached to political outcomes, does not even have that level of support.

    But I am fine with you calling yourself what you like. What you are is on display here - and no fairy tales about you tolerating free thinkers, please.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @AltanBakshi

    So those who dislike your arguments – are automatically against free speech? How narcissistic one can be?

    Only an utter idiot would jail you, or send you to labour camp, making martyr out of you, would be the only way how your ideas would get some prestige.

    If we start to speak about what kind of hypothetical justice system in my ideal society would be, then in such society you would not be punished for some online writings, but you would get 20 lashes (with bamboo cane) if you would irritate publicly people with your idiotic stuff. Really you have a messiah or some kind of martyr complex if you think that random people on internet dream about jailing you or something.

    (Im not now writing about you, but I would prefer system of internal exile over labour camps, in most cases at least)

    • LOL: Bashibuzuk
    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    Oh I forgot to add that everyone who supports Israel is a de facto supporter of Imperialism, so this is very much 'pot calling kettle black' -situation. No matter what you say, occupying territories inhabited by hostile people, with a different culture and faith, is Imperialism par excellence. Actually Israel is praiseworthy in its adaptation of Imperialism to modern circumstances. When most are forced to bow before the jealous God of liberalism and equality.

    , @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Ha! Its a little bit too late for the old "you are beneath my lofty notice" pose :)

    Your long trail of agitated and angry responses to my comments makes clear you are extremely threatened and distressed by them.

    Although I do agree that you should see my comments as completely unthreatening and innocuous- but I can't control what anxious people find fearful :)

    Also, authorirarians can't pull off "I'm so secure that I don't care what you say". They would then be liberals.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @AltanBakshi

  161. @AP
    @AnonFromTN

    It is you who writes opposites. In the Christian view we are children and heirs of God, made in His image.Thus we see ideas about inherent rights of nan, abolition of slavery, become widespread. Under paganism man was subject to nature; it makes sense for extreme nationalists to like paganism because they subjugate man to the Nation. The combination of individualism and universalism arising from Christianity provides for more freedom than under pagans or nationalist totalitarians.

    Replies: @AnonFromTN, @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi

    I understand your point, and Christianity has in my opinion done much, much more good than bad. But abolition of slavery is not thanks to traditional or apostolic Christianity.

    It is said in the New Testament that even though master hits you, you must be faithful to your master as to God. Though in some versions of Bible the word servant and not slave is used, but in reality those servants were much more slaves in a modern sense than servants. Also it was basic stuff for Early Medieval Christian Kingdoms to buy and sell slaves, Church didnt see much problem with it, though freeing of Christian slaves was seen as a pious act. Still Roman or Germanic Christians did not think in anyway that slavery was in conflict with their faith, I actually once had a long debate about this topic.

    Christianity would be perfect as a theistic religion, if it would just accept that its not absolutely necessary for everyone, but maybe that would be death for authentic Christianity, religious vigour would be lost, and its precisely what has happened to various Mainline Protestant sects, like Lutherans and Episcopalians.

  162. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    So those who dislike your arguments - are automatically against free speech? How narcissistic one can be?

    Only an utter idiot would jail you, or send you to labour camp, making martyr out of you, would be the only way how your ideas would get some prestige.

    If we start to speak about what kind of hypothetical justice system in my ideal society would be, then in such society you would not be punished for some online writings, but you would get 20 lashes (with bamboo cane) if you would irritate publicly people with your idiotic stuff. Really you have a messiah or some kind of martyr complex if you think that random people on internet dream about jailing you or something.

    (Im not now writing about you, but I would prefer system of internal exile over labour camps, in most cases at least)

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AaronB

    Oh I forgot to add that everyone who supports Israel is a de facto supporter of Imperialism, so this is very much ‘pot calling kettle black’ -situation. No matter what you say, occupying territories inhabited by hostile people, with a different culture and faith, is Imperialism par excellence. Actually Israel is praiseworthy in its adaptation of Imperialism to modern circumstances. When most are forced to bow before the jealous God of liberalism and equality.

  163. @ImmortalRationalist
    What do you think of this video analyzing China's chances of becoming the next world power? Some of his arguments are that China will experience massive aging in the next generation similar to that of Japan, which will cripple Chinese prospects for world domination. He also argues that the Chinese are lying about their fertility rate, and the actual Chinese fertility rate is closer to 1.0. He also argues that, as an atheistic society, the Chinese feel no sense of purpose in their lives and are generally unhappy as a result.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7wZOGtsOWg

    Replies: @Malenfant, @advancedatheist, @Passer by, @Nancy O'Brien Simpson, @Daniel Chieh, @Abelard Lindsey

    The fact that he believes that China and Russia are going to war over Siberia because of global warming gives you everything you need to know about his accuracy of prediction, or lack of thereof.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Daniel Chieh

    This is pretty epic BTW, worth listening to the end where Russia "inevitably" has a leadership crisis and a civil war; Siberia then secedes to join China. I think I saw a Shadowrun campaign like this, only that was cooler with Yakut spirits creating a magical totalitarianism.

    This belongs in the same fictional category.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist

  164. @Daniel Chieh
    @ImmortalRationalist

    The fact that he believes that China and Russia are going to war over Siberia because of global warming gives you everything you need to know about his accuracy of prediction, or lack of thereof.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    This is pretty epic BTW, worth listening to the end where Russia “inevitably” has a leadership crisis and a civil war; Siberia then secedes to join China. I think I saw a Shadowrun campaign like this, only that was cooler with Yakut spirits creating a magical totalitarianism.

    This belongs in the same fictional category.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
    @Daniel Chieh

    Empire Earth had the best Russian plot.

    A nationalist (transhumanist) Russian leader, Grigor, unites and revivifies collapsed 90s era Russia, previously run by gangsters, defeating Western backed traitors. However they wound him and he passes over control to an AI copy of himself (incarnated in a mecha) called Grigor II. Grigor II conquers Europe and China and tries to conquer the US. However, he becomes evil and so a Russian general defects to the Americans and they send an army back in time to kill Grigor II.

    The expansion had a (crypto-fascist) Chinese leader colonising space after the collapse of the PRC. It also ended with war against the West.

  165. I am in the U.S. I play online chess — international speed games. No Russian player has ever made a snide post-game chat comment to me. If he makes any comment, it is “good game.” (“gg”). U.S. players occasionally do make a mean comment. Also, a Russian player will resign a hopelessly lost game, whereas an American player will just play it out sometimes, or walk away from the game; these are not courteous.

  166. @Bashibuzuk
    @Coconuts

    You are correct, the change in Judaic thought happened after Babylonia captivity and under the influence of the Mazda Yasna. It is not a coincidence that the Bible has been most probably put down in writing after that.

    Zoroaster was the first to proclaim that Yezdan (Ahura Mazda) was the only true creator God, the only true source of everything existing and that all the other gods (Devas) were demons under the power of Ahriman (Angra Manyu). Before Zoroaster, everyone including Semites, believed in the plurality of divine beings, which of course fits well with the Jungian psychology aspect of mythological elaboration.

    The angels are also a Zoroastrian innovation as is the concept of the messiah / redeemer and the eschalotological fight between good and evil at the end of times. Zoroastrian thought was the matrix that transformed the tribal Semitic creed of the Hebrews into the virulent Abrahamic religious meme that it has become in the late antiquity. A virulent spiritual program that ended up completely destroying native European religious systems that were thousand years old at the time of contact between European Paganism and Abrahamic Monotheism.

    Zoroaster paid this transgression against the plurality and diversity of the divine with his life. He was sacrificed to the Devas when he was captured by the Turanian nomads. This is also what my Slavic ancestors did to the early apostles of Christ.

    Replies: @Coconuts

    The angels are also a Zoroastrian innovation as is the concept of the messiah / redeemer and the eschalotological fight between good and evil at the end of times. Zoroastrian thought was the matrix that transformed the tribal Semitic creed of the Hebrews into the virulent Abrahamic religious meme that it has become in the late antiquity. A virulent spiritual program that ended up completely destroying native European religious systems that were thousand years old at the time of contact between European Paganism and Abrahamic Monotheism.

    I’d read that Persian religious thought had influenced the Jewish tradition, and given the geographical proximity and power of the Persians it isn’t surprising. Greek philosophy seems to have also played some role in the development of Christianity, perhaps influencing the environment in which it originally emerged, certainly the way in which it was later interpreted.

    Finally I was thinking about the Roman Empire itself. Not too far from where I live there are a lot of remains of Roman frontier forts and military settlements and you can see in the votive altars and statues that the various people present were worshiping the gods of different peoples simultaneously, and that the Roman tendency to connect different local gods to Roman deities was strong. There were also temples to ‘Eastern’ mystery religions that were popular in the military in the last period of the Western Empire. Given the simultaneous prominence of the military’s imperial cult in these areas, I wondered if Christianity had taken hold partly by being a more economic form of religiosity, melding all of these different cultic activities and tendencies into a single religion and set of ceremonies. This could also reflect the need for something that emphasised unity within the Empire as it was showing increasing tendencies to fragment.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @Coconuts

    Christianity is a syncretic religion organized on an Abrahamic basis. It has incorporated elements of neoplatonic thought, Middle Eastern mystical traditions and Mithraist and Zoroastrian elements too.

    I have also thought about how Christianity might have been a religion Roman elites used to try to unify the ethnically and religiously diverse masses of the Roman Empire, like today the "Wokism" is also used to try to unify the multicultural West.

    The end result in the West might actually be the same as in the Western Roman Empire (which was ethnically more heterogenous) : weakening, fragmentation, cultural downfall and depopulation.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  167. @Vishnugupta
    @reiner Tor

    I wouldn't say stolen..this is a charge levied on practically all USSR projects that look similar to their western counterparts like say the Tu 144.Its more a case of the laws of physics being the same for everyone and people independently arriving at similar solutions to identical problems given the state of technology at the time like how a lot of fourth generation fighters adopted the euro canard configuration.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Just look it up, they literally downloaded the design. And there would have been another way, iirc, they just decided to do a near carbon copy of the American one. They certainly based their design on the American one.

    • Replies: @Simpleguest
    @reiner Tor


    Just look it up, they literally downloaded the design.
     
    If something is designed to glide back to earth it needs to be shaped like an airplane. And if you take a closer look at the existing aircraft, especially the civilian ones, they all look identical.

    The only idea that the Soviets may have "borrowed" is the thermal protection of the underbelly by using thousands of custom sized and shaped, temperature resistant, tiles to "coat" the areas exposed to friction heat. This idea eventually proved to be not the smartest one.

    The main difference between Shuttle and Buran was that the latter lacked own lift -off engines. The Shuttle engines were useful only during lift-off and provided significant percentage of the total thrust. In space, and especially during descend, these bulky engines were just dead weight (or dead mass to be exact).

    Buran depended entirely on Energia rocket for lift-off. It was equipped with small rocket engines, sufficient for maneuvers in space, which freed a lot of weight for other, more useful loads.

    Replies: @Simpleguest, @reiner Tor

  168. @EldnahYm
    @AP

    You are simply crediting all advances that occurred after Christianity's adoption to Christianity. If you're going to adopt these assumptions, you have no basis for denying the modern critic of Christianity who blames it for modern liberalism, mass immigration, minoritarianism, atomism, relativism, dysgenics etc. But I bet you will not accept this.

    Most of the northern European advances you credit to "Christianity" could instead be credited to something like "Roman technology" and Christianity be looked at as an ideology free-riding on a Roman civilizational model which pre-dates the adoption of Christianity.

    Besides, in other parts of the world we have alternative models where your story about Christianity simply doesn't work. In China Christianity is a dangerous foreign cult which undermines national unity, opens it to malign foreign influence, and leads to wars, and has been that way for hundreds of years. Modern Japan's rise is partly the result of successful persecution of Christianity.

    One could also spend ages nitpicking your simple story of a linear advance from the adoption of Christianity onwards. From a human welfare standpoint, all of those fancy buildings didn't do the majority of people much good, and the world remained Malthusian until relatively recently. From the perspective of who built the fanciest stuff, even you have to admit that the picture isn't as nice as you described. At the very least, the post-Classical, pre-Renaissance world had regressed in many ways.

    Crediting Christianity with medical advances is a particularly big stretch on your part. Medical practices in Europe were worse than useless for treating infectious diseases. Europe was a backwater in this respect. The Chinese had variolation to treat smallpox centuries before the Europeans, and the Europeans were the last part of the civilized world to learn of it.

    I say all this not to advance the thesis that Christianity is responsible for all modern ills and that all of the advances in northern Europe described had nothing to do with Christianity. I think that thesis would be an exaggeration. Certain forms of Christianity have been used to spread literacy, universalistic religions probably do have an advantage for larger scale societies as opposed to smaller, tribal ones, and the pathetic state of medicine in Europe has to be blamed on the retention of Classical ideas. Roman doctors, whether Pagan or Christian, were on the wrong track with regard to infectious disease. Nor do I believe something so laughable as the idea that all medieval technological advances are linked to Roman ideas. Besides, any honest person will have to grapple with the fact that Christian ideas are highly varied. But your story is even more of a caricature than the one I could present, one which I don't even believe.

    Replies: @Coconuts, @AP

    Most of the northern European advances you credit to “Christianity” could instead be credited to something like “Roman technology” and Christianity be looked at as an ideology free-riding on a Roman civilizational model which pre-dates the adoption of Christianity.

    Probably what Bacon, Descartes, Newton and so on did during the ‘Second Scientific Revolution’ qualifies as something novel, its own kind of thing and previously unknown, even though the starting point was the Aristotelian tradition and some of the Roman and medieval engineering and other innovations as they existed in their period. They initiated a kind of revenge of natural philosophy over religion and traditional philosophy which is still ongoing.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Coconuts

    When you are reading Descartes and Spinoza, you might still have some sense of scholastic writings - not in their conclusions, but in their reasoning style (even though both had run away from their religious studies, to become a soldier and lense maker, respectively).

    But in Hume, there is sense of modern empirical thinker, in open rebellion against the church and against religious thought.


    -

    The main value of the Church in European intellectual history, was to preserve the thought of the Greek and Roman Ancient World, to preserve texts from the Ancient World, and to train people in skills needed to access them.

    Scholasticism was too constrained by religious dogma to produce a Great Philosopher, but the medieval philosophers practiced building complicated arguments, writing textbooks on Aristotle's logic, and establishing institutions which would create a great (albeit only secular) harvest in subsequent centuries.

    , @EldnahYm
    @Coconuts

    Descartes, Newton, and the rest of the boys in the band wouldn't have seen it that way. To them, what they were doing is enunciating the divine laws by which the universe is governed. Newton in particular was a serious theologian. In all of the examples AP mentions of technological advances to be credited to Christianity, he would actually have a stronger case by singling out Newton's contributions, which were plainly influenced by Christian philosophical ideas.

    The ideas of Locke and Hume(Dmitry rightly mentions him) were damaging to religion in a different way than the people you mentioned. I believe there has been a tendency to conflate scientific and empirical thinking with skeptical and relativistic thinking as if they are the same. This conflation has introduced a great deal of rot. Locke and Hume are partly to blame for this state of affairs.

    Replies: @Coconuts

  169. @reiner Tor
    @Vishnugupta

    Just look it up, they literally downloaded the design. And there would have been another way, iirc, they just decided to do a near carbon copy of the American one. They certainly based their design on the American one.

    Replies: @Simpleguest

    Just look it up, they literally downloaded the design.

    If something is designed to glide back to earth it needs to be shaped like an airplane. And if you take a closer look at the existing aircraft, especially the civilian ones, they all look identical.

    The only idea that the Soviets may have “borrowed” is the thermal protection of the underbelly by using thousands of custom sized and shaped, temperature resistant, tiles to “coat” the areas exposed to friction heat. This idea eventually proved to be not the smartest one.

    The main difference between Shuttle and Buran was that the latter lacked own lift -off engines. The Shuttle engines were useful only during lift-off and provided significant percentage of the total thrust. In space, and especially during descend, these bulky engines were just dead weight (or dead mass to be exact).

    Buran depended entirely on Energia rocket for lift-off. It was equipped with small rocket engines, sufficient for maneuvers in space, which freed a lot of weight for other, more useful loads.

    • Agree: Vishnugupta
    • Replies: @Simpleguest
    @Simpleguest

    I just wanted to add that the Soviets may have "borrowed" the concept, the idea behind the Shuttle i.e. a reusable space craft that would lift-off like a rocket and descend, or glide back like an airplane.
    When you apply the same concept, inevitably you end up with very similar results.

    Probably the Soviets just wanted to give it (the idea) a try, just in case. Eventually, it proved to be a dead end, at least with the current level of development of human technology.

    , @reiner Tor
    @Simpleguest


    if you take a closer look at the existing aircraft, especially the civilian ones, they all look identical.
     
    It’s because of the manufacturing and maintenance technology. The fuselage needs to be cigar-shaped so that the sections of it are identical (except the cockpit and the tail section), which makes it easier to produce. The engines need to be hanged on the wings to make maintenance easier. Aerodynamically it’s not the best shape.

    Anyway, regardless of shape, the Soviets downloaded the whole documentation of the American Space Shuttle. I’m not sure if it made it that much easier for them to make a similar vehicle, but it probably helped a lot.

    Replies: @Simpleguest

  170. @Coconuts
    @Bashibuzuk


    The angels are also a Zoroastrian innovation as is the concept of the messiah / redeemer and the eschalotological fight between good and evil at the end of times. Zoroastrian thought was the matrix that transformed the tribal Semitic creed of the Hebrews into the virulent Abrahamic religious meme that it has become in the late antiquity. A virulent spiritual program that ended up completely destroying native European religious systems that were thousand years old at the time of contact between European Paganism and Abrahamic Monotheism.
     
    I'd read that Persian religious thought had influenced the Jewish tradition, and given the geographical proximity and power of the Persians it isn't surprising. Greek philosophy seems to have also played some role in the development of Christianity, perhaps influencing the environment in which it originally emerged, certainly the way in which it was later interpreted.

    Finally I was thinking about the Roman Empire itself. Not too far from where I live there are a lot of remains of Roman frontier forts and military settlements and you can see in the votive altars and statues that the various people present were worshiping the gods of different peoples simultaneously, and that the Roman tendency to connect different local gods to Roman deities was strong. There were also temples to 'Eastern' mystery religions that were popular in the military in the last period of the Western Empire. Given the simultaneous prominence of the military's imperial cult in these areas, I wondered if Christianity had taken hold partly by being a more economic form of religiosity, melding all of these different cultic activities and tendencies into a single religion and set of ceremonies. This could also reflect the need for something that emphasised unity within the Empire as it was showing increasing tendencies to fragment.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    Christianity is a syncretic religion organized on an Abrahamic basis. It has incorporated elements of neoplatonic thought, Middle Eastern mystical traditions and Mithraist and Zoroastrian elements too.

    I have also thought about how Christianity might have been a religion Roman elites used to try to unify the ethnically and religiously diverse masses of the Roman Empire, like today the “Wokism” is also used to try to unify the multicultural West.

    The end result in the West might actually be the same as in the Western Roman Empire (which was ethnically more heterogenous) : weakening, fragmentation, cultural downfall and depopulation.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Bashibuzuk


    I have also thought about how Christianity might have been a religion Roman elites used to try to unify the ethnically and religiously diverse masses of the Roman Empire, like today the “Wokism” is also used to try to unify the multicultural West.
     
    Hmm, already in the 2nd and 3rd century most inhabitants of 'Romania' felt being members of one Roman nation, as an example emperors could have their origins in far away provinces, like Pannonia, Hispania and Libya. To me it seems that the differentiation between the inhabitants of original City state of Rome and subjects of the Empire had almost totally disappeared by the time of Caracalla and Severus.

    In the time of Constantine I, Christians were a minority, probably only 10-20% of the Empires population. To me it seems, that many people in the Late Antique did not anymore take seriously gods, yes they often believed in their existence, but they were too human and frail in comparison with Christ, especially after the tumultuous 3rd century, it must seemed to then that their traditional gods could not give much protection to the empire.

    Its no good that the gulf between Christians and non-Christians is growing in the West, theres already too much atomisation in the society.
  171. @Simpleguest
    @reiner Tor


    Just look it up, they literally downloaded the design.
     
    If something is designed to glide back to earth it needs to be shaped like an airplane. And if you take a closer look at the existing aircraft, especially the civilian ones, they all look identical.

    The only idea that the Soviets may have "borrowed" is the thermal protection of the underbelly by using thousands of custom sized and shaped, temperature resistant, tiles to "coat" the areas exposed to friction heat. This idea eventually proved to be not the smartest one.

    The main difference between Shuttle and Buran was that the latter lacked own lift -off engines. The Shuttle engines were useful only during lift-off and provided significant percentage of the total thrust. In space, and especially during descend, these bulky engines were just dead weight (or dead mass to be exact).

    Buran depended entirely on Energia rocket for lift-off. It was equipped with small rocket engines, sufficient for maneuvers in space, which freed a lot of weight for other, more useful loads.

    Replies: @Simpleguest, @reiner Tor

    I just wanted to add that the Soviets may have “borrowed” the concept, the idea behind the Shuttle i.e. a reusable space craft that would lift-off like a rocket and descend, or glide back like an airplane.
    When you apply the same concept, inevitably you end up with very similar results.

    Probably the Soviets just wanted to give it (the idea) a try, just in case. Eventually, it proved to be a dead end, at least with the current level of development of human technology.

  172. @AltanBakshi
    @silviosilver

    You have a point, I agree, but is Cosmism enough for family men? Or how I would put it? Such abstract ideas as interstellar empires, possible future terraforming scenarios, bioengineering and so on, how such ideas motivate men and women to bond and make babies? In my opinion Cosmism can be a good source for motivation for a minority of some highly specialised and idealistic men, but for masses such promises sound hollow, at least as long as there are no concrete results, but only some distant promises that will be realised in future, or so I so believe. But personally to me, such ideas sound inspiring.

    As a glue for social cohesion and solidarity? No, I dont believe that Cosmism can be such glue. Not at all. Still if there is enough surplus production in society and some charismatic personas speaking for it, then Cosmism can be an engine for societal change, but I really dont believe that masses would be ready to make personal sacrifices in the name of the Cosmism.(Without the heavy hand of state!)

    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much? Authoritarian? No, not enough, it must be totalitarian, or masses start to question and criticize too much. Every day citizens would make a pledge that humanity will reach the stars, news would be full of reports of new astronomic findings, all tv channels would broadcast documentaries about rocket engines and exoplanets, there would be more than ten channels for scifi series etc, etc....

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @silviosilver, @mal, @ImmortalRationalist, @FerW

    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much? Authoritarian? No, not enough, it must be totalitarian, or masses start to question and criticize too much. Every day citizens would make a pledge that humanity will reach the stars, news would be full of reports of new astronomic findings, all tv channels would broadcast documentaries about rocket engines and exoplanets, there would be more than ten channels for scifi series etc, etc….

    Whether space colonization is a good idea depends on the average quality of life of the future sentient beings that will colonize space. If quality of life is on average negative, one could argue that space colonization is evil due to spreading vast amounts of suffering across the universe. Antinatalism, if taken to its logical conclusion, implies that space colonization is one of the greatest evils imaginable, and that Earth would be better off as a dead planet completely devoid of life. Although humanity in its current form will almost certainly never colonize the universe. The entities that will colonize the universe will either be posthumans or some form of superintelligence, and such entities may be capable of wireheading.

    Relevant:
    https://longtermrisk.org/risks-of-astronomical-future-suffering/
    https://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multiply-wild-animal-suffering/
    https://reducing-suffering.org/utopia/
    https://reducing-suffering.org/how-likely-is-wireheading/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7nsv4n_Bgk

    • Replies: @mal
    @ImmortalRationalist


    Antinatalism, if taken to its logical conclusion, implies that space colonization is one of the greatest evils imaginable, and that Earth would be better off as a dead planet completely devoid of life.
     
    We can feed those people to lions. It will increase happiness of lions and decrease unhappiness of the antinatalists. Win win. Also, animals, on balance, prefer to live rather than die, (try killing a mosquito some time, she will dodge you as hard as possible, definitely doesn't want to die), from that we can conclude that their happiness/unhappiness ratio is above one. Exceptions exist of course (whale sometimes committing suicide and so on), but those are relatively rare.

    More fundamentally, suffering is an important feedback mechanism and we wouldn't want to eliminate it anyway. Pointless suffering should be minimized (like you probably shouldn't torture animals), but ability to feel pain is important (like if you stick your hand in a fire, you need a feedback mechanism telling you that something is wrong).

    Although humanity in its current form will almost certainly never colonize the universe.
     
    Well sure! Your great grandmother was a tree rat. Your great granddaughter will be a radiation resistant superintelligent squid adapted for subsurface oceans of Europa. It is perfectly normal. Evolution never stops. It is our duty, as humanity, to give it a little push and maybe steer it a little bit to minimize losses and rationalize the process. But we are all one big family stemming from the common genetic lineage. We are at least 4 billion years old, and hopefully will carry on for many tens of billions of years into the future. Within the family, changes are normal and expected, and it's fine. T Rexes may no longer be with us, but even dinosaurs march on as pigeons. As long as the family spreads, individual branches are not that critical. Though obviously, survival is important to the individual branch.
  173. @AnonFromTN
    I wrote somewhere on this site that Greta’s main problem is not even Asperger’s, but stupidity.
    Here is confirmation:
    https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-11-17-observers-shocked-greta-thunbergs-inability-to-answer.html?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com&utm_campaign=dbr

    Replies: @Aedib

    What do you think about the pompous and self-righteous speeches of Eurocrats? They feel the little clown Borrell was humiliated in Moscow and threat Russia with “terrible retaliations”.

    • Replies: @AnonfromTN
    @Aedib


    What do you think about the pompous and self-righteous speeches of Eurocrats? They feel the little clown Borrell was humiliated in Moscow and threat Russia with “terrible retaliations”.
     
    Sure, Borrell was deeply offended in Moscow: his hypocrisy was exposed for all to see. This fighter for freedom of speech, this knight in a shining armor, was impolitely asked about journalists jailed for their professional activities in vaudeville Baltic states, about banning of Russian TV channels in those same statelets, and about closing of three opposition TV channels in another American vassal, Ukraine. He could not say anything coherent, just mooed, poor thing.

    In fact, the EU has already run out of sanctions, they’ve introduced even those that hurt them more than Russia. When Eurocrats are offended, they, like toddlers in a sandbox, have tantrums. So, one should react to them exactly like to toddlers: ignore, unless you are prepared to spank them.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Aedib, @Passer by

    , @Passer by
    @Aedib

    It means that Russia and Western Europe are culturally incompatible and that Russia will be moving away from Europe. I could have told you that this is how it was going to end 10 years ago. But russian leadership believed in better relations with Europe to the end, without realising that it is not the same Europe anymore.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Philip Owen

  174. @Daniel Chieh
    @Daniel Chieh

    This is pretty epic BTW, worth listening to the end where Russia "inevitably" has a leadership crisis and a civil war; Siberia then secedes to join China. I think I saw a Shadowrun campaign like this, only that was cooler with Yakut spirits creating a magical totalitarianism.

    This belongs in the same fictional category.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist

    Empire Earth had the best Russian plot.

    A nationalist (transhumanist) Russian leader, Grigor, unites and revivifies collapsed 90s era Russia, previously run by gangsters, defeating Western backed traitors. However they wound him and he passes over control to an AI copy of himself (incarnated in a mecha) called Grigor II. Grigor II conquers Europe and China and tries to conquer the US. However, he becomes evil and so a Russian general defects to the Americans and they send an army back in time to kill Grigor II.

    The expansion had a (crypto-fascist) Chinese leader colonising space after the collapse of the PRC. It also ended with war against the West.

    • Thanks: Daniel Chieh
  175. @Dieter Kief
    @Bashibuzuk

    Me too!

    I just think that maybe he is a bit deficient when it comes to transcendence. That might make him a tad - too bitter in the end.

    If you don't mind: How old were you, when you read Omon Ra - and did it have a disillusional effect on you?

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    I read nearly all his novels and quite a few short stories. I think Pelevin made a speciality of metaphysical dark humor and transcendent trolling. He has the talent of telling very deep things with a trolling laugh. He is a philosophical troll.

    Take this video below from the Generation P movie:

    Ain’t it quite interesting in the light of the latest developments?

    😄

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Bashibuzuk

    Oh - I would love to see this movie. Did not know it existed. I've read a few of Pelevin's later novels too. Generation P and Buddha's Little Finger. I liked them. The lighter and more ironic novels of Ukrainian writer Andrej Kurkov I loved even more - Picnic on the Ice and Pinguis don't Freeze .

    The - ironic - if not sarcastic? - sentence in the clip above about the creative guy they're about to meet and who costs in the minute what they make in a week I liked best - hehe.

    You did not answer my question whether it was a rather disillusioning experience (= a bitter experience?) to read Omon Ra. I'd be all ears if you'd be willing to write about it.
    (I think Omon Ra is one of those rare books that will survive their decade (it already has...), and one question is: What - individual - traces did they leave in the minds of their readers (I've studied literature and philosophy, etc. in Heidelberg, than Konstanz in the German south and there was this once even famous group of all kinds of humanities experts working on the question how the works of literature - work, so to speak, in the mind of the reader. Their journal was called: Poetic und Hermeneutic. - Their last volume of 550 000 characters has the title: The Arts - Not Beautiful Any Longer. Oh - and one very last one was called Terror and Play.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  176. @Bashibuzuk
    @AP


    Under paganism man was subject to nature
     
    I am not sure this is exact. How was the ancient Greek neoplatonic pagan more subject to nature than his Jewish or Christian counterpart ?

    Given the destructive action of the Abrahamic religions, we have no trace left of the Slav paganism and very little left of the German/Scandinavian and Celtic paganisms. Therefore we have no idea of how complex or deep these religious systems possibly were. All we know is that these belief systems existed for thousands of years and would probably continued their existence under some form if not for their encounter with the exotic and virulent Abrahamic belief system.

    I would actually love to know what were exactly the beliefs and convictions of the Wendish priests of Rhetra, but they were hunted down and killed, their Gods were assigned by the victorious Catholic crusaders among the demons to be forgotten and erased.

    These Gods were the Gods of our ancestors during thousands of years. We are not Abraham's children. I don't see why the ancestors of Hebrews and Arabs should be seen as more worthy of respect than our own European ancestors.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/O98_Idol_von_Sbrutsch_mit_Darstellung_von_Unterwelt%2C_Erde_und_des_Himmels%2C_zirka_10._Jh._n._Chr..JPG

    This Archetype was worshipped by your ancestors for thousands of years AP. Probably since the unified paneuropean cultural realm of the Unetice. But if you think that praying to a crucified Jew is more appropriate, then so be it. We all free now to respect what we have chosen to respect.

    Replies: @Morton's toes, @AP

    I would actually love to know what were exactly the beliefs and convictions of the Wendish priests of Rhetra, but they were hunted down and killed, their Gods were assigned by the victorious Catholic crusaders among the demons to be forgotten and erased.

    There is a fellow, Leo Zagami, alternately fascinating and drooling loon, who claims nothing was erased. Everything was preserved in the Vatican archives. When Malachi Martin described Satanists inside the Vatican, he was exaggerating what would be better described as eclectic scholars who are not bashful about their investigations all over the darn place.

    Zagami is an occultist so he has that Get Out of Jail Free card that his books are filled with misdirections and blinds intentionally and the dedicated-sincere can go through them straight.

    I have only read a couple of his books and they are quite maddening.

    For example I have read this one:

    Some of what is in there is great but there is so little of it that efficiency plummets.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @Morton's toes

    My personal conclusion is that at a certain time, probably by the middle Bronze Age, the intermarriage of the Bell Beaker males and local (mostly Corded Ware) females produced in Central Europe a thoroughly blended population that built the Unetice Culture. A truly pan-European phenomenon, linking the Bell Beaker West and the Corded Ware East and speaking a proto-Indo European language that became the lingua franca / koine allowing for the relative uniformisation of religious symbols and practices across Europe as demonstrated by the Urnfield Culture burial practices and sacred circular enclosures.

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/ring-sanctuary-of-pommelte-germany-a-monumental-multilayered-metaphor-of-the-late-third-millennium-bc/583BE3828E1DB4B638F6E34F96B18125

    https://www.ancient.eu/article/235/the-nebra-sky-disk---ancient-map-of-the-stars/

    These people would have had a common priestly class and a common mythology. After the demise of the Unetice Culture and the subsequent evolution of the Celtic Hallstatt / Latene Culture and the proto-Slavic (ptoto-Antes) Lusatian Culture, the unified religious and cultural ensemble was fractured. But both Celts and Slavs would have kept at least a part of the common tradition. The Baltic Slavs kept it alive in Arkona until the twelfth century.

    The Slavs being less affected by the Roman Empire and the Mediterranean cultural realm, have probably kept more of the archaic elements intact. In fact Slav society changed very little from the Unetice times to the times of the early Rus.

    Thinking that these people had no culture, no philosophy, no metaphysical doctrines is of course very short sighted. The ancestors of Europeans had nothing lacking in them when compared to the Semitic people.

  177. @Morton's toes
    @Bashibuzuk


    I would actually love to know what were exactly the beliefs and convictions of the Wendish priests of Rhetra, but they were hunted down and killed, their Gods were assigned by the victorious Catholic crusaders among the demons to be forgotten and erased.
     
    There is a fellow, Leo Zagami, alternately fascinating and drooling loon, who claims nothing was erased. Everything was preserved in the Vatican archives. When Malachi Martin described Satanists inside the Vatican, he was exaggerating what would be better described as eclectic scholars who are not bashful about their investigations all over the darn place.

    Zagami is an occultist so he has that Get Out of Jail Free card that his books are filled with misdirections and blinds intentionally and the dedicated-sincere can go through them straight.

    I have only read a couple of his books and they are quite maddening.

    For example I have read this one:

    https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Illuminati-Decline-Satanism-Society/dp/1986894657

    Some of what is in there is great but there is so little of it that efficiency plummets.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    My personal conclusion is that at a certain time, probably by the middle Bronze Age, the intermarriage of the Bell Beaker males and local (mostly Corded Ware) females produced in Central Europe a thoroughly blended population that built the Unetice Culture. A truly pan-European phenomenon, linking the Bell Beaker West and the Corded Ware East and speaking a proto-Indo European language that became the lingua franca / koine allowing for the relative uniformisation of religious symbols and practices across Europe as demonstrated by the Urnfield Culture burial practices and sacred circular enclosures.

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/ring-sanctuary-of-pommelte-germany-a-monumental-multilayered-metaphor-of-the-late-third-millennium-bc/583BE3828E1DB4B638F6E34F96B18125

    https://www.ancient.eu/article/235/the-nebra-sky-disk—ancient-map-of-the-stars/

    These people would have had a common priestly class and a common mythology. After the demise of the Unetice Culture and the subsequent evolution of the Celtic Hallstatt / Latene Culture and the proto-Slavic (ptoto-Antes) Lusatian Culture, the unified religious and cultural ensemble was fractured. But both Celts and Slavs would have kept at least a part of the common tradition. The Baltic Slavs kept it alive in Arkona until the twelfth century.

    The Slavs being less affected by the Roman Empire and the Mediterranean cultural realm, have probably kept more of the archaic elements intact. In fact Slav society changed very little from the Unetice times to the times of the early Rus.

    Thinking that these people had no culture, no philosophy, no metaphysical doctrines is of course very short sighted. The ancestors of Europeans had nothing lacking in them when compared to the Semitic people.

  178. @Coconuts
    @EldnahYm


    Most of the northern European advances you credit to “Christianity” could instead be credited to something like “Roman technology” and Christianity be looked at as an ideology free-riding on a Roman civilizational model which pre-dates the adoption of Christianity.
     
    Probably what Bacon, Descartes, Newton and so on did during the 'Second Scientific Revolution' qualifies as something novel, its own kind of thing and previously unknown, even though the starting point was the Aristotelian tradition and some of the Roman and medieval engineering and other innovations as they existed in their period. They initiated a kind of revenge of natural philosophy over religion and traditional philosophy which is still ongoing.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @EldnahYm

    When you are reading Descartes and Spinoza, you might still have some sense of scholastic writings – not in their conclusions, but in their reasoning style (even though both had run away from their religious studies, to become a soldier and lense maker, respectively).

    But in Hume, there is sense of modern empirical thinker, in open rebellion against the church and against religious thought.

    The main value of the Church in European intellectual history, was to preserve the thought of the Greek and Roman Ancient World, to preserve texts from the Ancient World, and to train people in skills needed to access them.

    Scholasticism was too constrained by religious dogma to produce a Great Philosopher, but the medieval philosophers practiced building complicated arguments, writing textbooks on Aristotle’s logic, and establishing institutions which would create a great (albeit only secular) harvest in subsequent centuries.

  179. @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    So those who dislike your arguments - are automatically against free speech? How narcissistic one can be?

    Only an utter idiot would jail you, or send you to labour camp, making martyr out of you, would be the only way how your ideas would get some prestige.

    If we start to speak about what kind of hypothetical justice system in my ideal society would be, then in such society you would not be punished for some online writings, but you would get 20 lashes (with bamboo cane) if you would irritate publicly people with your idiotic stuff. Really you have a messiah or some kind of martyr complex if you think that random people on internet dream about jailing you or something.

    (Im not now writing about you, but I would prefer system of internal exile over labour camps, in most cases at least)

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @AaronB

    Ha! Its a little bit too late for the old “you are beneath my lofty notice” pose 🙂

    Your long trail of agitated and angry responses to my comments makes clear you are extremely threatened and distressed by them.

    Although I do agree that you should see my comments as completely unthreatening and innocuous- but I can’t control what anxious people find fearful 🙂

    Also, authorirarians can’t pull off “I’m so secure that I don’t care what you say”. They would then be liberals.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @AaronB


    Your long trail of agitated and angry responses to my comments makes clear you are extremely threatened and distressed by them.
     
    Very cool projection. I can't fault you for being neurotic though, after all, much like the rest of your mental illnesses, you can't help it.

    But its still fun to laugh at you.
    , @AltanBakshi
    @AaronB

    "Aaron likes to piss me off, I also like piss him off, very simple."

    "Though you are 99% of time wrong, I am the real idiot, because of my pride and attachment to Buddhism I cant to stop arguing with you, we are just two fools locked in this futile state"

    Heres few comments that I wrote to you not long time ago, maybe you project, but I have tried to be honest with you. Still it was often funny to debate with you, but at the moment it seems that you dont have anything substantial left to say. You have reached the advanced stage of egoism - claiming to know others mind perfectly without building a good and solid argumentation for your reasoning.

    Aaron I love debating, its one of the best things in life, I have always loved it. I have great respect for both physical and verbal forms of fighting. Though verbal is superior. Both forms of fighting can be most noble ways to act if motivation arises from the need defend lives or ones Dharma. Without practice one can never become a master of something.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n47meDyom9E

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9M60U7icT4M

  180. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk

    Religions and cultures don’t have a point of view, people do. This upgrade from primitive paganism liberated the people from their subjugation to nature (making them not slaves or subjects to it and it’s gods, but heirs and children of the Creator Himself), improved the lives of the people. In Northern Europe, primitive dwellings and forts were replaced by soaring cathedrals and sturdy beautiful castles, cities appeared, music and visual arts became complex in their beauty. The drive to understand and master the natural world that their Father gave them resulted in technology that made people almost like gods; they used it to eliminate various plagues, to traverse the whole world, settle it, and to liberate other peoples from their darkness.

    It’s just weird to consider such a process to be an infectious one. Infections generally make one weak, or even kill them. The peoples who adopted the Christian faith in contrast became masters of this world.

    Now, the ideologies that weaken or go against that faith can indeed be compared to aversive viruses.

    Replies: @AnonFromTN, @Bashibuzuk, @EldnahYm, @Dmitry

    Within a short time after the adoption of Christianity that had been created in the Middle East, Europe fell into many centuries of Dark Ages (let’s say, from 524 – with the execution of Boethius, to 15th century Florence – or around 900 years), and would only rise again alongside rediscovery of the knowledge of civilization in texts inherited from the Ancient World, during the Renaissance.

    Of course, adoption of Christianity was not a cause of the collapse of civilization, but adopting exotic religions created by people Romans had conquered, is viewed typically by historians since Edward Gibbon, as being a symptom of the increasing weakness and fracturing of the Roman world.

    Christianity was valuable in leading to rebirth of civilization in Europe, through preservation of texts from the Ancient World in monasteries, and training people in skills needed to access them, and establishment of institutions and associations of learning, and of Latin as a European-wide language of scholars. The key things about which knowledge was preserved as a byproduct of Church activities, was originally created by civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome – so there is a preservation of Ancient knowledge by the Church, but the value was more preservation of knowledge than production of it.

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk
    • Replies: @AP
    @Dmitry


    Within a short time after the adoption of Christianity that had been created in the Middle East, Europe fell into many centuries of Dark Ages (let’s say, from 524 – with the execution of Boethius, to 15th century Florence – or around 900 years)
     
    Myths of the Enlightenment whose purpose was not objective.
    and whose ideas about the middle ages were often false or exaggerated.

    https://theneomedievalist.blogspot.com/2021/01/how-enlightenment-ideology-obscured.html?m=1

    I hope you do not believe that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat?

    Explain how the lands of Rus, Germany, Scandinavia fell into "Dark Ages" after adoption of Christianity. And why did Byzantium not have "Dark Ages?" The civilized parts in the West fell to recently Christianized barbarians. Had they not been Christianized what would have become of those lands?

    is viewed typically by historians since Edward Gibbon, as being a symptom of the increasing weakness and fracturing of the Roman world.
     
    Gibbon - anti-Catholic bigot, whose well-written works are interesting as an example of thinking from his age but not so useful otherwise. Gibbon writing about the Christian age is like a Bolshevik writing about the time of the Tsars. Even wiki summarizes:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon#Legacy

    "Edward Gibbon's central thesis in his explanation of how the Roman empire fell, that it was due to embracing Christianity, is not widely accepted by scholars today."

    The key things about which knowledge was preserved as a byproduct of Church activities, was originally created by civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome – so there is a preservation of Ancient knowledge by the Church, but the value was more preservation of knowledge than production of it.
     
    Technological innovation in Europe of the Medieval Period:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology

    After the Renaissance of the 12th century, medieval Europe saw a radical change in the rate of new inventions, innovations in the ways of managing traditional means of production, and economic growth.[2] The period saw major technological advances, including the adoption of gunpowder, the invention of vertical windmills, spectacles, mechanical clocks, and greatly improved water mills, building techniques (Gothic architecture, medieval castles), and agriculture in general (three-field crop rotation).



    Architecture and construction
    Pendentive architecture (6th century)

    A specific spherical form in the upper corners to support a dome. Although the first experimentation was made in the 3rd century, it wasn't until the 6th century in the Byzantine Empire that its full potential was achieved.

    Artesian well (1126)

    A thin rod with a hard iron cutting edge is placed in the bore hole and repeatedly struck with a hammer, underground water pressure forces the water up the hole without pumping. Artesian wells are named after the town of Artois in France, where the first one was drilled by Carthusian monks in 1126.

    Central heating through underfloor channels (9th century)

    In the early medieval Alpine upland, a simpler central heating system where heat travelled through underfloor channels from the furnace room replaced the Roman hypocaust at some places. In Reichenau Abbey a network of interconnected underfloor channels heated the 300 m2 large assembly room of the monks during the winter months. The degree of efficiency of the system has been calculated at 90%.[20]

    Rib vault (12th century)

    An essential element for the rise of Gothic architecture, rib vaults allowed vaults to be built for the first time over rectangles of unequal lengths. It also greatly facilitated scaffolding and largely replaced the older groin vault.

    Chimney (12th century)

    The first basic chimney appeared in a Swiss monastery in 820. The earliest true chimney did not appear until the 12th century, with the fireplace appearing at the same time.[21]

    Segmental arch bridge (1345)

    The Ponte Vecchio in Florence is considered medieval Europe's first stone segmental arch bridge since the end of classical civilizations.


    Treadwheel crane
    Treadwheel crane (1220s)

    The earliest reference to a treadwheel in archival literature is in France about 1225,[22] followed by an illuminated depiction in a manuscript of probably also French origin dating to 1240.[23] Apart from tread-drums, windlasses and occasionally cranks were employed for powering cranes.[24]

    Stationary harbour crane (1244)

    Stationary harbour cranes are considered a new development of the Middle Ages; its earliest use being documented for Utrecht in 1244.[25] The typical harbour crane was a pivoting structure equipped with double treadwheels. There were two types: wooden gantry cranes pivoting on a central vertical axle and stone tower cranes which housed the windlass and treadwheels with only the jib arm and roof rotating.[1] These cranes were placed on docksides for the loading and unloading of cargo where they replaced or complemented older lifting methods like see-saws, winches and yards.[25] Slewing cranes which allowed a rotation of the load and were thus particularly suited for dockside work appeared as early as 1340.[26]

    Replies: @Dmitry

  181. @Aedib
    @AnonFromTN

    What do you think about the pompous and self-righteous speeches of Eurocrats? They feel the little clown Borrell was humiliated in Moscow and threat Russia with “terrible retaliations”.

    Replies: @AnonfromTN, @Passer by

    What do you think about the pompous and self-righteous speeches of Eurocrats? They feel the little clown Borrell was humiliated in Moscow and threat Russia with “terrible retaliations”.

    Sure, Borrell was deeply offended in Moscow: his hypocrisy was exposed for all to see. This fighter for freedom of speech, this knight in a shining armor, was impolitely asked about journalists jailed for their professional activities in vaudeville Baltic states, about banning of Russian TV channels in those same statelets, and about closing of three opposition TV channels in another American vassal, Ukraine. He could not say anything coherent, just mooed, poor thing.

    In fact, the EU has already run out of sanctions, they’ve introduced even those that hurt them more than Russia. When Eurocrats are offended, they, like toddlers in a sandbox, have tantrums. So, one should react to them exactly like to toddlers: ignore, unless you are prepared to spank them.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @AnonfromTN

    In NY, the local NPR affiliate WNYC picks up BBC bits at 3 PM during the week. One of them featured host James Coomarasamy and one of the Beeb's Moscow based propagandists Sarah Rainsford (Steve Rosenberg being the other). In a segment on Alexey Navalny and the Borrell-Lavrov meeting, Rainsford had the gall to say that Sergey Lavrov has defended the indefensible. That's sheer nonsense as discussed in the below video.

    https://theduran.com/eu-external-affairs-commissioner-borrell-humiliated-by-russias-lavrov/

    Navalny has committed crimes involving a French cosmetics firm and not observing the parole conditions accorded to him. Navalny's disrespectful manner at a court hearing didn't help his standing. Anglo-American courts are known to tack on added time to defendants who carry on in a boorish way.

    Good for Lavrov. In actuality, it's Coomarasamy, Rainsford and Borrell, who if anything defend the indefensible.

    , @Aedib
    @AnonfromTN

    I had fun reading the furious Editorials from Elpais.es and TheGuardian. It seems that Eurocrats started to realize that they depleted their sanctions arsenal and failed to kill the bear. They wanted to lecture Russia on human rights and received a contemptuous answer. So, they started to realize they lack hard power necessary to back they inflated demands.

    Replies: @Passer by, @AnonFromTN

    , @Passer by
    @AnonfromTN


    In fact, the EU has already run out of sanctions
     
    They didn't, the latest sanctions round was banning Belarus from hosting various sports events.

    Banning countries from international sport events is quite effective tactic at humiliating opposing countries.

    Replies: @AnonFromTN

  182. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Ha! Its a little bit too late for the old "you are beneath my lofty notice" pose :)

    Your long trail of agitated and angry responses to my comments makes clear you are extremely threatened and distressed by them.

    Although I do agree that you should see my comments as completely unthreatening and innocuous- but I can't control what anxious people find fearful :)

    Also, authorirarians can't pull off "I'm so secure that I don't care what you say". They would then be liberals.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @AltanBakshi

    Your long trail of agitated and angry responses to my comments makes clear you are extremely threatened and distressed by them.

    Very cool projection. I can’t fault you for being neurotic though, after all, much like the rest of your mental illnesses, you can’t help it.

    But its still fun to laugh at you.

    • Agree: AltanBakshi
  183. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry

    A people deprived of transcendance would not reproduce. They would literally have no future. A people who have lost their gods would become something else if they adopt the gods of their conquerors. Any people holding strongly to their creed would not disappear, unless physically exterminated.

    In the Genesis, the creation myth is natrated by using plural Elohim for God. El or Elah was widely distributed among the Semitic tribes as the name of their god and in the earliest times, the God of Abraham was just the tribal spirit of a Northern Arabian population. Interestingly enough, the word Allah derives directly from this Semitic root. The early Hebrews did not deny the reality of other divine beings: Baals etc, rather they believed their God being the strongest one and the right one, while others were seen as demons masquerading as gods. Later on, the early Christians did exactly the same with the gods of pagan populations they converted. The only ones who flatly deny the existence of any other higher being are the Muslims, their affirmation of faith (Shahada) is the proclamation that there is no other god but Allah.

    Gods are basically memetic packages of information associated with their own semantic fields. The soul of a people is their culture: the information system that allows this people to find meaning in their existence. There is no meaningful existence without cukture, no culture without myths, there are no myths without gods and heroes. Abrahamic faiths have displaced, negated and destroyed the cultures of the converted populations. They have captured their souls and made them slaves to their Semitic God.

    This is why Jews deny the humanity of the Goyim, that is why they basically consider them as soulless animals : Akums whose spiritual nature is inherently inferior to a Hebrew. That is why Christianity sees all non-Christian as irredeemably damned, unless they accept Christ. And it is for this reason that Muslims consider all Kuffar as ignorants who will not find the Straight Path to Salvation (As-Seerat Al Mustakeem). The Abrahamic God, shared by these religions is a virulent meme, a theological virus infecting human consciousness, destroying and digesting the previous native theological memetic package and thriving in the infected populace brains.

    The mystics spoke of Egregores arising from the consciousness of the multitudes, God is fed through such an egregor. If you completely annihilate the egregor related to a God, this God dies. That is why in the ancient time the Christians heard the proclamation: "The Great God Pan has died".

    Ancient people were aware of these things, modern people are too blind to understand that what lives through them is their ancestors information, in both genetic and spiritual terms.

    Replies: @Morton's toes, @AP, @Dmitry

    people deprived of transcendence would not reproduce

    All our ancestors human and non-human, have reproduced, with or without achieving a sense of “transcendence”. Nature has ensured that people want to have sex to the extent they feel heterosexual lust, and historically often the most nihilistic and nontranscendent people (e.g. rapists, etc) have reproduced.

    It’s only a result of technological habits of the last century, that sex could be conveniently separated from reproduction, and in our time we now have a choice or voluntary aspect to having children, when mostly peasant population of the past had many children without a choice.

    Today, vast majority of people will have children (e.g. 91% of Russian citizens), but the political/economic problem is created by a large proportion of people having only 1 child instead of 2.

    From the viewpoint of “transcendence”, the 21st century idea that you should invest in your children, can seem more spiritually responsible, than the unthinking reproduction of our ancestors.

    Even today, I wouldn’t be surprised if transcendence and spirituality, can not often reduce natality. Spiritual men and philosophers of the past, seem to have below average natality for their times, and transcendent perspectives can also support anti-natalism as we see in the writing of Schopenhauer.

    their God being the strongest one and the right one, while others were seen as demons masquerading as gods. Later on, the early Christians did exactly the same with the gods of

    Strength or weakness of other supernatural entities relative to God, would be dependent on objective reality, not subjective beliefs.

    You cannot kill another person’s god, but you could convert another people to understand it is not god that they worship.

    The idea that you could kill peoples’ gods, is assuming that gods don’t exist, but are a creation of peoples and cultures. This is a very normal viewpoint for us, but not before the 19th century.

    consciousness of the multitudes, God is fed through such an egregor.

    This is the standard modern secular view, a little in the style of Feuerbach.

    But it assume that god doesn’t exist, in the sense God-fearing people believe – that God is an objective power, that doesn’t depend on your imagination.

    ancient time the Christians heard the proclamation: “The Great God Pan has died”.

    Ancient people were aware of these things, modern people are too blind to understand that what lives through them is their ancestors information, in both genetic and spiritual terms.

    When propagating religion, they could I’m sure see the loss of peoples’ faith in rivals as a positive sense, as in this “death of Pan” myth created by Early Christians.

    But to be Early Christian, will mean that you don’t believe that Pan is a god. Rather, you would want people to understand reality of who is actually god.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry


    All our ancestors human and non-human, have reproduced, with or without achieving a sense of “transcendence”. Nature has ensured that people want to have sex, and historically often the most nihilistic people (e.g. rapists, etc) have reproduced.
     
    Sure people can have babies outside of any religious setting, but primitive people literally bathed into the spiritual: for an animist or a folower of shamanism everything around was infused with spirits. And since the earliest times the sexual act was seen as somewhat magical. It is still the case today in many esoteric traditions.

    Strength or weakness of other supernatural entities relative to God, would be dependent on objective reality, not subjective beliefs.
     
    There is nothing objective at all in the religious beliefs in general. The religious experience is always deeply subjective.

    But to be Early Christian, will mean that you don’t believe that Pan is a god. Rather, you would want people to understand reality of who is actually god.
     
    You should read the Sayings of the desert fathers. You would see for yourself that they did not deny the existence of other gods, but saw them as demons. This is also clearly mentioned in the Gnostic apocrypha.

    This is the standard modern secular view, a little in the style of Feuerbach.
     
    LOL

    Egregore (also spelled egregor; from French égrégore, from Ancient Greek egrḗgoros 'wakeful') is an occult concept representing a distinct non-physical entity that arises from a collective group of people. Historically, the concept referred to angelic beings, or watchers, and the specific rituals and practices associated with them, namely within Enochian traditions.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore

    Very modern indeed...

    LOL

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Dmitry

  184. @Aedib
    @AnonFromTN

    What do you think about the pompous and self-righteous speeches of Eurocrats? They feel the little clown Borrell was humiliated in Moscow and threat Russia with “terrible retaliations”.

    Replies: @AnonfromTN, @Passer by

    It means that Russia and Western Europe are culturally incompatible and that Russia will be moving away from Europe. I could have told you that this is how it was going to end 10 years ago. But russian leadership believed in better relations with Europe to the end, without realising that it is not the same Europe anymore.

    • Disagree: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @Passer by

    Regarding Russia, the neocon/neolib leaning bent of the EU is indeed putrid. They don't represent all of Europe. The EU itself doesn't constitute all of Europe.

    There's some reason for cautious optimism. It really isn't in the West's best interests to be so hypocritically anti-Russian to the degree evident.

    Replies: @Passer by

    , @Philip Owen
    @Passer by

    Nicholas I gave Eurasianism a stronger effort than modern Russia. He failed dismally. Peter the Great and Nicholas I represent a peak and a trough of a cycle Russia has been repeating since the foundation of Kiev if not before. On the whole Europe wins.

    Replies: @Passer by

  185. @Dmitry
    @Bashibuzuk


    people deprived of transcendence would not reproduce
     
    All our ancestors human and non-human, have reproduced, with or without achieving a sense of "transcendence". Nature has ensured that people want to have sex to the extent they feel heterosexual lust, and historically often the most nihilistic and nontranscendent people (e.g. rapists, etc) have reproduced.

    It's only a result of technological habits of the last century, that sex could be conveniently separated from reproduction, and in our time we now have a choice or voluntary aspect to having children, when mostly peasant population of the past had many children without a choice.

    Today, vast majority of people will have children (e.g. 91% of Russian citizens), but the political/economic problem is created by a large proportion of people having only 1 child instead of 2.

    From the viewpoint of "transcendence", the 21st century idea that you should invest in your children, can seem more spiritually responsible, than the unthinking reproduction of our ancestors.

    Even today, I wouldn't be surprised if transcendence and spirituality, can not often reduce natality. Spiritual men and philosophers of the past, seem to have below average natality for their times, and transcendent perspectives can also support anti-natalism as we see in the writing of Schopenhauer.


    their God being the strongest one and the right one, while others were seen as demons masquerading as gods. Later on, the early Christians did exactly the same with the gods of
     
    Strength or weakness of other supernatural entities relative to God, would be dependent on objective reality, not subjective beliefs.

    You cannot kill another person's god, but you could convert another people to understand it is not god that they worship.

    The idea that you could kill peoples' gods, is assuming that gods don't exist, but are a creation of peoples and cultures. This is a very normal viewpoint for us, but not before the 19th century.


    consciousness of the multitudes, God is fed through such an egregor.
     
    This is the standard modern secular view, a little in the style of Feuerbach.

    But it assume that god doesn't exist, in the sense God-fearing people believe - that God is an objective power, that doesn't depend on your imagination.

    ancient time the Christians heard the proclamation: “The Great God Pan has died”.

    Ancient people were aware of these things, modern people are too blind to understand that what lives through them is their ancestors information, in both genetic and spiritual terms.

     

    When propagating religion, they could I'm sure see the loss of peoples' faith in rivals as a positive sense, as in this "death of Pan" myth created by Early Christians.

    But to be Early Christian, will mean that you don't believe that Pan is a god. Rather, you would want people to understand reality of who is actually god.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    All our ancestors human and non-human, have reproduced, with or without achieving a sense of “transcendence”. Nature has ensured that people want to have sex, and historically often the most nihilistic people (e.g. rapists, etc) have reproduced.

    Sure people can have babies outside of any religious setting, but primitive people literally bathed into the spiritual: for an animist or a folower of shamanism everything around was infused with spirits. And since the earliest times the sexual act was seen as somewhat magical. It is still the case today in many esoteric traditions.

    Strength or weakness of other supernatural entities relative to God, would be dependent on objective reality, not subjective beliefs.

    There is nothing objective at all in the religious beliefs in general. The religious experience is always deeply subjective.

    But to be Early Christian, will mean that you don’t believe that Pan is a god. Rather, you would want people to understand reality of who is actually god.

    You should read the Sayings of the desert fathers. You would see for yourself that they did not deny the existence of other gods, but saw them as demons. This is also clearly mentioned in the Gnostic apocrypha.

    This is the standard modern secular view, a little in the style of Feuerbach.

    LOL

    Egregore (also spelled egregor; from French égrégore, from Ancient Greek egrḗgoros ‘wakeful’) is an occult concept representing a distinct non-physical entity that arises from a collective group of people. Historically, the concept referred to angelic beings, or watchers, and the specific rituals and practices associated with them, namely within Enochian traditions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore

    Very modern indeed…

    LOL

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @Bashibuzuk

    Here's a description of Egregores from the Theosophic point of view:

    https://theosophy.wiki/en/Egregore


    Other words that have been used to describe an egregore are archetype, group consciousness, and zeitgeist. Rupert Sheldrake’s morphogenic fields are egregores.
     
    This is very close to what I mentioned in my comments: religions as memetic packages unfolding in a semiotic field. That's a modern and secular manner to describe it if we need one.
    , @AltanBakshi
    @Bashibuzuk


    You should read the Sayings of the desert fathers. You would see for yourself that they did not deny the existence of other gods, but saw them as demons.
     
    This is very true, early Christians believed that Pagan gods were demons, but as you probably know, demon was not so bad word then, as it later became during the Middle Ages. So to us moderns what they meant by demon would be more like spirit of nature, which sometimes were malevolent, and sometimes more neutral.

    It wouldnt even be a heretical Christian position to claim that Pagan gods exist as lost spirits, who are not anywhere near as powerful as the true God and not worthy of worship.

    , @Dmitry
    @Bashibuzuk


    Very modern indeed…LOL
     
    As described in the article, it is 19th century, and originated in a wonderful romantic book of Jan Potocki (Manuscript Found in Saragossa).

    should read the Sayings of the desert fathers. You would see for yourself that they did not deny the existence of other gods, but saw them as demons.

     

    This is the kind of text I would like to read, but the point of our argument is not whether they described other peoples' gods as demons, but whether they believed that gods could be created by people believing in it, and that gods would die when people stop to believe.

    The idea that gods are created by peoples' belief is an accurate perception of reality, but a perception which requires you to not see these gods as an objective reality. Those are gods which might sometimes interact with man, but such objective gods hardly require man's beliefs to exist.

    Once you see gods as requiring man's belief to exist, then they are no longer really gods - rather, they become as they had for writers like Herder, as part of collective culture, or "soul of the people".

    Early Christians believe that Pan might be some kind of demon, but the distinction between demons and god, is part of objective reality for them.

    If they believed the difference between demons and gods, is a result of peoples' belief systems, then they would undermine the strength of their own belief in god as an objective reality.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi

  186. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry


    All our ancestors human and non-human, have reproduced, with or without achieving a sense of “transcendence”. Nature has ensured that people want to have sex, and historically often the most nihilistic people (e.g. rapists, etc) have reproduced.
     
    Sure people can have babies outside of any religious setting, but primitive people literally bathed into the spiritual: for an animist or a folower of shamanism everything around was infused with spirits. And since the earliest times the sexual act was seen as somewhat magical. It is still the case today in many esoteric traditions.

    Strength or weakness of other supernatural entities relative to God, would be dependent on objective reality, not subjective beliefs.
     
    There is nothing objective at all in the religious beliefs in general. The religious experience is always deeply subjective.

    But to be Early Christian, will mean that you don’t believe that Pan is a god. Rather, you would want people to understand reality of who is actually god.
     
    You should read the Sayings of the desert fathers. You would see for yourself that they did not deny the existence of other gods, but saw them as demons. This is also clearly mentioned in the Gnostic apocrypha.

    This is the standard modern secular view, a little in the style of Feuerbach.
     
    LOL

    Egregore (also spelled egregor; from French égrégore, from Ancient Greek egrḗgoros 'wakeful') is an occult concept representing a distinct non-physical entity that arises from a collective group of people. Historically, the concept referred to angelic beings, or watchers, and the specific rituals and practices associated with them, namely within Enochian traditions.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore

    Very modern indeed...

    LOL

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Dmitry

    Here’s a description of Egregores from the Theosophic point of view:

    https://theosophy.wiki/en/Egregore

    Other words that have been used to describe an egregore are archetype, group consciousness, and zeitgeist. Rupert Sheldrake’s morphogenic fields are egregores.

    This is very close to what I mentioned in my comments: religions as memetic packages unfolding in a semiotic field. That’s a modern and secular manner to describe it if we need one.

  187. @AnonfromTN
    @Aedib


    What do you think about the pompous and self-righteous speeches of Eurocrats? They feel the little clown Borrell was humiliated in Moscow and threat Russia with “terrible retaliations”.
     
    Sure, Borrell was deeply offended in Moscow: his hypocrisy was exposed for all to see. This fighter for freedom of speech, this knight in a shining armor, was impolitely asked about journalists jailed for their professional activities in vaudeville Baltic states, about banning of Russian TV channels in those same statelets, and about closing of three opposition TV channels in another American vassal, Ukraine. He could not say anything coherent, just mooed, poor thing.

    In fact, the EU has already run out of sanctions, they’ve introduced even those that hurt them more than Russia. When Eurocrats are offended, they, like toddlers in a sandbox, have tantrums. So, one should react to them exactly like to toddlers: ignore, unless you are prepared to spank them.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Aedib, @Passer by

    In NY, the local NPR affiliate WNYC picks up BBC bits at 3 PM during the week. One of them featured host James Coomarasamy and one of the Beeb’s Moscow based propagandists Sarah Rainsford (Steve Rosenberg being the other). In a segment on Alexey Navalny and the Borrell-Lavrov meeting, Rainsford had the gall to say that Sergey Lavrov has defended the indefensible. That’s sheer nonsense as discussed in the below video.

    https://theduran.com/eu-external-affairs-commissioner-borrell-humiliated-by-russias-lavrov/

    Navalny has committed crimes involving a French cosmetics firm and not observing the parole conditions accorded to him. Navalny’s disrespectful manner at a court hearing didn’t help his standing. Anglo-American courts are known to tack on added time to defendants who carry on in a boorish way.

    Good for Lavrov. In actuality, it’s Coomarasamy, Rainsford and Borrell, who if anything defend the indefensible.

  188. @Passer by
    @Aedib

    It means that Russia and Western Europe are culturally incompatible and that Russia will be moving away from Europe. I could have told you that this is how it was going to end 10 years ago. But russian leadership believed in better relations with Europe to the end, without realising that it is not the same Europe anymore.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Philip Owen

    Regarding Russia, the neocon/neolib leaning bent of the EU is indeed putrid. They don’t represent all of Europe. The EU itself doesn’t constitute all of Europe.

    There’s some reason for cautious optimism. It really isn’t in the West’s best interests to be so hypocritically anti-Russian to the degree evident.

    • Agree: AltanBakshi
    • Replies: @Passer by
    @Mikhail

    There is chasm between Russia and Western Europe, it is not simply several eurocrats, it is enough to see the huge difference in views on LGBT and gender fluidity among ordinary people.

    When RT, the mouth of the leadership that hoped to wrestle Europe away from the US (and it failed) says that, you will know that there is a serious issue.

    https://russian.rt.com/opinion/825520-popova-ssha-baiden-zapad-liberalizm-ideologiya

    Macron himself said that Russia's conservative model made it incompatible with Europe.

    Replies: @Morton's toes, @Mikhail

  189. @Dmitry
    @AP

    Within a short time after the adoption of Christianity that had been created in the Middle East, Europe fell into many centuries of Dark Ages (let's say, from 524 - with the execution of Boethius, to 15th century Florence - or around 900 years), and would only rise again alongside rediscovery of the knowledge of civilization in texts inherited from the Ancient World, during the Renaissance.

    Of course, adoption of Christianity was not a cause of the collapse of civilization, but adopting exotic religions created by people Romans had conquered, is viewed typically by historians since Edward Gibbon, as being a symptom of the increasing weakness and fracturing of the Roman world.

    Christianity was valuable in leading to rebirth of civilization in Europe, through preservation of texts from the Ancient World in monasteries, and training people in skills needed to access them, and establishment of institutions and associations of learning, and of Latin as a European-wide language of scholars. The key things about which knowledge was preserved as a byproduct of Church activities, was originally created by civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome - so there is a preservation of Ancient knowledge by the Church, but the value was more preservation of knowledge than production of it.

    Replies: @AP

    Within a short time after the adoption of Christianity that had been created in the Middle East, Europe fell into many centuries of Dark Ages (let’s say, from 524 – with the execution of Boethius, to 15th century Florence – or around 900 years)

    Myths of the Enlightenment whose purpose was not objective.
    and whose ideas about the middle ages were often false or exaggerated.

    https://theneomedievalist.blogspot.com/2021/01/how-enlightenment-ideology-obscured.html?m=1

    I hope you do not believe that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat?

    Explain how the lands of Rus, Germany, Scandinavia fell into “Dark Ages” after adoption of Christianity. And why did Byzantium not have “Dark Ages?” The civilized parts in the West fell to recently Christianized barbarians. Had they not been Christianized what would have become of those lands?

    is viewed typically by historians since Edward Gibbon, as being a symptom of the increasing weakness and fracturing of the Roman world.

    Gibbon – anti-Catholic bigot, whose well-written works are interesting as an example of thinking from his age but not so useful otherwise. Gibbon writing about the Christian age is like a Bolshevik writing about the time of the Tsars. Even wiki summarizes:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon#Legacy

    “Edward Gibbon’s central thesis in his explanation of how the Roman empire fell, that it was due to embracing Christianity, is not widely accepted by scholars today.”

    The key things about which knowledge was preserved as a byproduct of Church activities, was originally created by civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome – so there is a preservation of Ancient knowledge by the Church, but the value was more preservation of knowledge than production of it.

    Technological innovation in Europe of the Medieval Period:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology

    After the Renaissance of the 12th century, medieval Europe saw a radical change in the rate of new inventions, innovations in the ways of managing traditional means of production, and economic growth.[2] The period saw major technological advances, including the adoption of gunpowder, the invention of vertical windmills, spectacles, mechanical clocks, and greatly improved water mills, building techniques (Gothic architecture, medieval castles), and agriculture in general (three-field crop rotation).

    [MORE]

    Architecture and construction
    Pendentive architecture (6th century)

    A specific spherical form in the upper corners to support a dome. Although the first experimentation was made in the 3rd century, it wasn’t until the 6th century in the Byzantine Empire that its full potential was achieved.

    Artesian well (1126)

    A thin rod with a hard iron cutting edge is placed in the bore hole and repeatedly struck with a hammer, underground water pressure forces the water up the hole without pumping. Artesian wells are named after the town of Artois in France, where the first one was drilled by Carthusian monks in 1126.

    Central heating through underfloor channels (9th century)

    In the early medieval Alpine upland, a simpler central heating system where heat travelled through underfloor channels from the furnace room replaced the Roman hypocaust at some places. In Reichenau Abbey a network of interconnected underfloor channels heated the 300 m2 large assembly room of the monks during the winter months. The degree of efficiency of the system has been calculated at 90%.[20]

    Rib vault (12th century)

    An essential element for the rise of Gothic architecture, rib vaults allowed vaults to be built for the first time over rectangles of unequal lengths. It also greatly facilitated scaffolding and largely replaced the older groin vault.

    Chimney (12th century)

    The first basic chimney appeared in a Swiss monastery in 820. The earliest true chimney did not appear until the 12th century, with the fireplace appearing at the same time.[21]

    Segmental arch bridge (1345)

    The Ponte Vecchio in Florence is considered medieval Europe’s first stone segmental arch bridge since the end of classical civilizations.

    Treadwheel crane
    Treadwheel crane (1220s)

    The earliest reference to a treadwheel in archival literature is in France about 1225,[22] followed by an illuminated depiction in a manuscript of probably also French origin dating to 1240.[23] Apart from tread-drums, windlasses and occasionally cranks were employed for powering cranes.[24]

    Stationary harbour crane (1244)

    Stationary harbour cranes are considered a new development of the Middle Ages; its earliest use being documented for Utrecht in 1244.[25] The typical harbour crane was a pivoting structure equipped with double treadwheels. There were two types: wooden gantry cranes pivoting on a central vertical axle and stone tower cranes which housed the windlass and treadwheels with only the jib arm and roof rotating.[1] These cranes were placed on docksides for the loading and unloading of cargo where they replaced or complemented older lifting methods like see-saws, winches and yards.[25] Slewing cranes which allowed a rotation of the load and were thus particularly suited for dockside work appeared as early as 1340.[26]

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @AP

    My comment you respond to is summary of the standard view of mainstream historians.

    View of Edward Gibbon that Christianity was a cause of collapse of civilization, is not the standard view, as I have written in that comment.

    Christianity's role in the re-emergence of civilization, was to the extent that institutional church activities helped to preserve Ancient Greek and Roman knowledge.


    about the middle ages were often false or exaggerated.
     
    Since at least the 19th century, there has been a re-adjustment in evaluation of medieval achievements. But this is a relative adjustment.

    You only need to compare a page written by anyone like Cicero, with texts from Middle Ages - it's like comparing something written by an adult, with something written by 10 year old children.

    This is ended with the arrival of Renaissance writers like Montaigne and Machiavelli, who themselves learned their sophistication from studying Ancient writers.

    You can verify this yourself, in the bookshop - compare reading classic texts, with medieval texts. The decline of European thought compared to the Ancient World, is like if Classical Athenian writers, had been sent returned to the mythic world of Hesiod. Sophisticated writing exited only among scholastic schools, where it was constrained by dogma, but was able to preserve some aspects such as Aristotle's logic.


    Myths of the Enlightenment
     
    Well here is example of decline and very slow re-birth - history in the sense that Thucydides wrote it as opposed to Herodotus, only re-emerges in limited way in Italian Renaissance, and then the enlightenment, after many centuries of absence.
  190. @Bashibuzuk
    @AP

    I don't think going to the moon has anything to do with adopting an Abrahamic religion. Also, Roman Empire and ancient Greece were pagan and yet produced beautiful and complex cultures. As did Sumerians and Egyptians and ancient Aryans from the Sintashta Arkaim. Neither of these cultures was inferior to the Ancient Hebrew culture, they were equal or arguably superior. Therefore, the European man would have still produced science and culture even without converting to an Abrahamic religion.

    Replies: @AP

    I don’t think going to the moon has anything to do with adopting an Abrahamic religion

    I doubt a non-Christian people would have gone to the moon. The Greeks and Romans never bothered to to cross the Atlantic.

    Also, Roman Empire and ancient Greece were pagan and yet produced beautiful and complex cultures.

    I was focused on the northern barbarian peoples who were transformed by Christianity. Rome and Greece were complex and produced beauty, but they were a dead end. What do you think of these words by the Russian philosopher Berdyaev? (Spengler’s view of Classical technology was the same as that of Berdyaev)

    [MORE]

    To assert that Christianity is hostile to man’s activity contradicts, in the first place, history. The greatest possible human activity was manifested during the Christian epoch and the most dynamic development belongs to nations that have embraced Christianity—the nations of the West. It has proved itself to be a force building up and directing history. Even its foes were forced to admit that the nations of the ancient civilizations of the East—China, India, Persia—nations which refused to accept Christianity—fell out of step with the world’s history: they stagnated, they lived in the past, they did not face the future. It was only Christianity that made nations capable of looking towards what was to come.

    This can be explained by the messianic nature of Christianity, by the faith that the world was going
    forward to its definite, all-explaining goal—the kingdom of God. The very conception of history as
    a dynamic process, possessing a meaning of its own and advancing towards the highest aim, was created by Christianity. Such a conception became possible because, in the midst of history, Christ, the Saviour of the world, came into it, or in other words, the meaning of the world’s processes was incarnated. The Greeks and the whole of ancient civilization had no true conception of history; their minds were not directed forward; they conceived the world as a revolving circle. The Greek was meditative, not active. He had an aesthetic love for the beauty of the cosmos, for the world’s harmony; his religion was closely related to the myths of the past, and in this past the myths played an important part.

    Christianity, on the other hand, lives not only in the past, but in the future as well. It is looking forward to the second coming of Christ, to the kingdom of God, to the end of the world, when the whole meaning of existence will be realized. The dynamism which was introduced by Christianity into the history of human societies is related to this seeking for God’s kingdom—to the seeking for perfect life. Christianity alone knows aught of this intense seeking, this dissatisfaction with the existing world; it alone has implanted this anxiety in the soul. Man dares to be satisfied only with a perfection as complete as that of the Heavenly Father…

    The Greco-Roman civilization, aristocratic in its very principles, despised work and looked upon it as the portion of the slaves; it is only since Christianity, since the Gospel, that work and those who do it have been sanctified. Christ himself worked: “The labourer is worthy of his hire.” The parables concerning the talents and the vineyard speak of human labour, of human activity, of human creative gifts: man must return his talents multiplied to God (Matt, xxv, 14-30; xxi, 28-31). The activity of man^ must be fruitful; he is told to till the soil; he must return increased all that he has received. Nowhere does the Gospel justify passivity. Christianity established the dignity of every man, ‘fashioned in God’s image and after his likeness,’ and it opens an endless vista of perfection, a perfection not only of individuals but of social meaning. Christianity affirms that man is a spiritual being, and spirit is ever active; that is the definition of spirit. Matter is passive and inert. A spiritual being cannot but strive towards eternity, perfection, the fullness of life, and such a striving implies movement, dynamic development, activity.

    It was Christianity that set man free from the power of Nature, from the elemental forces in the midst of which ancient heathen man lived. In the pagan world man saw demons and spirits everywhere: he was afraid of them and felt that he was subject to them. Christianity released man from this dread of the chaos of dark demoniacal forces underlying Nature, it freed the human spirit from oppression; it raised man and subjected his fate to God, not to elemental natural forces, to the inner, not to the outward. Man could not learn to know Nature scientifically and conquer it technically so long as he thought it was peopled with spirits upon whom his own life depended. Christianity set man free from this pandemonism, thereby spiritually preparing the development of natural science and technical progress, the conquest of nature and its subjection to mankind.

    • Thanks: Mr. Hack
    • LOL: sher singh
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @AP


    In the pagan world man saw demons and spirits everywhere
     
    Christians were no different. Early Christianity was obsessed with rooting out demons.

    The rest of the quoted passage hardly amounts to anything more than empty assertions, which may be true, but are the sort of thing that can never really proven to everyone's satisfaction either way.

    Christianity, whatever good it may have done, was clearly a massive step backwards for rationality. It is not so surprising that it was only with the rise of doubt about the literal truth of Christian dogmas (among thinking people) that scientific investigation was able to bloom.

    Replies: @AP

    , @sher singh
    @AP


    The activity of man^ must be fruitful; he is told to till the soil; he must return increased all that he has received.
     
    We must increase the GDP of Ukraina by importing Negroes.

    Replies: @Simpleguest

  191. @ImmortalRationalist
    @AltanBakshi


    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much? Authoritarian? No, not enough, it must be totalitarian, or masses start to question and criticize too much. Every day citizens would make a pledge that humanity will reach the stars, news would be full of reports of new astronomic findings, all tv channels would broadcast documentaries about rocket engines and exoplanets, there would be more than ten channels for scifi series etc, etc….
     
    Whether space colonization is a good idea depends on the average quality of life of the future sentient beings that will colonize space. If quality of life is on average negative, one could argue that space colonization is evil due to spreading vast amounts of suffering across the universe. Antinatalism, if taken to its logical conclusion, implies that space colonization is one of the greatest evils imaginable, and that Earth would be better off as a dead planet completely devoid of life. Although humanity in its current form will almost certainly never colonize the universe. The entities that will colonize the universe will either be posthumans or some form of superintelligence, and such entities may be capable of wireheading.

    Relevant:
    https://longtermrisk.org/risks-of-astronomical-future-suffering/
    https://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multiply-wild-animal-suffering/
    https://reducing-suffering.org/utopia/
    https://reducing-suffering.org/how-likely-is-wireheading/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yROxal8jQZM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7nsv4n_Bgk

    Replies: @mal

    Antinatalism, if taken to its logical conclusion, implies that space colonization is one of the greatest evils imaginable, and that Earth would be better off as a dead planet completely devoid of life.

    We can feed those people to lions. It will increase happiness of lions and decrease unhappiness of the antinatalists. Win win. Also, animals, on balance, prefer to live rather than die, (try killing a mosquito some time, she will dodge you as hard as possible, definitely doesn’t want to die), from that we can conclude that their happiness/unhappiness ratio is above one. Exceptions exist of course (whale sometimes committing suicide and so on), but those are relatively rare.

    More fundamentally, suffering is an important feedback mechanism and we wouldn’t want to eliminate it anyway. Pointless suffering should be minimized (like you probably shouldn’t torture animals), but ability to feel pain is important (like if you stick your hand in a fire, you need a feedback mechanism telling you that something is wrong).

    Although humanity in its current form will almost certainly never colonize the universe.

    Well sure! Your great grandmother was a tree rat. Your great granddaughter will be a radiation resistant superintelligent squid adapted for subsurface oceans of Europa. It is perfectly normal. Evolution never stops. It is our duty, as humanity, to give it a little push and maybe steer it a little bit to minimize losses and rationalize the process. But we are all one big family stemming from the common genetic lineage. We are at least 4 billion years old, and hopefully will carry on for many tens of billions of years into the future. Within the family, changes are normal and expected, and it’s fine. T Rexes may no longer be with us, but even dinosaurs march on as pigeons. As long as the family spreads, individual branches are not that critical. Though obviously, survival is important to the individual branch.

    • Agree: Svevlad
  192. @Bashibuzuk
    @AP


    Under paganism man was subject to nature
     
    I am not sure this is exact. How was the ancient Greek neoplatonic pagan more subject to nature than his Jewish or Christian counterpart ?

    Given the destructive action of the Abrahamic religions, we have no trace left of the Slav paganism and very little left of the German/Scandinavian and Celtic paganisms. Therefore we have no idea of how complex or deep these religious systems possibly were. All we know is that these belief systems existed for thousands of years and would probably continued their existence under some form if not for their encounter with the exotic and virulent Abrahamic belief system.

    I would actually love to know what were exactly the beliefs and convictions of the Wendish priests of Rhetra, but they were hunted down and killed, their Gods were assigned by the victorious Catholic crusaders among the demons to be forgotten and erased.

    These Gods were the Gods of our ancestors during thousands of years. We are not Abraham's children. I don't see why the ancestors of Hebrews and Arabs should be seen as more worthy of respect than our own European ancestors.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/O98_Idol_von_Sbrutsch_mit_Darstellung_von_Unterwelt%2C_Erde_und_des_Himmels%2C_zirka_10._Jh._n._Chr..JPG

    This Archetype was worshipped by your ancestors for thousands of years AP. Probably since the unified paneuropean cultural realm of the Unetice. But if you think that praying to a crucified Jew is more appropriate, then so be it. We all free now to respect what we have chosen to respect.

    Replies: @Morton's toes, @AP

    Under paganism man was subject to nature

    I am not sure this is exact. How was the ancient Greek neoplatonic pagan more subject to nature than his Jewish or Christian counterpart ?

    I was referring particularly to the forest barbarians; pre-Christian Greeks and Romans lacked the drive to expand horizons and dominate nature through technology for different reasons. My quotes from Berdyaev in the other post capture this. Spengler had similar observations but he did not attribute the difference between Classical (“Appolinian”) and Western (“Faustian”) to Christianity despite noting that it was under Christianity when the Westerners came to dominated the world.

    Given the destructive action of the Abrahamic religions, we have no trace left of the Slav paganism and very little left of the German/Scandinavian and Celtic paganisms. Therefore we have no idea of how complex or deep these religious systems possibly were.

    They could not have been so deep and complex if they have left no written records suggesting complexity. Nor did those people lead lifestyles or produce lasting cultural or architectural monuments implying complexity.

    All we know is that these belief systems existed for thousands of years and would probably continued their existence under some form if not for their encounter with the exotic and virulent Abrahamic belief system.

    As would the Iroquois, Sami, Chukchi, etc.

    I would actually love to know what were exactly the beliefs and convictions of the Wendish priests of Rhetra, but they were hunted down and killed

    I would too. I would love to hear the sounds of the songs sung by our homo erectus and Neanderthal ancestors also, but am glad that we have evolved beyond them.

    These Gods were the Gods of our ancestors during thousands of years. We are not Abraham’s children. I don’t see why the ancestors of Hebrews and Arabs should be seen as more worthy of respect than our own European ancestors.

    That is a decorated pole. This is far more beautiful and built soon after the decorated poles were thrown away:

    It was a project of my Rus ancestors.

    Here is another:

    More impressive than the crude objects of the primitive pagans.

    But if you think that praying to a crucified Jew

    The Son of God is for everyone. He is Universal. He inspired the world’s greatest arts, literature, music, science, and His followers liberated much of the world from darkness. Unlike the faith of the decorated poles.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @AP

    One nitpick: the Northern European pagans had much lower population density due to the slow process of local plant domestication and adopting plants not well suited for the climate. Unlike in the Mediterranean, Northern Europeans couldn’t adopt the Near Eastern agricultural package without significant modifications.

    That said, I think it’s pretty obvious that Christianity was at the very least not incompatible with technological and scientific development and the creation of beautiful works of art and some of the most impressive architecture.

    Replies: @songbird

    , @Mr. Hack
    @AP

    I would just like to add to your very excellent comment, that it is only within Christianity that man not only can raise his status here in this life, but also in the next life too. Indeed, both lives become one united whole where man can truly become a god, something for which he was created for from the very beginning. Anybody here got something better to offer?

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    , @Philip Owen
    @AP

    Druids were keen on oak groves. The people of Mari El still are.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  193. @AaronB
    @AltanBakshi

    Ha! Its a little bit too late for the old "you are beneath my lofty notice" pose :)

    Your long trail of agitated and angry responses to my comments makes clear you are extremely threatened and distressed by them.

    Although I do agree that you should see my comments as completely unthreatening and innocuous- but I can't control what anxious people find fearful :)

    Also, authorirarians can't pull off "I'm so secure that I don't care what you say". They would then be liberals.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @AltanBakshi

    “Aaron likes to piss me off, I also like piss him off, very simple.”

    “Though you are 99% of time wrong, I am the real idiot, because of my pride and attachment to Buddhism I cant to stop arguing with you, we are just two fools locked in this futile state”

    Heres few comments that I wrote to you not long time ago, maybe you project, but I have tried to be honest with you. Still it was often funny to debate with you, but at the moment it seems that you dont have anything substantial left to say. You have reached the advanced stage of egoism – claiming to know others mind perfectly without building a good and solid argumentation for your reasoning.

    Aaron I love debating, its one of the best things in life, I have always loved it. I have great respect for both physical and verbal forms of fighting. Though verbal is superior. Both forms of fighting can be most noble ways to act if motivation arises from the need defend lives or ones Dharma. Without practice one can never become a master of something.

  194. @EldnahYm
    @AP

    You are simply crediting all advances that occurred after Christianity's adoption to Christianity. If you're going to adopt these assumptions, you have no basis for denying the modern critic of Christianity who blames it for modern liberalism, mass immigration, minoritarianism, atomism, relativism, dysgenics etc. But I bet you will not accept this.

    Most of the northern European advances you credit to "Christianity" could instead be credited to something like "Roman technology" and Christianity be looked at as an ideology free-riding on a Roman civilizational model which pre-dates the adoption of Christianity.

    Besides, in other parts of the world we have alternative models where your story about Christianity simply doesn't work. In China Christianity is a dangerous foreign cult which undermines national unity, opens it to malign foreign influence, and leads to wars, and has been that way for hundreds of years. Modern Japan's rise is partly the result of successful persecution of Christianity.

    One could also spend ages nitpicking your simple story of a linear advance from the adoption of Christianity onwards. From a human welfare standpoint, all of those fancy buildings didn't do the majority of people much good, and the world remained Malthusian until relatively recently. From the perspective of who built the fanciest stuff, even you have to admit that the picture isn't as nice as you described. At the very least, the post-Classical, pre-Renaissance world had regressed in many ways.

    Crediting Christianity with medical advances is a particularly big stretch on your part. Medical practices in Europe were worse than useless for treating infectious diseases. Europe was a backwater in this respect. The Chinese had variolation to treat smallpox centuries before the Europeans, and the Europeans were the last part of the civilized world to learn of it.

    I say all this not to advance the thesis that Christianity is responsible for all modern ills and that all of the advances in northern Europe described had nothing to do with Christianity. I think that thesis would be an exaggeration. Certain forms of Christianity have been used to spread literacy, universalistic religions probably do have an advantage for larger scale societies as opposed to smaller, tribal ones, and the pathetic state of medicine in Europe has to be blamed on the retention of Classical ideas. Roman doctors, whether Pagan or Christian, were on the wrong track with regard to infectious disease. Nor do I believe something so laughable as the idea that all medieval technological advances are linked to Roman ideas. Besides, any honest person will have to grapple with the fact that Christian ideas are highly varied. But your story is even more of a caricature than the one I could present, one which I don't even believe.

    Replies: @Coconuts, @AP

    You are simply crediting all advances that occurred after Christianity’s adoption to Christianity.

    Yes. It’s rather logical, given that for centuries prior to Christianity Northern Europeans didn’t accomplish much, and Greeks and Romans while brilliant theorists were not so focused on transforming the world.

    If you’re going to adopt these assumptions, you have no basis for denying the modern critic of Christianity who blames it for modern liberalism, mass immigration, minoritarianism, atomism, relativism, dysgenics etc. But I bet you will not accept this.

    These problems are all due to the erosion of Christianity. The Classical world also experienced an erosion – Christianity then stepped in, and everything turned out better.

    Most of the northern European advances you credit to “Christianity” could instead be credited to something like “Roman technology” and Christianity be looked at as an ideology free-riding on a Roman civilizational model which pre-dates the adoption of Christianity.

    You put it backwards. Christianity came first, and transmitted the Roman and Greek knowledge while combining it with a non-Classical weltanschauung – the Christian drive to not only further contemplate and study the natural world as the Ancients did but also to control it. So already in medieval times practical refinements were being made, and systems were created (universities, scientific method) that would maximize advancement. So already monks were trying to come up with perpetual motion machines or to transform materials into gold, not just theorizing.

    Besides, in other parts of the world we have alternative models where your story about Christianity simply doesn’t work.

    Places like China or India had a thousands of years head start but were eclipsed by the Christian Europeans who had recently emerged from barbarism.

    Crediting Christianity with medical advances is a particularly big stretch on your part. Medical practices in Europe were worse than useless for treating infectious diseases. Europe was a backwater in this respect.

    Correct. I didn’t mention medical advances overall. I think medieval Europeans pioneered use of quarantines and invented eyeglasses.

    The Chinese had variolation to treat smallpox centuries before the Europeans, and the Europeans were the last part of the civilized world to learn of it.

    Chinese came up with variolation in the 15th century. Yet centuries later Europeans invented vaccines; Pasteur was a very devout Christian.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    @AP


    Yes. It’s rather logical, given that for centuries prior to Christianity Northern Europeans didn’t accomplish much, and Greeks and Romans while brilliant theorists were not so focused on transforming the world.
     
    It might seem logical if it weren't the case that northern Europe remained a backwater long after the adoption of Christianity. To say northern Europe didn't accomplish much is also rather ridiculous. For just one example, Scandinavians made it to north America, a feat which would not be replicated elsewhere.

    These problems are all due to the erosion of Christianity. The Classical world also experienced an erosion – Christianity then stepped in, and everything turned out better.
     
    In other words, what AP thinks is good = Christianity, bad = not Christianity. Pure assertion on your part.

    You put it backwards. Christianity came first, and transmitted the Roman and Greek knowledge while combining it with a non-Classical weltanschauung – the Christian drive to not only further contemplate and study the natural world as the Ancients did but also to control it. So already in medieval times practical refinements were being made, and systems were created (universities, scientific method) that would maximize advancement. So already monks were trying to come up with perpetual motion machines or to transform materials into gold, not just theorizing.

    Places like China or India had a thousands of years head start but were eclipsed by the Christian Europeans who had recently emerged from barbarism.
     
    According to your logic, Ethiopians should be the most advanced people in the world.

    When some other part of the world is ahead of Europe, that only shows how impressive it was that Christian Europe later got ahead. When some other part of the world is behind Europe, that only shows how superior Christianity is. Using this kind of argument, it's impossible to falsify anything you say.

    Replies: @AP

    , @AltanBakshi
    @AP


    Places like China or India had a thousands of years head start but were eclipsed by the Christian Europeans who had recently emerged from barbarism.
     
    Indian and Chinese civilizations are about as old as Greek or Italian, Vedic literature is about as old as Homeric, and Greeks had writing centuries before Indians, around same time Chinese got their letters, few people seem to remember how old is the Greek civilization, much older than Greece of sophists and Alexander of Macedon. Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations were born two thousand to three thousand years before the Christ. Etruscan civilization is not so old, but still began three thousand years ago. So Indians and Chinese definitely did not have a head start in comparison to Italians and Hellenes.

    Btw I agree with you on Gibbon. He was a maker of anti Christian propaganda.

  195. @Simpleguest
    @reiner Tor


    Just look it up, they literally downloaded the design.
     
    If something is designed to glide back to earth it needs to be shaped like an airplane. And if you take a closer look at the existing aircraft, especially the civilian ones, they all look identical.

    The only idea that the Soviets may have "borrowed" is the thermal protection of the underbelly by using thousands of custom sized and shaped, temperature resistant, tiles to "coat" the areas exposed to friction heat. This idea eventually proved to be not the smartest one.

    The main difference between Shuttle and Buran was that the latter lacked own lift -off engines. The Shuttle engines were useful only during lift-off and provided significant percentage of the total thrust. In space, and especially during descend, these bulky engines were just dead weight (or dead mass to be exact).

    Buran depended entirely on Energia rocket for lift-off. It was equipped with small rocket engines, sufficient for maneuvers in space, which freed a lot of weight for other, more useful loads.

    Replies: @Simpleguest, @reiner Tor

    if you take a closer look at the existing aircraft, especially the civilian ones, they all look identical.

    It’s because of the manufacturing and maintenance technology. The fuselage needs to be cigar-shaped so that the sections of it are identical (except the cockpit and the tail section), which makes it easier to produce. The engines need to be hanged on the wings to make maintenance easier. Aerodynamically it’s not the best shape.

    Anyway, regardless of shape, the Soviets downloaded the whole documentation of the American Space Shuttle. I’m not sure if it made it that much easier for them to make a similar vehicle, but it probably helped a lot.

    • Replies: @Simpleguest
    @reiner Tor


    Anyway, regardless of shape, the Soviets downloaded the whole documentation of the American Space Shuttle. I’m not sure if it made it that much easier for them to make a similar vehicle, but it probably helped a lot.
     
    Probably it did save a lot of time and cost, if true. But then again, Soviets just needed to look at the Shuttle, when it first flew, to know all they needed to know. They were on par with Americans about rocketry, aerodynamics, materials etc.

    Again, I am not sure that Soviets were totally convinced that the concept behind the Shuttle is a viable one, due to its numerous technical constraints and costs. That's the main reason why Buran was shelved when Soviet Union collapsed.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  196. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk


    Under paganism man was subject to nature

    I am not sure this is exact. How was the ancient Greek neoplatonic pagan more subject to nature than his Jewish or Christian counterpart ?
     
    I was referring particularly to the forest barbarians; pre-Christian Greeks and Romans lacked the drive to expand horizons and dominate nature through technology for different reasons. My quotes from Berdyaev in the other post capture this. Spengler had similar observations but he did not attribute the difference between Classical ("Appolinian") and Western ("Faustian") to Christianity despite noting that it was under Christianity when the Westerners came to dominated the world.

    Given the destructive action of the Abrahamic religions, we have no trace left of the Slav paganism and very little left of the German/Scandinavian and Celtic paganisms. Therefore we have no idea of how complex or deep these religious systems possibly were.
     
    They could not have been so deep and complex if they have left no written records suggesting complexity. Nor did those people lead lifestyles or produce lasting cultural or architectural monuments implying complexity.

    All we know is that these belief systems existed for thousands of years and would probably continued their existence under some form if not for their encounter with the exotic and virulent Abrahamic belief system.
     
    As would the Iroquois, Sami, Chukchi, etc.

    I would actually love to know what were exactly the beliefs and convictions of the Wendish priests of Rhetra, but they were hunted down and killed
     
    I would too. I would love to hear the sounds of the songs sung by our homo erectus and Neanderthal ancestors also, but am glad that we have evolved beyond them.

    These Gods were the Gods of our ancestors during thousands of years. We are not Abraham’s children. I don’t see why the ancestors of Hebrews and Arabs should be seen as more worthy of respect than our own European ancestors.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/O98_Idol_von_Sbrutsch_mit_Darstellung_von_Unterwelt%2C_Erde_und_des_Himmels%2C_zirka_10._Jh._n._Chr..JPG

     

    That is a decorated pole. This is far more beautiful and built soon after the decorated poles were thrown away:

    https://www.askideas.com/media/51/Beautiful-Interior-View-Of-The-Saint-Sophia-Cathedral.jpg

    It was a project of my Rus ancestors.

    Here is another:

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/58/7f/73/587f73134ae1923126a17b2c58097f17.jpg

    More impressive than the crude objects of the primitive pagans.

    But if you think that praying to a crucified Jew
     
    The Son of God is for everyone. He is Universal. He inspired the world's greatest arts, literature, music, science, and His followers liberated much of the world from darkness. Unlike the faith of the decorated poles.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Mr. Hack, @Philip Owen

    One nitpick: the Northern European pagans had much lower population density due to the slow process of local plant domestication and adopting plants not well suited for the climate. Unlike in the Mediterranean, Northern Europeans couldn’t adopt the Near Eastern agricultural package without significant modifications.

    That said, I think it’s pretty obvious that Christianity was at the very least not incompatible with technological and scientific development and the creation of beautiful works of art and some of the most impressive architecture.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @reiner Tor

    Old growth oak grown in cold climates would have been impossible to cut down in the bronze age. Not even easy with iron. If you are cutting a small oak with a chainsaw, you'll want a powerful one with a sharp chain. You can grow to appreciate the hardness of oak just by cutting saplings with a lopper.

    Additional agricultural advancements happened later, like the horse collar and horse plow. They undoubtedly helped increase population. Were they due to Christianity? It's possible, but I am skeptical.

    Often, the fruits of population increase are conflated with the fruits of a philosophy. The Enlightenment is the big one. The Renaissance is probably another. A lot of the cultural development of ancient Rome was probably increase in population density and scale, even though they practiced slavery.

  197. @Bashibuzuk
    @Coconuts

    Christianity is a syncretic religion organized on an Abrahamic basis. It has incorporated elements of neoplatonic thought, Middle Eastern mystical traditions and Mithraist and Zoroastrian elements too.

    I have also thought about how Christianity might have been a religion Roman elites used to try to unify the ethnically and religiously diverse masses of the Roman Empire, like today the "Wokism" is also used to try to unify the multicultural West.

    The end result in the West might actually be the same as in the Western Roman Empire (which was ethnically more heterogenous) : weakening, fragmentation, cultural downfall and depopulation.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    I have also thought about how Christianity might have been a religion Roman elites used to try to unify the ethnically and religiously diverse masses of the Roman Empire, like today the “Wokism” is also used to try to unify the multicultural West.

    Hmm, already in the 2nd and 3rd century most inhabitants of ‘Romania’ felt being members of one Roman nation, as an example emperors could have their origins in far away provinces, like Pannonia, Hispania and Libya. To me it seems that the differentiation between the inhabitants of original City state of Rome and subjects of the Empire had almost totally disappeared by the time of Caracalla and Severus.

    In the time of Constantine I, Christians were a minority, probably only 10-20% of the Empires population. To me it seems, that many people in the Late Antique did not anymore take seriously gods, yes they often believed in their existence, but they were too human and frail in comparison with Christ, especially after the tumultuous 3rd century, it must seemed to then that their traditional gods could not give much protection to the empire.

    Its no good that the gulf between Christians and non-Christians is growing in the West, theres already too much atomisation in the society.

  198. @reiner Tor
    @Simpleguest


    if you take a closer look at the existing aircraft, especially the civilian ones, they all look identical.
     
    It’s because of the manufacturing and maintenance technology. The fuselage needs to be cigar-shaped so that the sections of it are identical (except the cockpit and the tail section), which makes it easier to produce. The engines need to be hanged on the wings to make maintenance easier. Aerodynamically it’s not the best shape.

    Anyway, regardless of shape, the Soviets downloaded the whole documentation of the American Space Shuttle. I’m not sure if it made it that much easier for them to make a similar vehicle, but it probably helped a lot.

    Replies: @Simpleguest

    Anyway, regardless of shape, the Soviets downloaded the whole documentation of the American Space Shuttle. I’m not sure if it made it that much easier for them to make a similar vehicle, but it probably helped a lot.

    Probably it did save a lot of time and cost, if true. But then again, Soviets just needed to look at the Shuttle, when it first flew, to know all they needed to know. They were on par with Americans about rocketry, aerodynamics, materials etc.

    Again, I am not sure that Soviets were totally convinced that the concept behind the Shuttle is a viable one, due to its numerous technical constraints and costs. That’s the main reason why Buran was shelved when Soviet Union collapsed.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Simpleguest

    The Soviets feared that the Shuttle only had military applications (installing giant space lasers and bringing them back to Earth for maintenance) and that it might moonlight as a space bomber. That’s the main reason why they built their own thing. Otherwise they didn’t need it.

  199. @Simpleguest
    @reiner Tor


    Anyway, regardless of shape, the Soviets downloaded the whole documentation of the American Space Shuttle. I’m not sure if it made it that much easier for them to make a similar vehicle, but it probably helped a lot.
     
    Probably it did save a lot of time and cost, if true. But then again, Soviets just needed to look at the Shuttle, when it first flew, to know all they needed to know. They were on par with Americans about rocketry, aerodynamics, materials etc.

    Again, I am not sure that Soviets were totally convinced that the concept behind the Shuttle is a viable one, due to its numerous technical constraints and costs. That's the main reason why Buran was shelved when Soviet Union collapsed.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    The Soviets feared that the Shuttle only had military applications (installing giant space lasers and bringing them back to Earth for maintenance) and that it might moonlight as a space bomber. That’s the main reason why they built their own thing. Otherwise they didn’t need it.

  200. Fertility rates of the people are much more complicated than you claim. I believe that its fallacy to claim that fertile people stay fertile through multiple generations, or that transcendent thinking is somehow in conflict with fertility, in Russia Buddhists have very good rates of fertility, in Tibet people are extremely fertile. Small family sizes are quite a problem for Buddhism, when theres six or seven sons, its not a problem if one or two becomes a monk, its a blessing, but when theres only one son, its a big problem and parents are almost always against if their only son becomes a monk.

    [MORE]

    Statues of loving couples are extremely common in ancient Buddhist temples. No wonder, because Dharma is beneficial for both monks and married couples.
    .

    Dont over generalise, maybe some western ascetics were anti natalists(and maybe Jains), in Dharmic religions its seen that holy men are extremely beneficial for the fertility of lay people, they bring good and peaceful energy, there is less struggle and more harmony in community, all which is good for married life. Even western historians admit that Buddhism and Hinduism have always been very connected with various fertility cults.

    https://images.nortonsimonfoundation.org/fcgi-bin/iipsrv.fcgi?FIF=F1972111S.ptif&WID=500&CVT=JPEG

    Our temples are full of fertile spirits of nature, or Yakshas, when monks live well and properly, then the fertility of lay people is guaranteed.

    I should not say this, but compassionate sex in marriage is Dharma practice to us. But hey guys, Buddhists have never been prudent with sex like Abrahamic people. There is no stigma or complexes with it.

    All Buddhists schools even agree that Buddhas path to awakening began in that previous life wherr he met his wife Yasodhara, now I must stop before going to secret Tantric stuff.

    Oh well, we even have literal fertility goddesses, which are still quite popular. And before some idiot claims this is later addition, the Buddha himself endorsed such religious practices. I have purposefully linked photos of very ancient Buddhist art.

    Like goddess Hariti

    Here is Hariti in Tibetan form, she has hundreds of children and she is a protector of children, women have traditionally prayed her for easy child birth and pregnancy. She is only one example among many others. How the hell our monks who promote such figures are anti-natalist?

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    For clarification, my comment was addressed to Dmitrys comment 184#

    Also a small correction, the female figure in the red hair is the goddess Hariti in a Tibetan style, and only modern piece of art that I posted, all other are extremely ancient, among oldest Buddhist statues, and its for a good reason, so that no western revisionists could claim that such fertility figures would be later addition or 'degeneration.'

    By the way that Hariti in the Tibetan style is painted by a Russian(or Ukrainian?) Buddhist painter Nikolai Dudko.

    https://thangka.ru/burji-lhamo/

  201. @AltanBakshi
    Fertility rates of the people are much more complicated than you claim. I believe that its fallacy to claim that fertile people stay fertile through multiple generations, or that transcendent thinking is somehow in conflict with fertility, in Russia Buddhists have very good rates of fertility, in Tibet people are extremely fertile. Small family sizes are quite a problem for Buddhism, when theres six or seven sons, its not a problem if one or two becomes a monk, its a blessing, but when theres only one son, its a big problem and parents are almost always against if their only son becomes a monk.

    https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DJDHJD/mithuna-couples-on-right-of-entrance-of-chaitya-hall-intrusive-buddha-DJDHJD.jpg

    Statues of loving couples are extremely common in ancient Buddhist temples. No wonder, because Dharma is beneficial for both monks and married couples.

    https://www.himalayanart.org/images/items/resized/1070px/2/0/3/20383.jpg

    https://www.christies.com/img/LotImages/2009/NYR/2009_NYR_02271_1232_000().jpg

    https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/ellora-caves-rock-sculpture-16407534.jpg
    .

    Dont over generalise, maybe some western ascetics were anti natalists(and maybe Jains), in Dharmic religions its seen that holy men are extremely beneficial for the fertility of lay people, they bring good and peaceful energy, there is less struggle and more harmony in community, all which is good for married life. Even western historians admit that Buddhism and Hinduism have always been very connected with various fertility cults.

    https://images.nortonsimonfoundation.org/fcgi-bin/iipsrv.fcgi?FIF=F1972111S.ptif&WID=500&CVT=JPEG

    Our temples are full of fertile spirits of nature, or Yakshas, when monks live well and properly, then the fertility of lay people is guaranteed.

    I should not say this, but compassionate sex in marriage is Dharma practice to us. But hey guys, Buddhists have never been prudent with sex like Abrahamic people. There is no stigma or complexes with it.

    https://t1.thpservices.com/previewimage/gallil/7ab0c41994bee257dff238d7e2b6c323/zq5-2075548.jpg

    All Buddhists schools even agree that Buddhas path to awakening began in that previous life wherr he met his wife Yasodhara, now I must stop before going to secret Tantric stuff.

    Oh well, we even have literal fertility goddesses, which are still quite popular. And before some idiot claims this is later addition, the Buddha himself endorsed such religious practices. I have purposefully linked photos of very ancient Buddhist art.

    https://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/5932.jpg?v=1485682629

    Like goddess Hariti

    http://sites.asiasociety.org/gandhara/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2011.01.01.03-680x1024.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2a/2e/7e/2a2e7e308a6d30a88b304ad45d2212cd.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Hariti_%28Gandhara%29.jpg

    Here is Hariti in Tibetan form, she has hundreds of children and she is a protector of children, women have traditionally prayed her for easy child birth and pregnancy. She is only one example among many others. How the hell our monks who promote such figures are anti-natalist?

    https://p3.storage.canalblog.com/37/87/119589/125000967_o.jpg

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    For clarification, my comment was addressed to Dmitrys comment 184#

    Also a small correction, the female figure in the red hair is the goddess Hariti in a Tibetan style, and only modern piece of art that I posted, all other are extremely ancient, among oldest Buddhist statues, and its for a good reason, so that no western revisionists could claim that such fertility figures would be later addition or ‘degeneration.’

    By the way that Hariti in the Tibetan style is painted by a Russian(or Ukrainian?) Buddhist painter Nikolai Dudko.

    https://thangka.ru/burji-lhamo/

  202. @AP
    @EldnahYm


    You are simply crediting all advances that occurred after Christianity’s adoption to Christianity.
     
    Yes. It's rather logical, given that for centuries prior to Christianity Northern Europeans didn't accomplish much, and Greeks and Romans while brilliant theorists were not so focused on transforming the world.

    If you’re going to adopt these assumptions, you have no basis for denying the modern critic of Christianity who blames it for modern liberalism, mass immigration, minoritarianism, atomism, relativism, dysgenics etc. But I bet you will not accept this.
     
    These problems are all due to the erosion of Christianity. The Classical world also experienced an erosion - Christianity then stepped in, and everything turned out better.

    Most of the northern European advances you credit to “Christianity” could instead be credited to something like “Roman technology” and Christianity be looked at as an ideology free-riding on a Roman civilizational model which pre-dates the adoption of Christianity.
     
    You put it backwards. Christianity came first, and transmitted the Roman and Greek knowledge while combining it with a non-Classical weltanschauung - the Christian drive to not only further contemplate and study the natural world as the Ancients did but also to control it. So already in medieval times practical refinements were being made, and systems were created (universities, scientific method) that would maximize advancement. So already monks were trying to come up with perpetual motion machines or to transform materials into gold, not just theorizing.

    Besides, in other parts of the world we have alternative models where your story about Christianity simply doesn’t work.
     
    Places like China or India had a thousands of years head start but were eclipsed by the Christian Europeans who had recently emerged from barbarism.

    Crediting Christianity with medical advances is a particularly big stretch on your part. Medical practices in Europe were worse than useless for treating infectious diseases. Europe was a backwater in this respect.
     
    Correct. I didn't mention medical advances overall. I think medieval Europeans pioneered use of quarantines and invented eyeglasses.

    The Chinese had variolation to treat smallpox centuries before the Europeans, and the Europeans were the last part of the civilized world to learn of it.
     
    Chinese came up with variolation in the 15th century. Yet centuries later Europeans invented vaccines; Pasteur was a very devout Christian.

    Replies: @EldnahYm, @AltanBakshi

    Yes. It’s rather logical, given that for centuries prior to Christianity Northern Europeans didn’t accomplish much, and Greeks and Romans while brilliant theorists were not so focused on transforming the world.

    It might seem logical if it weren’t the case that northern Europe remained a backwater long after the adoption of Christianity. To say northern Europe didn’t accomplish much is also rather ridiculous. For just one example, Scandinavians made it to north America, a feat which would not be replicated elsewhere.

    These problems are all due to the erosion of Christianity. The Classical world also experienced an erosion – Christianity then stepped in, and everything turned out better.

    In other words, what AP thinks is good = Christianity, bad = not Christianity. Pure assertion on your part.

    You put it backwards. Christianity came first, and transmitted the Roman and Greek knowledge while combining it with a non-Classical weltanschauung – the Christian drive to not only further contemplate and study the natural world as the Ancients did but also to control it. So already in medieval times practical refinements were being made, and systems were created (universities, scientific method) that would maximize advancement. So already monks were trying to come up with perpetual motion machines or to transform materials into gold, not just theorizing.

    Places like China or India had a thousands of years head start but were eclipsed by the Christian Europeans who had recently emerged from barbarism.

    According to your logic, Ethiopians should be the most advanced people in the world.

    When some other part of the world is ahead of Europe, that only shows how impressive it was that Christian Europe later got ahead. When some other part of the world is behind Europe, that only shows how superior Christianity is. Using this kind of argument, it’s impossible to falsify anything you say.

    • Agree: AltanBakshi
    • Replies: @AP
    @EldnahYm


    Yes. It’s rather logical, given that for centuries prior to Christianity Northern Europeans didn’t accomplish much, and Greeks and Romans while brilliant theorists were not so focused on transforming the world.

    It might seem logical if it weren’t the case that northern Europe remained a backwater long after the adoption of Christianity.
     
    They had a lot of improving to do form a very low base but the improvement was rapid, new plowing technology for example happened early.

    To say northern Europe didn’t accomplish much is also rather ridiculous. For just one example, Scandinavians made it to north America, a feat which would not be replicated elsewhere.
     
    It was indeed an accomplishment, but they had a shorter route and the enterprise was impermanent.

    These problems are all due to the erosion of Christianity. The Classical world also experienced an erosion – Christianity then stepped in, and everything turned out better.

    In other words, what AP thinks is good = Christianity, bad = not Christianity. Pure assertion on your part.
     
    You can ague that with modernism, Communism etc. Christianity carried within it the seeds of its own destruction.* A legitimate argument. But then, is it not better to flourish to an extent that would otherwise never have been achievable and then die, than to be immortal in savagery? Is is better to evolve into humanity and then disappear, than to be bacteria forever?

    Christendom has not yet fallen, so it is too early to predict its demise.

    According to your logic, Ethiopians should be the most advanced people in the world.
     
    Ethiopians were cut off and isolated, an perhaps inherited characteristics play some role. But still, they were more advanced than their neighbors, avoided foreign domination much longer, and their places better so Christianity played an important and positive role for them..

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  203. @Coconuts
    @EldnahYm


    Most of the northern European advances you credit to “Christianity” could instead be credited to something like “Roman technology” and Christianity be looked at as an ideology free-riding on a Roman civilizational model which pre-dates the adoption of Christianity.
     
    Probably what Bacon, Descartes, Newton and so on did during the 'Second Scientific Revolution' qualifies as something novel, its own kind of thing and previously unknown, even though the starting point was the Aristotelian tradition and some of the Roman and medieval engineering and other innovations as they existed in their period. They initiated a kind of revenge of natural philosophy over religion and traditional philosophy which is still ongoing.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @EldnahYm

    Descartes, Newton, and the rest of the boys in the band wouldn’t have seen it that way. To them, what they were doing is enunciating the divine laws by which the universe is governed. Newton in particular was a serious theologian. In all of the examples AP mentions of technological advances to be credited to Christianity, he would actually have a stronger case by singling out Newton’s contributions, which were plainly influenced by Christian philosophical ideas.

    The ideas of Locke and Hume(Dmitry rightly mentions him) were damaging to religion in a different way than the people you mentioned. I believe there has been a tendency to conflate scientific and empirical thinking with skeptical and relativistic thinking as if they are the same. This conflation has introduced a great deal of rot. Locke and Hume are partly to blame for this state of affairs.

    • Agree: AP
    • Thanks: AltanBakshi
    • Replies: @Coconuts
    @EldnahYm


    Descartes, Newton, and the rest of the boys in the band wouldn’t have seen it that way. To them, what they were doing is enunciating the divine laws by which the universe is governed. Newton in particular was a serious theologian. In all of the examples AP mentions of technological advances to be credited to Christianity, he would actually have a stronger case by singling out Newton’s contributions, which were plainly influenced by Christian philosophical ideas.
     
    Yes, you are right here. I did have something fairly specific in mind, I was thinking of the way in which the new approach to empirical study of reality via experiment and using quantitative methods and mathematical description of the phenomena changed the way in which reality was understood. As far as I see it this was the beginning of the pursuit of an objective description of reality and an enhanced focus on maximising human utility and power over attaining truth or wisdom, the kind of thing Aristotle or Plato would have understood as the goal of philosophy.

    Though as you say Descartes, Newton and so on were all Christians and rationalists and were in many ways also motivated by traditional philosophical and theological concerns as well.

    Dmitry's take that there was no great philosopher between the fall of Rome (St. Augustine?) and Hume was rather powerful and reminded me of Bertrand Russell.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Dmitry

  204. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk


    I don’t think going to the moon has anything to do with adopting an Abrahamic religion
     
    I doubt a non-Christian people would have gone to the moon. The Greeks and Romans never bothered to to cross the Atlantic.

    Also, Roman Empire and ancient Greece were pagan and yet produced beautiful and complex cultures.
     
    I was focused on the northern barbarian peoples who were transformed by Christianity. Rome and Greece were complex and produced beauty, but they were a dead end. What do you think of these words by the Russian philosopher Berdyaev? (Spengler's view of Classical technology was the same as that of Berdyaev)

    To assert that Christianity is hostile to man’s activity contradicts, in the first place, history. The greatest possible human activity was manifested during the Christian epoch and the most dynamic development belongs to nations that have embraced Christianity—the nations of the West. It has proved itself to be a force building up and directing history. Even its foes were forced to admit that the nations of the ancient civilizations of the East—China, India, Persia—nations which refused to accept Christianity—fell out of step with the world’s history: they stagnated, they lived in the past, they did not face the future. It was only Christianity that made nations capable of looking towards what was to come.

    This can be explained by the messianic nature of Christianity, by the faith that the world was going
    forward to its definite, all-explaining goal—the kingdom of God. The very conception of history as
    a dynamic process, possessing a meaning of its own and advancing towards the highest aim, was created by Christianity. Such a conception became possible because, in the midst of history, Christ, the Saviour of the world, came into it, or in other words, the meaning of the world’s processes was incarnated. The Greeks and the whole of ancient civilization had no true conception of history; their minds were not directed forward; they conceived the world as a revolving circle. The Greek was meditative, not active. He had an aesthetic love for the beauty of the cosmos, for the world’s harmony; his religion was closely related to the myths of the past, and in this past the myths played an important part.

    Christianity, on the other hand, lives not only in the past, but in the future as well. It is looking forward to the second coming of Christ, to the kingdom of God, to the end of the world, when the whole meaning of existence will be realized. The dynamism which was introduced by Christianity into the history of human societies is related to this seeking for God’s kingdom—to the seeking for perfect life. Christianity alone knows aught of this intense seeking, this dissatisfaction with the existing world; it alone has implanted this anxiety in the soul. Man dares to be satisfied only with a perfection as complete as that of the Heavenly Father...

    The Greco-Roman civilization, aristocratic in its very principles, despised work and looked upon it as the portion of the slaves; it is only since Christianity, since the Gospel, that work and those who do it have been sanctified. Christ himself worked: “The labourer is worthy of his hire.” The parables concerning the talents and the vineyard speak of human labour, of human activity, of human creative gifts: man must return his talents multiplied to God (Matt, xxv, 14-30; xxi, 28-31). The activity of man^ must be fruitful; he is told to till the soil; he must return increased all that he has received. Nowhere does the Gospel justify passivity. Christianity established the dignity of every man, ‘fashioned in God’s image and after his likeness,’ and it opens an endless vista of perfection, a perfection not only of individuals but of social meaning. Christianity affirms that man is a spiritual being, and spirit is ever active; that is the definition of spirit. Matter is passive and inert. A spiritual being cannot but strive towards eternity, perfection, the fullness of life, and such a striving implies movement, dynamic development, activity.

    It was Christianity that set man free from the power of Nature, from the elemental forces in the midst of which ancient heathen man lived. In the pagan world man saw demons and spirits everywhere: he was afraid of them and felt that he was subject to them. Christianity released man from this dread of the chaos of dark demoniacal forces underlying Nature, it freed the human spirit from oppression; it raised man and subjected his fate to God, not to elemental natural forces, to the inner, not to the outward. Man could not learn to know Nature scientifically and conquer it technically so long as he thought it was peopled with spirits upon whom his own life depended. Christianity set man free from this pandemonism, thereby spiritually preparing the development of natural science and technical progress, the conquest of nature and its subjection to mankind.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @sher singh

    In the pagan world man saw demons and spirits everywhere

    Christians were no different. Early Christianity was obsessed with rooting out demons.

    The rest of the quoted passage hardly amounts to anything more than empty assertions, which may be true, but are the sort of thing that can never really proven to everyone's satisfaction either way.

    Christianity, whatever good it may have done, was clearly a massive step backwards for rationality. It is not so surprising that it was only with the rise of doubt about the literal truth of Christian dogmas (among thinking people) that scientific investigation was able to bloom.

    • Replies: @AP
    @silviosilver


    Christians were no different. Early Christianity was obsessed with rooting out demons
     
    Rooting out and confidently defeating all those demons is not the same thing as worshipping, being beholden to, and following them. The first process went hand in hand with the incredible victories over the natural world.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  205. @AltanBakshi
    @silviosilver


    Only a totalitarian take-no-prisoners approach could alter the behavior of these scum people.
     
    Or order of their rebbes? Why Amishes are scum in your opinion? Young Amishes are given a choice if they want to live in normal society or stay with the Amishes, many choose to leave the Amish community, and they can still continue visiting their relatives in the Amish community. Thats a best proof that they are not a cult.

    but in the ‘hope’ that some higher understanding of our purpose will become apparent to us through attempting to accomplish those physical goals.
     
    I understand, still such 'hope' is too abstract ,too impersonal for masses to believe and pursue.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @silviosilver

    Why Amishes are scum in your opinion?

    I was referring to Haredis with that comment. (What else am I supposed to think of that sick, supremacist cult?) Amish aren’t nearly as bad, but I still wouldn’t want to be surrounded by them.

    It remains to be seen how long they can maintain their ferocious fertility rates. Some people blithely assume that at some point their fertility rates must reduce, or that the growth of their populations will be stymied by apostasy, but I’m not so sure that either of those “must” occur.

  206. To think that Christianity alone is behind the success of the western world, or that Christianity was a semitic mind virus which made Roman empire to fall, and led Europe to “Dark Ages,” are both crude caricatures.

    If Christianity would have been this magical protector of its adherents and some kind of highest state of humanity, then why the more Orthodox and authentically Christian East fell under Islam, why now most descendants of ancient Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians and Hebrews are now Muslims? Why Greeks, Levantines and Armenians suffered centuries under Islamic rule?

    Also if Christianity would have been this semitic and tyrannical virus, why then monks enthusiastically preserved old Pagan knowledge and philosophy? Admired Pagan philosophers and literature. Unlike Muslims in the Middle East, for whom everything predating Islam was just superstition and darkness(though not for every Muslim).

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @AltanBakshi


    Also if Christianity would have been this semitic and tyrannical virus, why then monks enthusiastically preserved old Pagan knowledge and philosophy?
     
    A very good observation. Basically, these wise Christian religious men found something worthwhile even within these old pagan religions, that ultimately pointed to pre-Christian man's yearnings to touch the transcendent nature of God. The prime example of this would probably best be represented by the old Greek religious system:

    "In the years before Christ, many wise and virtuous people had appeared. For example, the ancient Greeks had reached quite high standards of philosophy about the good and about God. Their philosophy, in fact, contained seeds of the truth, the so-called “spermaticos logos.” Moreover, they were very religious people, but of course they did not know the true God; they were idolaters, yet very pious and god-fearing people. They were not atheists, as certain ill-informed contemporaries of ours represent them; those who do not know enough about these things. For this reason, by attempting to remove its faith in God from the psyche* of our devout people even without their consent, educators, teachers, politicians and civil governors act in a way inconsistent to the memory of the Greek race, and so they commit “hybris”2 in the ancient meaning of the word. In essence, they attempt to de-hellenise our people, because the Tradition of the Greeks (throughout our ancient, recent and modern history) is a Tradition of piety and respect for God. All the worldwide cultural contribution of Hellenism was and is based on this piety and respect for God. In the philosophy of the ancient Greeks we can perceive a certain yearning for the unknown God... for the experience of God. They were faithful and devout, but they did not have the true and completed knowledge of God, as they still lacked communion with Him, so that Theosis was not possible for them."
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis-english.pdf

    , @silviosilver
    @AltanBakshi


    Also if Christianity would have been this semitic and tyrannical virus, why then monks enthusiastically preserved old Pagan knowledge and philosophy?
     
    Christianity was responsible for considerable destruction of pagan writings, and much of what was "preserved" occurred unintentionally as Christian scholars pored over pagan texts in order to better denounce them. You have to remember, before Christianity became the law of the land, it underwent a real war of words with the pagan world so there was a great deal of this denouncing going on.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist

    , @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    If Christianity would have been this magical protector of its adherents and some kind of highest state of humanity, then why the more Orthodox and authentically Christian East fell under Islam, why now most descendants of ancient Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians and Hebrews are now Muslims?
     
    Because it was necessary but not (quite) sufficient. Still, the Christians of Byzantium held their own against the Muslim onslaught for many centuries longer than did the Persians and the distant kingdoms of India. And perhaps their defeat at the ands of other Christians in the 12th century contributed to their later defeat at the hands of the Ottomans.

    Also, as a twisted half-cousin of Christianity, Islam has a "magic" of its own.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  207. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk


    Under paganism man was subject to nature

    I am not sure this is exact. How was the ancient Greek neoplatonic pagan more subject to nature than his Jewish or Christian counterpart ?
     
    I was referring particularly to the forest barbarians; pre-Christian Greeks and Romans lacked the drive to expand horizons and dominate nature through technology for different reasons. My quotes from Berdyaev in the other post capture this. Spengler had similar observations but he did not attribute the difference between Classical ("Appolinian") and Western ("Faustian") to Christianity despite noting that it was under Christianity when the Westerners came to dominated the world.

    Given the destructive action of the Abrahamic religions, we have no trace left of the Slav paganism and very little left of the German/Scandinavian and Celtic paganisms. Therefore we have no idea of how complex or deep these religious systems possibly were.
     
    They could not have been so deep and complex if they have left no written records suggesting complexity. Nor did those people lead lifestyles or produce lasting cultural or architectural monuments implying complexity.

    All we know is that these belief systems existed for thousands of years and would probably continued their existence under some form if not for their encounter with the exotic and virulent Abrahamic belief system.
     
    As would the Iroquois, Sami, Chukchi, etc.

    I would actually love to know what were exactly the beliefs and convictions of the Wendish priests of Rhetra, but they were hunted down and killed
     
    I would too. I would love to hear the sounds of the songs sung by our homo erectus and Neanderthal ancestors also, but am glad that we have evolved beyond them.

    These Gods were the Gods of our ancestors during thousands of years. We are not Abraham’s children. I don’t see why the ancestors of Hebrews and Arabs should be seen as more worthy of respect than our own European ancestors.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/O98_Idol_von_Sbrutsch_mit_Darstellung_von_Unterwelt%2C_Erde_und_des_Himmels%2C_zirka_10._Jh._n._Chr..JPG

     

    That is a decorated pole. This is far more beautiful and built soon after the decorated poles were thrown away:

    https://www.askideas.com/media/51/Beautiful-Interior-View-Of-The-Saint-Sophia-Cathedral.jpg

    It was a project of my Rus ancestors.

    Here is another:

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/58/7f/73/587f73134ae1923126a17b2c58097f17.jpg

    More impressive than the crude objects of the primitive pagans.

    But if you think that praying to a crucified Jew
     
    The Son of God is for everyone. He is Universal. He inspired the world's greatest arts, literature, music, science, and His followers liberated much of the world from darkness. Unlike the faith of the decorated poles.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Mr. Hack, @Philip Owen

    I would just like to add to your very excellent comment, that it is only within Christianity that man not only can raise his status here in this life, but also in the next life too. Indeed, both lives become one united whole where man can truly become a god, something for which he was created for from the very beginning. Anybody here got something better to offer?

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Mr. Hack


    that it is only within Christianity that man not only can raise his status here in this life, but also in the next life too
     
    I very much respect your faith, but Mr. Hack isnt this the same promise given by many religions? Gain true happiness and salvation, in this life and in the next?

    Or what you mean by raising ones status in this life?

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

  208. @silviosilver
    @AP


    In the pagan world man saw demons and spirits everywhere
     
    Christians were no different. Early Christianity was obsessed with rooting out demons.

    The rest of the quoted passage hardly amounts to anything more than empty assertions, which may be true, but are the sort of thing that can never really proven to everyone's satisfaction either way.

    Christianity, whatever good it may have done, was clearly a massive step backwards for rationality. It is not so surprising that it was only with the rise of doubt about the literal truth of Christian dogmas (among thinking people) that scientific investigation was able to bloom.

    Replies: @AP

    Christians were no different. Early Christianity was obsessed with rooting out demons

    Rooting out and confidently defeating all those demons is not the same thing as worshipping, being beholden to, and following them. The first process went hand in hand with the incredible victories over the natural world.

    • Agree: Kent Nationalist
    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @AP

    Thanks for your comments AP as usual they are well written and thoughtful.

    There is much to discuss here, and I will take the time to write a thoughtful reply. For now, I will only notice something that perhaps we should clarify from the very start: simple does not necessarily mean inferior and complex does not necessarily mean superior.

    In my opinion, a simple, and efficient method is usually better than a more complex and somewhat more efficient method. This is mainly due to what Nassim Taleb has called "antifragility".

    We have then to ask the question; if religious teachings and spiritual traditions are methods, what are they made for, what do they strive to achieve? And then analyze their respective efficiency in achieving that goal, their simplicity, complexity, antifragility etc.

    We need a common scale to compare different spiritual traditions, as we have a common scale to compare for exemple living organisms (you have mentioned that bacteria do not die of cancer in one of your comments).

  209. @AltanBakshi
    To think that Christianity alone is behind the success of the western world, or that Christianity was a semitic mind virus which made Roman empire to fall, and led Europe to "Dark Ages," are both crude caricatures.

    If Christianity would have been this magical protector of its adherents and some kind of highest state of humanity, then why the more Orthodox and authentically Christian East fell under Islam, why now most descendants of ancient Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians and Hebrews are now Muslims? Why Greeks, Levantines and Armenians suffered centuries under Islamic rule?

    Also if Christianity would have been this semitic and tyrannical virus, why then monks enthusiastically preserved old Pagan knowledge and philosophy? Admired Pagan philosophers and literature. Unlike Muslims in the Middle East, for whom everything predating Islam was just superstition and darkness(though not for every Muslim).

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @silviosilver, @AP

    Also if Christianity would have been this semitic and tyrannical virus, why then monks enthusiastically preserved old Pagan knowledge and philosophy?

    A very good observation. Basically, these wise Christian religious men found something worthwhile even within these old pagan religions, that ultimately pointed to pre-Christian man’s yearnings to touch the transcendent nature of God. The prime example of this would probably best be represented by the old Greek religious system:

    “In the years before Christ, many wise and virtuous people had appeared. For example, the ancient Greeks had reached quite high standards of philosophy about the good and about God. Their philosophy, in fact, contained seeds of the truth, the so-called “spermaticos logos.” Moreover, they were very religious people, but of course they did not know the true God; they were idolaters, yet very pious and god-fearing people. They were not atheists, as certain ill-informed contemporaries of ours represent them; those who do not know enough about these things. For this reason, by attempting to remove its faith in God from the psyche* of our devout people even without their consent, educators, teachers, politicians and civil governors act in a way inconsistent to the memory of the Greek race, and so they commit “hybris”2 in the ancient meaning of the word. In essence, they attempt to de-hellenise our people, because the Tradition of the Greeks (throughout our ancient, recent and modern history) is a Tradition of piety and respect for God. All the worldwide cultural contribution of Hellenism was and is based on this piety and respect for God. In the philosophy of the ancient Greeks we can perceive a certain yearning for the unknown God… for the experience of God. They were faithful and devout, but they did not have the true and completed knowledge of God, as they still lacked communion with Him, so that Theosis was not possible for them.”
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis-english.pdf

    • Thanks: AltanBakshi
  210. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry


    All our ancestors human and non-human, have reproduced, with or without achieving a sense of “transcendence”. Nature has ensured that people want to have sex, and historically often the most nihilistic people (e.g. rapists, etc) have reproduced.
     
    Sure people can have babies outside of any religious setting, but primitive people literally bathed into the spiritual: for an animist or a folower of shamanism everything around was infused with spirits. And since the earliest times the sexual act was seen as somewhat magical. It is still the case today in many esoteric traditions.

    Strength or weakness of other supernatural entities relative to God, would be dependent on objective reality, not subjective beliefs.
     
    There is nothing objective at all in the religious beliefs in general. The religious experience is always deeply subjective.

    But to be Early Christian, will mean that you don’t believe that Pan is a god. Rather, you would want people to understand reality of who is actually god.
     
    You should read the Sayings of the desert fathers. You would see for yourself that they did not deny the existence of other gods, but saw them as demons. This is also clearly mentioned in the Gnostic apocrypha.

    This is the standard modern secular view, a little in the style of Feuerbach.
     
    LOL

    Egregore (also spelled egregor; from French égrégore, from Ancient Greek egrḗgoros 'wakeful') is an occult concept representing a distinct non-physical entity that arises from a collective group of people. Historically, the concept referred to angelic beings, or watchers, and the specific rituals and practices associated with them, namely within Enochian traditions.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore

    Very modern indeed...

    LOL

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Dmitry

    You should read the Sayings of the desert fathers. You would see for yourself that they did not deny the existence of other gods, but saw them as demons.

    This is very true, early Christians believed that Pagan gods were demons, but as you probably know, demon was not so bad word then, as it later became during the Middle Ages. So to us moderns what they meant by demon would be more like spirit of nature, which sometimes were malevolent, and sometimes more neutral.

    It wouldnt even be a heretical Christian position to claim that Pagan gods exist as lost spirits, who are not anywhere near as powerful as the true God and not worthy of worship.

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk, AP, RSDB
  211. @Mr. Hack
    @AP

    I would just like to add to your very excellent comment, that it is only within Christianity that man not only can raise his status here in this life, but also in the next life too. Indeed, both lives become one united whole where man can truly become a god, something for which he was created for from the very beginning. Anybody here got something better to offer?

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    that it is only within Christianity that man not only can raise his status here in this life, but also in the next life too

    I very much respect your faith, but Mr. Hack isnt this the same promise given by many religions? Gain true happiness and salvation, in this life and in the next?

    Or what you mean by raising ones status in this life?

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    @AltanBakshi

    There are certain steps or phases that one must go though in this life in order to reach the final state of Theosis (uniting with the uncreated energies of the living God, thus becoming a god): humility, asceticism, the Holy Mysteries and prayer. Along this path, the individual must learn to totally shed his belief that one can elevate oneself by any means of his own, that he is fully dependent on God's grace alone. Of course, not all actually reach the final state of sanctification in this life, but fortunately that is not the most important part of the process:


    Throughout the whole of our life the Orthodox Christian must struggle, so that, slowly-slowly within the Church, with the Grace of God, with humility, repentance, prayer, and the holy Mysteries, he may be sanctified and deified. This, however, is the purpose of our lives; the great aim. It is not so important exactly how far we progress. Our struggle itself, which God blesses abundantly, has value both in the present age, and in the age to come
     

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  212. @AP
    @EldnahYm


    You are simply crediting all advances that occurred after Christianity’s adoption to Christianity.
     
    Yes. It's rather logical, given that for centuries prior to Christianity Northern Europeans didn't accomplish much, and Greeks and Romans while brilliant theorists were not so focused on transforming the world.

    If you’re going to adopt these assumptions, you have no basis for denying the modern critic of Christianity who blames it for modern liberalism, mass immigration, minoritarianism, atomism, relativism, dysgenics etc. But I bet you will not accept this.
     
    These problems are all due to the erosion of Christianity. The Classical world also experienced an erosion - Christianity then stepped in, and everything turned out better.

    Most of the northern European advances you credit to “Christianity” could instead be credited to something like “Roman technology” and Christianity be looked at as an ideology free-riding on a Roman civilizational model which pre-dates the adoption of Christianity.
     
    You put it backwards. Christianity came first, and transmitted the Roman and Greek knowledge while combining it with a non-Classical weltanschauung - the Christian drive to not only further contemplate and study the natural world as the Ancients did but also to control it. So already in medieval times practical refinements were being made, and systems were created (universities, scientific method) that would maximize advancement. So already monks were trying to come up with perpetual motion machines or to transform materials into gold, not just theorizing.

    Besides, in other parts of the world we have alternative models where your story about Christianity simply doesn’t work.
     
    Places like China or India had a thousands of years head start but were eclipsed by the Christian Europeans who had recently emerged from barbarism.

    Crediting Christianity with medical advances is a particularly big stretch on your part. Medical practices in Europe were worse than useless for treating infectious diseases. Europe was a backwater in this respect.
     
    Correct. I didn't mention medical advances overall. I think medieval Europeans pioneered use of quarantines and invented eyeglasses.

    The Chinese had variolation to treat smallpox centuries before the Europeans, and the Europeans were the last part of the civilized world to learn of it.
     
    Chinese came up with variolation in the 15th century. Yet centuries later Europeans invented vaccines; Pasteur was a very devout Christian.

    Replies: @EldnahYm, @AltanBakshi

    Places like China or India had a thousands of years head start but were eclipsed by the Christian Europeans who had recently emerged from barbarism.

    Indian and Chinese civilizations are about as old as Greek or Italian, Vedic literature is about as old as Homeric, and Greeks had writing centuries before Indians, around same time Chinese got their letters, few people seem to remember how old is the Greek civilization, much older than Greece of sophists and Alexander of Macedon. Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations were born two thousand to three thousand years before the Christ. Etruscan civilization is not so old, but still began three thousand years ago. So Indians and Chinese definitely did not have a head start in comparison to Italians and Hellenes.

    Btw I agree with you on Gibbon. He was a maker of anti Christian propaganda.

  213. @AP
    @silviosilver


    Christians were no different. Early Christianity was obsessed with rooting out demons
     
    Rooting out and confidently defeating all those demons is not the same thing as worshipping, being beholden to, and following them. The first process went hand in hand with the incredible victories over the natural world.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    Thanks for your comments AP as usual they are well written and thoughtful.

    There is much to discuss here, and I will take the time to write a thoughtful reply. For now, I will only notice something that perhaps we should clarify from the very start: simple does not necessarily mean inferior and complex does not necessarily mean superior.

    In my opinion, a simple, and efficient method is usually better than a more complex and somewhat more efficient method. This is mainly due to what Nassim Taleb has called “antifragility”.

    We have then to ask the question; if religious teachings and spiritual traditions are methods, what are they made for, what do they strive to achieve? And then analyze their respective efficiency in achieving that goal, their simplicity, complexity, antifragility etc.

    We need a common scale to compare different spiritual traditions, as we have a common scale to compare for exemple living organisms (you have mentioned that bacteria do not die of cancer in one of your comments).

    • Thanks: AP
  214. @AltanBakshi
    To think that Christianity alone is behind the success of the western world, or that Christianity was a semitic mind virus which made Roman empire to fall, and led Europe to "Dark Ages," are both crude caricatures.

    If Christianity would have been this magical protector of its adherents and some kind of highest state of humanity, then why the more Orthodox and authentically Christian East fell under Islam, why now most descendants of ancient Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians and Hebrews are now Muslims? Why Greeks, Levantines and Armenians suffered centuries under Islamic rule?

    Also if Christianity would have been this semitic and tyrannical virus, why then monks enthusiastically preserved old Pagan knowledge and philosophy? Admired Pagan philosophers and literature. Unlike Muslims in the Middle East, for whom everything predating Islam was just superstition and darkness(though not for every Muslim).

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @silviosilver, @AP

    Also if Christianity would have been this semitic and tyrannical virus, why then monks enthusiastically preserved old Pagan knowledge and philosophy?

    Christianity was responsible for considerable destruction of pagan writings, and much of what was “preserved” occurred unintentionally as Christian scholars pored over pagan texts in order to better denounce them. You have to remember, before Christianity became the law of the land, it underwent a real war of words with the pagan world so there was a great deal of this denouncing going on.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
    @silviosilver


    Christianity was responsible for considerable destruction of pagan writings, and much of what was “preserved” occurred unintentionally as Christian scholars pored over pagan texts in order to better denounce them.
     
    Why think that anything would have survived without Christianity? None of the pagan rulers at that time were interested in preserving them. Nor did the secular Romanised aristocracy.

    Replies: @silviosilver

  215. @AltanBakshi
    To think that Christianity alone is behind the success of the western world, or that Christianity was a semitic mind virus which made Roman empire to fall, and led Europe to "Dark Ages," are both crude caricatures.

    If Christianity would have been this magical protector of its adherents and some kind of highest state of humanity, then why the more Orthodox and authentically Christian East fell under Islam, why now most descendants of ancient Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians and Hebrews are now Muslims? Why Greeks, Levantines and Armenians suffered centuries under Islamic rule?

    Also if Christianity would have been this semitic and tyrannical virus, why then monks enthusiastically preserved old Pagan knowledge and philosophy? Admired Pagan philosophers and literature. Unlike Muslims in the Middle East, for whom everything predating Islam was just superstition and darkness(though not for every Muslim).

    Replies: @Mr. Hack, @silviosilver, @AP

    If Christianity would have been this magical protector of its adherents and some kind of highest state of humanity, then why the more Orthodox and authentically Christian East fell under Islam, why now most descendants of ancient Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians and Hebrews are now Muslims?

    Because it was necessary but not (quite) sufficient. Still, the Christians of Byzantium held their own against the Muslim onslaught for many centuries longer than did the Persians and the distant kingdoms of India. And perhaps their defeat at the ands of other Christians in the 12th century contributed to their later defeat at the hands of the Ottomans.

    Also, as a twisted half-cousin of Christianity, Islam has a “magic” of its own.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Your logic doesnt make any sense to me.
    How it was necessary, are you a determinist or fatalist?

    Some large Indian kingdoms, like Viyanagara and Gajapatis, survived much longer than Byzantium, and anyway most Indians are still Indian culturally and religiously, they stayed Indian, unlike (most)Hellenes, Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Syrians, they were great Christian nations, but now only small and quickly disappearing Christian minorities are whats left of them. Even Greeks lost great majority of their lands.

    In my humble opinion Christs power is not found in material inventions and great conquests, but in simple and pious life, such beliefs made people to feel spiritual kinship with each other, which strengthened bonds of community, when every man had just one lawful wife, there was no need to fight for women like in Islamic societies, where rich men had multiple wives, and such behaviour was legitimised by the religion. So often only way for a poor man to have women, was by being a warrior or bandit.
    Same with medieval Christian egalitarian ethos, though social classes existed, it was common for nobles to show piety by feeding and clothing the poor. There was even a common tradition that queens and kings washed the feet of the poor, just like Christ had done. Same with the belief that king could heal sick by his touch, it was common for kings to receive hundreds of sick people every year and touch them. Sultans and Padishahs would never done anything similar.


    Also, as a twisted half-cousin of Christianity, Islam has a “magic” of its own.
     
    Sad that God favored Islam over Zoroastrians...

    Replies: @AP

  216. @silviosilver
    @AltanBakshi


    Also if Christianity would have been this semitic and tyrannical virus, why then monks enthusiastically preserved old Pagan knowledge and philosophy?
     
    Christianity was responsible for considerable destruction of pagan writings, and much of what was "preserved" occurred unintentionally as Christian scholars pored over pagan texts in order to better denounce them. You have to remember, before Christianity became the law of the land, it underwent a real war of words with the pagan world so there was a great deal of this denouncing going on.

    Replies: @Kent Nationalist

    Christianity was responsible for considerable destruction of pagan writings, and much of what was “preserved” occurred unintentionally as Christian scholars pored over pagan texts in order to better denounce them.

    Why think that anything would have survived without Christianity? None of the pagan rulers at that time were interested in preserving them. Nor did the secular Romanised aristocracy.

    • Disagree: AltanBakshi
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Kent Nationalist


    Why think that anything would have survived without Christianity?
     
    Well, there are no guarantees in life, but since pagans (and pagan rulers) felt no inclination to eradicate pagan thought, a betting man around 300CE would surely have figured the odds of pagan writings surviving on into the future would be better under a pagan regime than under a Christian one.

    Replies: @AP, @Bashibuzuk

  217. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    If Christianity would have been this magical protector of its adherents and some kind of highest state of humanity, then why the more Orthodox and authentically Christian East fell under Islam, why now most descendants of ancient Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians and Hebrews are now Muslims?
     
    Because it was necessary but not (quite) sufficient. Still, the Christians of Byzantium held their own against the Muslim onslaught for many centuries longer than did the Persians and the distant kingdoms of India. And perhaps their defeat at the ands of other Christians in the 12th century contributed to their later defeat at the hands of the Ottomans.

    Also, as a twisted half-cousin of Christianity, Islam has a "magic" of its own.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    Your logic doesnt make any sense to me.
    How it was necessary, are you a determinist or fatalist?

    Some large Indian kingdoms, like Viyanagara and Gajapatis, survived much longer than Byzantium, and anyway most Indians are still Indian culturally and religiously, they stayed Indian, unlike (most)Hellenes, Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Syrians, they were great Christian nations, but now only small and quickly disappearing Christian minorities are whats left of them. Even Greeks lost great majority of their lands.

    In my humble opinion Christs power is not found in material inventions and great conquests, but in simple and pious life, such beliefs made people to feel spiritual kinship with each other, which strengthened bonds of community, when every man had just one lawful wife, there was no need to fight for women like in Islamic societies, where rich men had multiple wives, and such behaviour was legitimised by the religion. So often only way for a poor man to have women, was by being a warrior or bandit.
    Same with medieval Christian egalitarian ethos, though social classes existed, it was common for nobles to show piety by feeding and clothing the poor. There was even a common tradition that queens and kings washed the feet of the poor, just like Christ had done. Same with the belief that king could heal sick by his touch, it was common for kings to receive hundreds of sick people every year and touch them. Sultans and Padishahs would never done anything similar.

    Also, as a twisted half-cousin of Christianity, Islam has a “magic” of its own.

    Sad that God favored Islam over Zoroastrians…

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk, Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    Your logic doesnt make any sense to me.

    How it was necessary, are you a determinist or fatalist?
     
    The precondition for the meteoric rise of the West and it’s eventual domination of the world was its conversion to Christianity. Abandonment of Christianity may be its downfall.

    Some large Indian kingdoms, like Viyanagara and Gajapatis, survived much longer than Byzantium
     
    Yes but these were much further from the Islamic heartland.

    In my humble opinion Christs power is not found in material inventions and great conquests, but in simple and pious life, such beliefs made people to feel spiritual kinship with each other, which strengthened bonds of community, when every man had just one lawful wife, there was no need to fight for women like in Islamic societies, where rich men had multiple wives, and such behaviour was legitimised by the religion. So often only way for a poor man to have women, was by being a warrior or bandit.
    Same with medieval Christian egalitarian ethos, though social classes existed, it was common for nobles to show piety by feeding and clothing the poor. There was even a common tradition that queens and kings washed the feet of the poor, just like Christ had done. Same with the belief that king could heal sick by his touch, it was common for kings to receive hundreds of sick people every year and touch them. Sultans and Padishahs would never done anything similar
     
    As usual you have written poetically and beautifully. You are correct. I have been describing the domination and improvement of the world by Christians but it went hand in hand with and was no less important than the conquest of oneself and self-improvement.

    Sad that God favored Islam over Zoroastrians
     
    This was one history’s greatest tragedies. The world lost such a jewel. I wonder if the Persian was against Byzantium that preceded the conquest contributed to this disaster. I am reminded of Russia’s tragic choice to support regicide against a Christian monarchy and go to war with it on the side of secular France and liberal Britain, and how this opened the door to the Bolshevik horror.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Bashibuzuk

  218. @EldnahYm
    @AP


    Yes. It’s rather logical, given that for centuries prior to Christianity Northern Europeans didn’t accomplish much, and Greeks and Romans while brilliant theorists were not so focused on transforming the world.
     
    It might seem logical if it weren't the case that northern Europe remained a backwater long after the adoption of Christianity. To say northern Europe didn't accomplish much is also rather ridiculous. For just one example, Scandinavians made it to north America, a feat which would not be replicated elsewhere.

    These problems are all due to the erosion of Christianity. The Classical world also experienced an erosion – Christianity then stepped in, and everything turned out better.
     
    In other words, what AP thinks is good = Christianity, bad = not Christianity. Pure assertion on your part.

    You put it backwards. Christianity came first, and transmitted the Roman and Greek knowledge while combining it with a non-Classical weltanschauung – the Christian drive to not only further contemplate and study the natural world as the Ancients did but also to control it. So already in medieval times practical refinements were being made, and systems were created (universities, scientific method) that would maximize advancement. So already monks were trying to come up with perpetual motion machines or to transform materials into gold, not just theorizing.

    Places like China or India had a thousands of years head start but were eclipsed by the Christian Europeans who had recently emerged from barbarism.
     
    According to your logic, Ethiopians should be the most advanced people in the world.

    When some other part of the world is ahead of Europe, that only shows how impressive it was that Christian Europe later got ahead. When some other part of the world is behind Europe, that only shows how superior Christianity is. Using this kind of argument, it's impossible to falsify anything you say.

    Replies: @AP

    Yes. It’s rather logical, given that for centuries prior to Christianity Northern Europeans didn’t accomplish much, and Greeks and Romans while brilliant theorists were not so focused on transforming the world.

    It might seem logical if it weren’t the case that northern Europe remained a backwater long after the adoption of Christianity.

    They had a lot of improving to do form a very low base but the improvement was rapid, new plowing technology for example happened early.

    To say northern Europe didn’t accomplish much is also rather ridiculous. For just one example, Scandinavians made it to north America, a feat which would not be replicated elsewhere.

    It was indeed an accomplishment, but they had a shorter route and the enterprise was impermanent.

    These problems are all due to the erosion of Christianity. The Classical world also experienced an erosion – Christianity then stepped in, and everything turned out better.

    In other words, what AP thinks is good = Christianity, bad = not Christianity. Pure assertion on your part.

    You can ague that with modernism, Communism etc. Christianity carried within it the seeds of its own destruction.* A legitimate argument. But then, is it not better to flourish to an extent that would otherwise never have been achievable and then die, than to be immortal in savagery? Is is better to evolve into humanity and then disappear, than to be bacteria forever?

    Christendom has not yet fallen, so it is too early to predict its demise.

    According to your logic, Ethiopians should be the most advanced people in the world.

    Ethiopians were cut off and isolated, an perhaps inherited characteristics play some role. But still, they were more advanced than their neighbors, avoided foreign domination much longer, and their places better so Christianity played an important and positive role for them..

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    "Immortal in savagery, bacteria forever?"

    How flattering...

  219. @Mikhail
    @Passer by

    Regarding Russia, the neocon/neolib leaning bent of the EU is indeed putrid. They don't represent all of Europe. The EU itself doesn't constitute all of Europe.

    There's some reason for cautious optimism. It really isn't in the West's best interests to be so hypocritically anti-Russian to the degree evident.

    Replies: @Passer by

    There is chasm between Russia and Western Europe, it is not simply several eurocrats, it is enough to see the huge difference in views on LGBT and gender fluidity among ordinary people.

    When RT, the mouth of the leadership that hoped to wrestle Europe away from the US (and it failed) says that, you will know that there is a serious issue.

    https://russian.rt.com/opinion/825520-popova-ssha-baiden-zapad-liberalizm-ideologiya

    Macron himself said that Russia’s conservative model made it incompatible with Europe.

    • Thanks: Mikhail
    • Replies: @Morton's toes
    @Passer by

    The Popova op-ed is great but I don't read Russian and the only translation I can find is the one from the google translate bot. Is there an RT English version I missed?

    Replies: @Passer by

    , @Mikhail
    @Passer by


    There is chasm between Russia and Western Europe, it is not simply several eurocrats, it is enough to see the huge difference in views on LGBT and gender fluidity among ordinary people.

    When RT, the mouth of the leadership that hoped to wrestle Europe away from the US (and it failed) says that, you will know that there is a serious issue.

    https://russian.rt.com/opinion/825520-popova-ssha-baiden-zapad-liberalizm-ideologiya

    Macron himself said that Russia’s conservative model made it incompatible with Europe.
     
    RT posts views that don't always mesh with each other. Numerous Americans aren't happy with the BLM/George Floyd coverage. Macron has a way of drifting and being hypocritical. Fox News (which has been criticized for becoming a bit more like CNN and MSNBC) has run segments critical of transgender athletes in high school women's sports.

    I maintain a basis for cautious optimism on the premise that it's not really in America's best interests to be so anti-Russian.
  220. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk


    I don’t think going to the moon has anything to do with adopting an Abrahamic religion
     
    I doubt a non-Christian people would have gone to the moon. The Greeks and Romans never bothered to to cross the Atlantic.

    Also, Roman Empire and ancient Greece were pagan and yet produced beautiful and complex cultures.
     
    I was focused on the northern barbarian peoples who were transformed by Christianity. Rome and Greece were complex and produced beauty, but they were a dead end. What do you think of these words by the Russian philosopher Berdyaev? (Spengler's view of Classical technology was the same as that of Berdyaev)

    To assert that Christianity is hostile to man’s activity contradicts, in the first place, history. The greatest possible human activity was manifested during the Christian epoch and the most dynamic development belongs to nations that have embraced Christianity—the nations of the West. It has proved itself to be a force building up and directing history. Even its foes were forced to admit that the nations of the ancient civilizations of the East—China, India, Persia—nations which refused to accept Christianity—fell out of step with the world’s history: they stagnated, they lived in the past, they did not face the future. It was only Christianity that made nations capable of looking towards what was to come.

    This can be explained by the messianic nature of Christianity, by the faith that the world was going
    forward to its definite, all-explaining goal—the kingdom of God. The very conception of history as
    a dynamic process, possessing a meaning of its own and advancing towards the highest aim, was created by Christianity. Such a conception became possible because, in the midst of history, Christ, the Saviour of the world, came into it, or in other words, the meaning of the world’s processes was incarnated. The Greeks and the whole of ancient civilization had no true conception of history; their minds were not directed forward; they conceived the world as a revolving circle. The Greek was meditative, not active. He had an aesthetic love for the beauty of the cosmos, for the world’s harmony; his religion was closely related to the myths of the past, and in this past the myths played an important part.

    Christianity, on the other hand, lives not only in the past, but in the future as well. It is looking forward to the second coming of Christ, to the kingdom of God, to the end of the world, when the whole meaning of existence will be realized. The dynamism which was introduced by Christianity into the history of human societies is related to this seeking for God’s kingdom—to the seeking for perfect life. Christianity alone knows aught of this intense seeking, this dissatisfaction with the existing world; it alone has implanted this anxiety in the soul. Man dares to be satisfied only with a perfection as complete as that of the Heavenly Father...

    The Greco-Roman civilization, aristocratic in its very principles, despised work and looked upon it as the portion of the slaves; it is only since Christianity, since the Gospel, that work and those who do it have been sanctified. Christ himself worked: “The labourer is worthy of his hire.” The parables concerning the talents and the vineyard speak of human labour, of human activity, of human creative gifts: man must return his talents multiplied to God (Matt, xxv, 14-30; xxi, 28-31). The activity of man^ must be fruitful; he is told to till the soil; he must return increased all that he has received. Nowhere does the Gospel justify passivity. Christianity established the dignity of every man, ‘fashioned in God’s image and after his likeness,’ and it opens an endless vista of perfection, a perfection not only of individuals but of social meaning. Christianity affirms that man is a spiritual being, and spirit is ever active; that is the definition of spirit. Matter is passive and inert. A spiritual being cannot but strive towards eternity, perfection, the fullness of life, and such a striving implies movement, dynamic development, activity.

    It was Christianity that set man free from the power of Nature, from the elemental forces in the midst of which ancient heathen man lived. In the pagan world man saw demons and spirits everywhere: he was afraid of them and felt that he was subject to them. Christianity released man from this dread of the chaos of dark demoniacal forces underlying Nature, it freed the human spirit from oppression; it raised man and subjected his fate to God, not to elemental natural forces, to the inner, not to the outward. Man could not learn to know Nature scientifically and conquer it technically so long as he thought it was peopled with spirits upon whom his own life depended. Christianity set man free from this pandemonism, thereby spiritually preparing the development of natural science and technical progress, the conquest of nature and its subjection to mankind.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @sher singh

    The activity of man^ must be fruitful; he is told to till the soil; he must return increased all that he has received.

    We must increase the GDP of Ukraina by importing Negroes.

    • Replies: @Simpleguest
    @sher singh


    We must increase the GDP of Ukraina by importing Negroes.
     
    We must increase the DP of Ukraine by importing Negros.
    Fixed it for you.
  221. @AP
    @EldnahYm


    Yes. It’s rather logical, given that for centuries prior to Christianity Northern Europeans didn’t accomplish much, and Greeks and Romans while brilliant theorists were not so focused on transforming the world.

    It might seem logical if it weren’t the case that northern Europe remained a backwater long after the adoption of Christianity.
     
    They had a lot of improving to do form a very low base but the improvement was rapid, new plowing technology for example happened early.

    To say northern Europe didn’t accomplish much is also rather ridiculous. For just one example, Scandinavians made it to north America, a feat which would not be replicated elsewhere.
     
    It was indeed an accomplishment, but they had a shorter route and the enterprise was impermanent.

    These problems are all due to the erosion of Christianity. The Classical world also experienced an erosion – Christianity then stepped in, and everything turned out better.

    In other words, what AP thinks is good = Christianity, bad = not Christianity. Pure assertion on your part.
     
    You can ague that with modernism, Communism etc. Christianity carried within it the seeds of its own destruction.* A legitimate argument. But then, is it not better to flourish to an extent that would otherwise never have been achievable and then die, than to be immortal in savagery? Is is better to evolve into humanity and then disappear, than to be bacteria forever?

    Christendom has not yet fallen, so it is too early to predict its demise.

    According to your logic, Ethiopians should be the most advanced people in the world.
     
    Ethiopians were cut off and isolated, an perhaps inherited characteristics play some role. But still, they were more advanced than their neighbors, avoided foreign domination much longer, and their places better so Christianity played an important and positive role for them..

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    “Immortal in savagery, bacteria forever?”

    How flattering…

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk
  222. @sher singh
    @AP


    The activity of man^ must be fruitful; he is told to till the soil; he must return increased all that he has received.
     
    We must increase the GDP of Ukraina by importing Negroes.

    Replies: @Simpleguest

    We must increase the GDP of Ukraina by importing Negroes.

    We must increase the DP of Ukraine by importing Negros.
    Fixed it for you.

  223. @AnonfromTN
    @Aedib


    What do you think about the pompous and self-righteous speeches of Eurocrats? They feel the little clown Borrell was humiliated in Moscow and threat Russia with “terrible retaliations”.
     
    Sure, Borrell was deeply offended in Moscow: his hypocrisy was exposed for all to see. This fighter for freedom of speech, this knight in a shining armor, was impolitely asked about journalists jailed for their professional activities in vaudeville Baltic states, about banning of Russian TV channels in those same statelets, and about closing of three opposition TV channels in another American vassal, Ukraine. He could not say anything coherent, just mooed, poor thing.

    In fact, the EU has already run out of sanctions, they’ve introduced even those that hurt them more than Russia. When Eurocrats are offended, they, like toddlers in a sandbox, have tantrums. So, one should react to them exactly like to toddlers: ignore, unless you are prepared to spank them.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Aedib, @Passer by

    I had fun reading the furious Editorials from Elpais.es and TheGuardian. It seems that Eurocrats started to realize that they depleted their sanctions arsenal and failed to kill the bear. They wanted to lecture Russia on human rights and received a contemptuous answer. So, they started to realize they lack hard power necessary to back they inflated demands.

    • Replies: @Passer by
    @Aedib

    On the contrary, they got massively triggered by the Borrel fiasco and there were many anti-russian outbursts in Europe. Which is boxing them in as a US puppet. Basically, liberalism made Western Europe a forever puppet of the US. Russophobia too. Just like intended, by the way.

    Euro culture was deliberately terraformed in order to make them forever puppets, who want that by themselves.

    Replies: @Aedib, @sudden death

    , @AnonFromTN
    @Aedib


    It seems that Eurocrats started to realize that they depleted their sanctions arsenal and failed to kill the bear.
     
    I think Russia should distance itself from the EU ASAP. A lot of heavy and high-tech industrial products, the market for which Germany stupidly lost, are now imported from South Korea. This should never change: there must be a long-term price to pay for stupidity. I think Putin is doing the right thing by building a lot of plants to liquefy natural gas. LNG should be sold to the highest bidder. If European asses freeze in winter as the result, let them take their grievances to Brussels eurocrats. If Europe wants to shoot itself in the foot, it’s their problem. Putin is not the president of Europe, so he should not give a hoot about European problems. Let those pathetic vassals ask their seignor for help. A fat lot of good it’s going to do them.
  224. @reiner Tor
    @AP

    One nitpick: the Northern European pagans had much lower population density due to the slow process of local plant domestication and adopting plants not well suited for the climate. Unlike in the Mediterranean, Northern Europeans couldn’t adopt the Near Eastern agricultural package without significant modifications.

    That said, I think it’s pretty obvious that Christianity was at the very least not incompatible with technological and scientific development and the creation of beautiful works of art and some of the most impressive architecture.

    Replies: @songbird

    Old growth oak grown in cold climates would have been impossible to cut down in the bronze age. Not even easy with iron. If you are cutting a small oak with a chainsaw, you’ll want a powerful one with a sharp chain. You can grow to appreciate the hardness of oak just by cutting saplings with a lopper.

    Additional agricultural advancements happened later, like the horse collar and horse plow. They undoubtedly helped increase population. Were they due to Christianity? It’s possible, but I am skeptical.

    Often, the fruits of population increase are conflated with the fruits of a philosophy. The Enlightenment is the big one. The Renaissance is probably another. A lot of the cultural development of ancient Rome was probably increase in population density and scale, even though they practiced slavery.

  225. @AltanBakshi
    @Mr. Hack


    that it is only within Christianity that man not only can raise his status here in this life, but also in the next life too
     
    I very much respect your faith, but Mr. Hack isnt this the same promise given by many religions? Gain true happiness and salvation, in this life and in the next?

    Or what you mean by raising ones status in this life?

    Replies: @Mr. Hack

    There are certain steps or phases that one must go though in this life in order to reach the final state of Theosis (uniting with the uncreated energies of the living God, thus becoming a god): humility, asceticism, the Holy Mysteries and prayer. Along this path, the individual must learn to totally shed his belief that one can elevate oneself by any means of his own, that he is fully dependent on God’s grace alone. Of course, not all actually reach the final state of sanctification in this life, but fortunately that is not the most important part of the process:

    Throughout the whole of our life the Orthodox Christian must struggle, so that, slowly-slowly within the Church, with the Grace of God, with humility, repentance, prayer, and the holy Mysteries, he may be sanctified and deified. This, however, is the purpose of our lives; the great aim. It is not so important exactly how far we progress. Our struggle itself, which God blesses abundantly, has value both in the present age, and in the age to come

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Mr. Hack

    You claimed that only Christianity promised better state in this life and salvation in the next, right? But in my knowledge every traditional religion promises higher spiritual states for those who take their faith seriously. Yes they often employ different terminology, and have different ways for reaching those elevated states of existence, but still they have the same marketing strategy. Your life is shitty without our true faith, so renounce your old ways and find true happiness with us, also as a free extra you get transcendental states, so subscribe now, before its too late!

    (Sorry, I couldnt resist, irony is a poison of mind...)

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Mr. Hack

  226. @Aedib
    @AnonfromTN

    I had fun reading the furious Editorials from Elpais.es and TheGuardian. It seems that Eurocrats started to realize that they depleted their sanctions arsenal and failed to kill the bear. They wanted to lecture Russia on human rights and received a contemptuous answer. So, they started to realize they lack hard power necessary to back they inflated demands.

    Replies: @Passer by, @AnonFromTN

    On the contrary, they got massively triggered by the Borrel fiasco and there were many anti-russian outbursts in Europe. Which is boxing them in as a US puppet. Basically, liberalism made Western Europe a forever puppet of the US. Russophobia too. Just like intended, by the way.

    Euro culture was deliberately terraformed in order to make them forever puppets, who want that by themselves.

    • Replies: @Aedib
    @Passer by

    Off course there were massive anti-Russian outbursts. What I mean is this crying-game is more and more funny every day.

    Replies: @Passer by

    , @sudden death
    @Passer by


    Which is boxing them in as a US puppet. Basically, liberalism made Western Europe a forever puppet of the US. Russophobia too. Just like intended, by the way.

    Euro culture was deliberately terraformed in order to make them forever puppets, who want that by themselves.
     
    So you really miss the good ol days when truly sovereign and not puppet European powers could do whatever they wanted just like in 1812, 1856, 1914 and 1941? ;)

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  227. @AltanBakshi
    @silviosilver

    You have a point, I agree, but is Cosmism enough for family men? Or how I would put it? Such abstract ideas as interstellar empires, possible future terraforming scenarios, bioengineering and so on, how such ideas motivate men and women to bond and make babies? In my opinion Cosmism can be a good source for motivation for a minority of some highly specialised and idealistic men, but for masses such promises sound hollow, at least as long as there are no concrete results, but only some distant promises that will be realised in future, or so I so believe. But personally to me, such ideas sound inspiring.

    As a glue for social cohesion and solidarity? No, I dont believe that Cosmism can be such glue. Not at all. Still if there is enough surplus production in society and some charismatic personas speaking for it, then Cosmism can be an engine for societal change, but I really dont believe that masses would be ready to make personal sacrifices in the name of the Cosmism.(Without the heavy hand of state!)

    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much? Authoritarian? No, not enough, it must be totalitarian, or masses start to question and criticize too much. Every day citizens would make a pledge that humanity will reach the stars, news would be full of reports of new astronomic findings, all tv channels would broadcast documentaries about rocket engines and exoplanets, there would be more than ten channels for scifi series etc, etc....

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @silviosilver, @mal, @ImmortalRationalist, @FerW

    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much?

    This odd statement-question gave me pause. Having quietly read in the order of 1000s of comments in this forum I had imagined AltanBakshi to be a grounded, rather than stars-bound, Buddhist. Are you saying that you would indeed give your support for one such globally totalitarian “cosmist” project?

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @FerW

    Im just a Buddhist individual, though I will defend my religion against slander and falsehoods, I do not represent personally all 'traditional' Buddhists of the world.

    In my opinion Buddhism is neither against or for cosmism, or its more complicated, depends what is more beneficial at the moment. At least cosmism as a dream is better for the nations and peoples of the world than progressive dream of the world of the tomorrow. There would be new frontiers, less stagnation, even the one world cosmist government would crumble in few centuries if not before, because its impossible even with the technology of future to directly control planets that are light years far away from each other. If they develop some kind of permanent worm holes between different planets, only then mankind could have an interstellar centralised empire, but that really sounds more far fetched than faster than light travel.

    Though we give greater respect for animal life than most religions, human life is for us very special, maybe even more special than for the others, because its an extremely small chance that one is born as a human, a true sign that one has done more good than bad, though as merit can be gained, it can also be lost. For a Christian its just Gods will that one is a human, so theres no contrast with other possibilities, like being praying mantis, or fly, after all there is an absurd amount of insects and strange water creatures, much more than humans.

    What would be better than spread humanity to other planets, and at the same time spread the biosphere of our dear mother Earth(Prithvi) to distant stars?

    Surely such struggle for conquest of space would be more moral goal, than shallow consumerism of modern post-industrisl society, but I must add that I would not agree with a cosmist one world government, if it had lots of Americans in leading positions, maybe Im wrong, but Im extremely biased against USA.

    Replies: @FerW

  228. @AnonfromTN
    @Aedib


    What do you think about the pompous and self-righteous speeches of Eurocrats? They feel the little clown Borrell was humiliated in Moscow and threat Russia with “terrible retaliations”.
     
    Sure, Borrell was deeply offended in Moscow: his hypocrisy was exposed for all to see. This fighter for freedom of speech, this knight in a shining armor, was impolitely asked about journalists jailed for their professional activities in vaudeville Baltic states, about banning of Russian TV channels in those same statelets, and about closing of three opposition TV channels in another American vassal, Ukraine. He could not say anything coherent, just mooed, poor thing.

    In fact, the EU has already run out of sanctions, they’ve introduced even those that hurt them more than Russia. When Eurocrats are offended, they, like toddlers in a sandbox, have tantrums. So, one should react to them exactly like to toddlers: ignore, unless you are prepared to spank them.

    Replies: @Mikhail, @Aedib, @Passer by

    In fact, the EU has already run out of sanctions

    They didn’t, the latest sanctions round was banning Belarus from hosting various sports events.

    Banning countries from international sport events is quite effective tactic at humiliating opposing countries.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    @Passer by


    Banning countries from international sport events is quite effective tactic at humiliating opposing countries.
     
    In fact, it’s more feel good than economically damaging. It’s also very short-sighted. Actions like this only bring the day closer when non-imperial-dominated world creates its own sports events.

    Geopolitically speaking, Europe and minor imperial vassals like Canada and Australia will go under with the Empire, while 85% of the world will breathe a sigh of relief.

    Replies: @Passer by, @A123

  229. @Aedib
    @AnonfromTN

    I had fun reading the furious Editorials from Elpais.es and TheGuardian. It seems that Eurocrats started to realize that they depleted their sanctions arsenal and failed to kill the bear. They wanted to lecture Russia on human rights and received a contemptuous answer. So, they started to realize they lack hard power necessary to back they inflated demands.

    Replies: @Passer by, @AnonFromTN

    It seems that Eurocrats started to realize that they depleted their sanctions arsenal and failed to kill the bear.

    I think Russia should distance itself from the EU ASAP. A lot of heavy and high-tech industrial products, the market for which Germany stupidly lost, are now imported from South Korea. This should never change: there must be a long-term price to pay for stupidity. I think Putin is doing the right thing by building a lot of plants to liquefy natural gas. LNG should be sold to the highest bidder. If European asses freeze in winter as the result, let them take their grievances to Brussels eurocrats. If Europe wants to shoot itself in the foot, it’s their problem. Putin is not the president of Europe, so he should not give a hoot about European problems. Let those pathetic vassals ask their seignor for help. A fat lot of good it’s going to do them.

    • Agree: Aedib
  230. @Passer by
    @AnonfromTN


    In fact, the EU has already run out of sanctions
     
    They didn't, the latest sanctions round was banning Belarus from hosting various sports events.

    Banning countries from international sport events is quite effective tactic at humiliating opposing countries.

    Replies: @AnonFromTN

    Banning countries from international sport events is quite effective tactic at humiliating opposing countries.

    In fact, it’s more feel good than economically damaging. It’s also very short-sighted. Actions like this only bring the day closer when non-imperial-dominated world creates its own sports events.

    Geopolitically speaking, Europe and minor imperial vassals like Canada and Australia will go under with the Empire, while 85% of the world will breathe a sigh of relief.

    • Replies: @Passer by
    @AnonFromTN

    Russia is just lucky that the West is declining, because Russia is a declining country too. Both as share of world GDP and as share of world population. It lost half a million people in 2020 alone.

    Both the West and Russia are declining.

    Btw Canada and Australia are not minor, they provide enormous natural resources as well as strategic depth to the US Empire.

    US + Canada + Australia have more territory than Russia.

    , @A123
    @AnonFromTN


    Geopolitically speaking, Europe and minor imperial vassals like Canada and Australia will go under with the Empire, while 85% of the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
     
    Reality speaking, there is no reason to believe the end-state will have two sides. For example, China will accelerate its campaign of de-Islamification after Mullah Merkel's Imperial Caliphate falls.

    It is hard to predict exact lines of how things will play out. However, it is certain that the IslamoGloboHomo Empire continues to lose ground that vs Christian Populism. Dhimmi collaborators stealing the election from Trump has deepened the divide among the factions. And, it will ultimately backfire against the SJW sharia-left liberalism.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

  231. @AnonFromTN
    @Passer by


    Banning countries from international sport events is quite effective tactic at humiliating opposing countries.
     
    In fact, it’s more feel good than economically damaging. It’s also very short-sighted. Actions like this only bring the day closer when non-imperial-dominated world creates its own sports events.

    Geopolitically speaking, Europe and minor imperial vassals like Canada and Australia will go under with the Empire, while 85% of the world will breathe a sigh of relief.

    Replies: @Passer by, @A123

    Russia is just lucky that the West is declining, because Russia is a declining country too. Both as share of world GDP and as share of world population. It lost half a million people in 2020 alone.

    Both the West and Russia are declining.

    Btw Canada and Australia are not minor, they provide enormous natural resources as well as strategic depth to the US Empire.

    US + Canada + Australia have more territory than Russia.

  232. @Passer by
    @Aedib

    On the contrary, they got massively triggered by the Borrel fiasco and there were many anti-russian outbursts in Europe. Which is boxing them in as a US puppet. Basically, liberalism made Western Europe a forever puppet of the US. Russophobia too. Just like intended, by the way.

    Euro culture was deliberately terraformed in order to make them forever puppets, who want that by themselves.

    Replies: @Aedib, @sudden death

    Off course there were massive anti-Russian outbursts. What I mean is this crying-game is more and more funny every day.

    • Replies: @Passer by
    @Aedib

    Well, Borrel is now urging sanctions on Russia just as we speak.

    It is actually a good thing as it will force Russia to move away from that infectious zombie, the EU.

  233. @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    Your logic doesnt make any sense to me.
    How it was necessary, are you a determinist or fatalist?

    Some large Indian kingdoms, like Viyanagara and Gajapatis, survived much longer than Byzantium, and anyway most Indians are still Indian culturally and religiously, they stayed Indian, unlike (most)Hellenes, Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Syrians, they were great Christian nations, but now only small and quickly disappearing Christian minorities are whats left of them. Even Greeks lost great majority of their lands.

    In my humble opinion Christs power is not found in material inventions and great conquests, but in simple and pious life, such beliefs made people to feel spiritual kinship with each other, which strengthened bonds of community, when every man had just one lawful wife, there was no need to fight for women like in Islamic societies, where rich men had multiple wives, and such behaviour was legitimised by the religion. So often only way for a poor man to have women, was by being a warrior or bandit.
    Same with medieval Christian egalitarian ethos, though social classes existed, it was common for nobles to show piety by feeding and clothing the poor. There was even a common tradition that queens and kings washed the feet of the poor, just like Christ had done. Same with the belief that king could heal sick by his touch, it was common for kings to receive hundreds of sick people every year and touch them. Sultans and Padishahs would never done anything similar.


    Also, as a twisted half-cousin of Christianity, Islam has a “magic” of its own.
     
    Sad that God favored Islam over Zoroastrians...

    Replies: @AP

    Your logic doesnt make any sense to me.

    How it was necessary, are you a determinist or fatalist?

    The precondition for the meteoric rise of the West and it’s eventual domination of the world was its conversion to Christianity. Abandonment of Christianity may be its downfall.

    Some large Indian kingdoms, like Viyanagara and Gajapatis, survived much longer than Byzantium

    Yes but these were much further from the Islamic heartland.

    In my humble opinion Christs power is not found in material inventions and great conquests, but in simple and pious life, such beliefs made people to feel spiritual kinship with each other, which strengthened bonds of community, when every man had just one lawful wife, there was no need to fight for women like in Islamic societies, where rich men had multiple wives, and such behaviour was legitimised by the religion. So often only way for a poor man to have women, was by being a warrior or bandit.
    Same with medieval Christian egalitarian ethos, though social classes existed, it was common for nobles to show piety by feeding and clothing the poor. There was even a common tradition that queens and kings washed the feet of the poor, just like Christ had done. Same with the belief that king could heal sick by his touch, it was common for kings to receive hundreds of sick people every year and touch them. Sultans and Padishahs would never done anything similar

    As usual you have written poetically and beautifully. You are correct. I have been describing the domination and improvement of the world by Christians but it went hand in hand with and was no less important than the conquest of oneself and self-improvement.

    Sad that God favored Islam over Zoroastrians

    This was one history’s greatest tragedies. The world lost such a jewel. I wonder if the Persian was against Byzantium that preceded the conquest contributed to this disaster. I am reminded of Russia’s tragic choice to support regicide against a Christian monarchy and go to war with it on the side of secular France and liberal Britain, and how this opened the door to the Bolshevik horror.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP


    Because it was necessary but not (quite) sufficient.
     
    I understood that you meant that the Islamic rule and defeat of Eastern Christians was somehow necessary? Those poor Christian nations did not themselves choose to give up on Christianity, only after centuries of oppression greater Syria, Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Egypt became majority Muslim. Even in the 11th century Christians were probably a slight majority in Syria and Egypt, Greeks of Anatolia fought desperately for every inch. Easterners didnt abandon Christianity, still look what has happened to them.

    Yes but these were much further from the Islamic heartland.
     
    Whats your definition of Islamic heartland? Arabs conquered most of Pakistan in the early 8th century, from that time Sindh and most of Western Punjab has been under a rule of Islam, and if you dont accept them being parts of the heartland, surely greater Iran is? Which btw borders those lands which were once thought to be Indian(India+Pakistan).

    As usual you have written poetically and beautifully.
     
    Really? Im a quick thinker and English is not my native language, but I love to write extremely quickly, you know stream consciousness stuff, so everytime when I read again my old commenst, Im quite irritated by how many small grammatical errors I have verywhere, and how repetitively I use some words.

    Anyway it sadly seems that once again Christianity is becoming the religion of minority, in the west at least, so you guys should make some adjustments, learn again how to be the counter or underground culture in the society, if that was possible in such desperate circumstances as in the 3rd century, when both Rabbinic and Roman authorities persecuted you guys, then the Christianity of the 3rd century was probably quite manly religion, how else Christians could have gained numerous converts among Roman legionnaires, or run away slaves? By being whiny conservatives who constantly give up before the enemy?

    Replies: @AP

    , @Bashibuzuk
    @AP

    Sassanian Iran and the Zoroastrian clergy have been weakened by the Manichean heresy and the Mazdakite reforms, which led to a coup against the Shahanshah.



    The Mazdakite reformers were egalitarian proto-Communists. According to Gumilyov they have received the enthusiastic support of the Babylonian Jewry (the most numerous and influential Jewish community at the time). Later on, after the Spenta Huna (Hephtalite / White Huns) intervention and the restauration of order by Khosrow Anushirvan, the population of the empire was burdened by increased taxes, the reactionary Zoroastrian clergy increased their power and persecuted the religious minorities. Gumilyov writes about Jews fleeing Iran and Mesopotamia towards the Caucasus and Khazaria.

    Later, when Islamic armies marched against the last Sassanian Shahanshah, the masses did not stand in defense of the royalty and the priestly class. The ethnic and religious minorities were tired of the Zoroastrian clergy oppression. Therefore Islam was as well received by the Syriac Christians, the Sabeans and Jews of the Sassanian Empire, as it was also welcomed by the Jews of the Byzantine Empire and later Spain.

    Also, one of the Prophets most important compagnons - Salman - was himself Persian, some of the early detractors to Islam actually accused Mohammad of changing the Arabic traditions under the influence of Salman Al Farisi. Therefore, Persian Muslims were treated rather well when compared with other converts. Finally, most Sassanian troops in Mesopotamia were Syriac Christian (Nestorian) Arabs that have sometimes supported the Mazdakite reforms and later easily converted to Islam.

  234. @AnonFromTN
    @Passer by


    Banning countries from international sport events is quite effective tactic at humiliating opposing countries.
     
    In fact, it’s more feel good than economically damaging. It’s also very short-sighted. Actions like this only bring the day closer when non-imperial-dominated world creates its own sports events.

    Geopolitically speaking, Europe and minor imperial vassals like Canada and Australia will go under with the Empire, while 85% of the world will breathe a sigh of relief.

    Replies: @Passer by, @A123

    Geopolitically speaking, Europe and minor imperial vassals like Canada and Australia will go under with the Empire, while 85% of the world will breathe a sigh of relief.

    Reality speaking, there is no reason to believe the end-state will have two sides. For example, China will accelerate its campaign of de-Islamification after Mullah Merkel’s Imperial Caliphate falls.

    It is hard to predict exact lines of how things will play out. However, it is certain that the IslamoGloboHomo Empire continues to lose ground that vs Christian Populism. Dhimmi collaborators stealing the election from Trump has deepened the divide among the factions. And, it will ultimately backfire against the SJW sharia-left liberalism.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @A123


    However, it is certain that the IslamoGloboHomo Empire continues to lose ground that vs Christian Populism. Dhimmi collaborators stealing the election from Trump has deepened the divide among the factions. And, it will ultimately backfire against the SJW sharia-left liberalism.
     
    Never change, my precious man. In honor of you, I'll have to record a clip of that.

    Replies: @songbird, @A123, @silviosilver

  235. @mal
    @Bashibuzuk

    To be fair, Buran was an amazing technological achievement, just way ahead of its time. Similar to Space Shuttle.

    To the overall point, I'm an atheist and I agree. In my view, a successful society requires a "frontier spirit", curiosity and desire to look over the horizon. To that end, people need to believe that there is something over the horizon, and that they somehow belong there in the big picture. Obviously, for me it's about exploring the secrets of the universe, and carrying the evolutionary process to the stars. But to people not dreaming about interstellar biological empires and ecosystems, religion can be a suitable substitute.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Simpleguest, @songbird, @Svevlad

    I have a similar, if less idealistic idea. I’d call it “balls”, “courage”, “killer instinct” or just good old chutzpah. It’s a trait of individuals, but “stackable” into entire ethnies. I can’t really describe what it is, but I can describe easily what it isn’t: not knowing to use fuckin MS Office to it’s fullest extent because you don’t want to press a button out of fear of “breaking something;” when you shitcan any plans because they aren’t “realistic” instead of just extending the deadline and working towards it anyway; not wanting better and so on and so forth.

    Basically, on a national scale, a form of collective will and a goal that nothing can stop from being reached.

    • Agree: mal
  236. @A123
    @AnonFromTN


    Geopolitically speaking, Europe and minor imperial vassals like Canada and Australia will go under with the Empire, while 85% of the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
     
    Reality speaking, there is no reason to believe the end-state will have two sides. For example, China will accelerate its campaign of de-Islamification after Mullah Merkel's Imperial Caliphate falls.

    It is hard to predict exact lines of how things will play out. However, it is certain that the IslamoGloboHomo Empire continues to lose ground that vs Christian Populism. Dhimmi collaborators stealing the election from Trump has deepened the divide among the factions. And, it will ultimately backfire against the SJW sharia-left liberalism.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    However, it is certain that the IslamoGloboHomo Empire continues to lose ground that vs Christian Populism. Dhimmi collaborators stealing the election from Trump has deepened the divide among the factions. And, it will ultimately backfire against the SJW sharia-left liberalism.

    Never change, my precious man. In honor of you, I’ll have to record a clip of that.

    • Agree: AltanBakshi
    • Thanks: A123
    • Replies: @songbird
    @Daniel Chieh

    Nobody can match the Indian revachists.

    They will tell you that Japan is about to crush China because of a stimulus package, while simultaneously explaining that Japan's initial period of stagnation was due to their idiotic policy of not importing tens of millions of Indians.

    , @A123
    @Daniel Chieh


    Never change, my precious man.
     
    Of course not. THE TRUTH is constant.

    -- In Russia, the failure of Communism heralded a return to Christian tradition and the Orthodox Church.
    -- In the U.S. and Europe, the failure of SJW Left-slam will similarly herald a return to Christian tradition.

    It will be interesting to see if:

    • Existing Protestant Churches can return to traditional values.
    • Entirely new lines of Christian Churches arise to replace the failed ones.

    Best guess is a mix of both. Probably more the latter, especially overseas. Churches that have become Godless have no good way back. Every European church that declared "welcome rape-ugees" is pretty much eternally damned for placing Christian children at risk to serve ungodly masters.

    PEACE 😇
    , @silviosilver
    @Daniel Chieh

    His preposterous bullshit is a one-man knockdown argument for nuking the criminal state of Israel.

  237. @Mr. Hack
    @AltanBakshi

    There are certain steps or phases that one must go though in this life in order to reach the final state of Theosis (uniting with the uncreated energies of the living God, thus becoming a god): humility, asceticism, the Holy Mysteries and prayer. Along this path, the individual must learn to totally shed his belief that one can elevate oneself by any means of his own, that he is fully dependent on God's grace alone. Of course, not all actually reach the final state of sanctification in this life, but fortunately that is not the most important part of the process:


    Throughout the whole of our life the Orthodox Christian must struggle, so that, slowly-slowly within the Church, with the Grace of God, with humility, repentance, prayer, and the holy Mysteries, he may be sanctified and deified. This, however, is the purpose of our lives; the great aim. It is not so important exactly how far we progress. Our struggle itself, which God blesses abundantly, has value both in the present age, and in the age to come
     

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    You claimed that only Christianity promised better state in this life and salvation in the next, right? But in my knowledge every traditional religion promises higher spiritual states for those who take their faith seriously. Yes they often employ different terminology, and have different ways for reaching those elevated states of existence, but still they have the same marketing strategy. Your life is shitty without our true faith, so renounce your old ways and find true happiness with us, also as a free extra you get transcendental states, so subscribe now, before its too late!

    (Sorry, I couldnt resist, irony is a poison of mind…)

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @AltanBakshi

    That's sarcasm you were employing, not irony.

    , @Mr. Hack
    @AltanBakshi

    What I was trying to convey is that it is only within Christianity that man can unite himself to his Creator in a very special way, that begins in this life and can be completed in the next life through the process of Theosis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the concept of God in an anthropomorphic sense doesn't really even exist within Buddhism, so there's no God to be united too? I too have a great respect or your Buddhist faith and find it fascinating that the Buddha himself made many similar remarks as did Jesus Christ many centuries later. The differences and similarities of the two faith systems need to be honored and studied more thoroughly.

    https://img.thriftbooks.com/api/images/i/l/C7CCE591AF86554E37AB1B709781FAE258195F7D.jpg

    Dozens, and dozens of parallel sayings by both Jesus and Buddha

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi

  238. @Daniel Chieh
    @A123


    However, it is certain that the IslamoGloboHomo Empire continues to lose ground that vs Christian Populism. Dhimmi collaborators stealing the election from Trump has deepened the divide among the factions. And, it will ultimately backfire against the SJW sharia-left liberalism.
     
    Never change, my precious man. In honor of you, I'll have to record a clip of that.

    Replies: @songbird, @A123, @silviosilver

    Nobody can match the Indian revachists.

    They will tell you that Japan is about to crush China because of a stimulus package, while simultaneously explaining that Japan’s initial period of stagnation was due to their idiotic policy of not importing tens of millions of Indians.

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
  239. @Passer by
    @Mikhail

    There is chasm between Russia and Western Europe, it is not simply several eurocrats, it is enough to see the huge difference in views on LGBT and gender fluidity among ordinary people.

    When RT, the mouth of the leadership that hoped to wrestle Europe away from the US (and it failed) says that, you will know that there is a serious issue.

    https://russian.rt.com/opinion/825520-popova-ssha-baiden-zapad-liberalizm-ideologiya

    Macron himself said that Russia's conservative model made it incompatible with Europe.

    Replies: @Morton's toes, @Mikhail

    The Popova op-ed is great but I don’t read Russian and the only translation I can find is the one from the google translate bot. Is there an RT English version I missed?

    • Replies: @Passer by
    @Morton's toes

    It is incredible that you can get something like this from Government Media of any major power today.

    Eng translation

    https://www.stalkerzone.org/civilisational-fracture/

  240. @FerW
    @AltanBakshi


    Personally I would give my support to totalitarian utilitarian cosmist one world government dictatorship, which would put all humanitys resources in the fanatic quest of reaching the stars, to make humanity a space faring civilization in the next hundred years, but maybe totalitarian is too much?
     
    This odd statement-question gave me pause. Having quietly read in the order of 1000s of comments in this forum I had imagined AltanBakshi to be a grounded, rather than stars-bound, Buddhist. Are you saying that you would indeed give your support for one such globally totalitarian "cosmist" project?

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    Im just a Buddhist individual, though I will defend my religion against slander and falsehoods, I do not represent personally all ‘traditional’ Buddhists of the world.

    In my opinion Buddhism is neither against or for cosmism, or its more complicated, depends what is more beneficial at the moment. At least cosmism as a dream is better for the nations and peoples of the world than progressive dream of the world of the tomorrow. There would be new frontiers, less stagnation, even the one world cosmist government would crumble in few centuries if not before, because its impossible even with the technology of future to directly control planets that are light years far away from each other. If they develop some kind of permanent worm holes between different planets, only then mankind could have an interstellar centralised empire, but that really sounds more far fetched than faster than light travel.

    Though we give greater respect for animal life than most religions, human life is for us very special, maybe even more special than for the others, because its an extremely small chance that one is born as a human, a true sign that one has done more good than bad, though as merit can be gained, it can also be lost. For a Christian its just Gods will that one is a human, so theres no contrast with other possibilities, like being praying mantis, or fly, after all there is an absurd amount of insects and strange water creatures, much more than humans.

    What would be better than spread humanity to other planets, and at the same time spread the biosphere of our dear mother Earth(Prithvi) to distant stars?

    Surely such struggle for conquest of space would be more moral goal, than shallow consumerism of modern post-industrisl society, but I must add that I would not agree with a cosmist one world government, if it had lots of Americans in leading positions, maybe Im wrong, but Im extremely biased against USA.

    • Replies: @FerW
    @AltanBakshi


    At least cosmism as a dream is better for the nations and peoples of the world than progressive dream of the world of the tomorrow.

    What would be better than spread humanity to other planets, and at the same time spread the biosphere of our dear mother Earth(Prithvi) to distant stars?

    Surely such struggle for conquest of space would be more moral goal, than shallow consumerism of modern post-industrisl society...
     
    It could be, yet not too much morality is needed to improve upon the state of affairs in certain parts of our materialistic world. The thing that surprised me, though, about your statement-question was how readily the nationalism-bent Buddhist I had imagined seemed to commit to the uncertain, open-ended, "fanatical quest" (as you put it yourself) of a global dictatorship. A benevolent one, of course. (Alas, the translation of benevolence to good is hardly a given.)

    Although I asked specifically about your position, I find the more general comments about Buddhism interesting, thanks.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  241. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry


    All our ancestors human and non-human, have reproduced, with or without achieving a sense of “transcendence”. Nature has ensured that people want to have sex, and historically often the most nihilistic people (e.g. rapists, etc) have reproduced.
     
    Sure people can have babies outside of any religious setting, but primitive people literally bathed into the spiritual: for an animist or a folower of shamanism everything around was infused with spirits. And since the earliest times the sexual act was seen as somewhat magical. It is still the case today in many esoteric traditions.

    Strength or weakness of other supernatural entities relative to God, would be dependent on objective reality, not subjective beliefs.
     
    There is nothing objective at all in the religious beliefs in general. The religious experience is always deeply subjective.

    But to be Early Christian, will mean that you don’t believe that Pan is a god. Rather, you would want people to understand reality of who is actually god.
     
    You should read the Sayings of the desert fathers. You would see for yourself that they did not deny the existence of other gods, but saw them as demons. This is also clearly mentioned in the Gnostic apocrypha.

    This is the standard modern secular view, a little in the style of Feuerbach.
     
    LOL

    Egregore (also spelled egregor; from French égrégore, from Ancient Greek egrḗgoros 'wakeful') is an occult concept representing a distinct non-physical entity that arises from a collective group of people. Historically, the concept referred to angelic beings, or watchers, and the specific rituals and practices associated with them, namely within Enochian traditions.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore

    Very modern indeed...

    LOL

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi, @Dmitry

    Very modern indeed…LOL

    As described in the article, it is 19th century, and originated in a wonderful romantic book of Jan Potocki (Manuscript Found in Saragossa).

    should read the Sayings of the desert fathers. You would see for yourself that they did not deny the existence of other gods, but saw them as demons.

    This is the kind of text I would like to read, but the point of our argument is not whether they described other peoples’ gods as demons, but whether they believed that gods could be created by people believing in it, and that gods would die when people stop to believe.

    The idea that gods are created by peoples’ belief is an accurate perception of reality, but a perception which requires you to not see these gods as an objective reality. Those are gods which might sometimes interact with man, but such objective gods hardly require man’s beliefs to exist.

    Once you see gods as requiring man’s belief to exist, then they are no longer really gods – rather, they become as they had for writers like Herder, as part of collective culture, or “soul of the people”.

    Early Christians believe that Pan might be some kind of demon, but the distinction between demons and god, is part of objective reality for them.

    If they believed the difference between demons and gods, is a result of peoples’ belief systems, then they would undermine the strength of their own belief in god as an objective reality.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry


    As described in the article, it is 19th century, and originated in a wonderful romantic book of Jan Potocki (Manuscript Found in Saragossa).
     
    Sorry Dmitry, it seems that you didn't read the article well, it is said that the egregores might actually originate in the Enochian traditions. Right there in the first paragraph.

    Egregore (also spelled egregor; from French égrégore, from Ancient Greek egrḗgoros 'wakeful') is an occult concept representing a distinct non-physical entity that arises from a collective group of people. Historically, the concept referred to angelic beings, or watchers, and the specific rituals and practices associated with them, namely within Enochian traditions.[1]

     

    LOL

    More info here:

    https://theosophy.wiki/en/Egregore

    The Ancients believed that gods needed to receive sacrifices to keep or increase their power. Even Jews fed their YHWH by burning sacrificial animals (he likes the smell of the burning flesh, I am not joking it's in the Bible).

    And of course in some cultures they also believed that the gods could be destroyed or die. This is the case in the Norse/Germanic tradition about the Twilight of Gods. IIRC it was also the case in pre-Columbian Meso-American religions. Gods haven no infinite lifespan neither in Buddhism, nor Hinduism.

    That was one of the arguments Christians used to prove that pagan gods were not true gods, but demons parasiting on the pagan ignorance to derive power from worship and sacrifice. It is also discussed in the Gnostic Christian scripture: the Archonts and the Demiurge enslaved human souls because they basically derive their power and ultimately existence from this dominion.

    Muslims simply deny the existence of anything independent from Allah, they are radical Monotheists. For them there are no other gods but Allah, that’s why they deny Holy Trinity.

    Replies: @AP, @Pericles, @AltanBakshi, @Dmitry

    , @AltanBakshi
    @Dmitry


    The idea that gods are created by peoples’ belief is an accurate perception of reality, but a perception which requires you to not see these gods as an objective reality. Those are gods which might sometimes interact with man, but such objective gods hardly require man’s beliefs to exist.

    Once you see gods as requiring man’s belief to exist, then they are no longer really gods – rather, they become as they had for writers like Herder, as part of collective culture, or “soul of the people”.
     
    Im perplexed? In Buddhism we believe that ultimately different Buddhas and gods are just manifestations of our mind, that they dont exist objectively or independently. Such view has always been common among learned Buddhists, though in folk Buddhist practices of common people situation varies.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  242. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry


    In all our human and non-human ancestors, there was no “need of a transcendent dimension” to have children. Having children was not a choice, but a result of having sex, which is an instinct hardwired into endocrinologically normal mammals. Nature has made sex enjoyable to man, for the reason of children as a byproduct.
     
    Humans are not (just) animals. The earliest known building is temple (Gobekli tepe). And fertility rites are among the earliest religious practices.

    This modernist (i.e. 20th century and 19th century) perspective is already more or less an admission of post-religion, as the definition of a God for believing people, is that its existence is not dependent on people believing in it, but that it actually exists
     
    Already in the Old Testament, the Jewish prophets clearly link the religious covenant of the Hebrews with YHWH Adonai as the only way for the Jewish people to survive as distinct human group. I am surprised you did not think about it Dmitry.

    For God-fearing people, the point is that God exists regardless of human political and cultural history, and created the world before he created humans. God may be pleased or displeased with men, but he certainly cannot be killed by them.
     
    One religion can replace another and one God can replace ("kill") other gods. We both know that the Abrahamic religions had this tendency to replace native creeds.

    Today, passionate atheists are often mentally closer to God-fearing religious people
     
    Atheism is often a form of religious thought. Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God. In both cases it is a matter of belief that might indeed be quite passionate in certain people.

    The more casual attitude towards God's unproven (in) existence is Agnosticism. But even Agnostic people still believe in "energy", "spirit " and other New Age stuff.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @AltanBakshi, @Mikel

    Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God

    Yes, there are many things that are impossible to prove or disprove: unicorns, fairies, werewolves, gods,…

    In fact, natural sciences don’t prove or disprove anything. Proofs only belong to the realm of mathematics and logic. Science only deals with empirical evidence that supports or falsifies hypotheses so, given the available evidence, the rational and scientifically minded person has to choose whether to believe or not in that type of things.

    But this does not mean that believing in fairies and not believing in them are equivalent positions. They’re not, for any rational and well informed person.

    • Agree: AnonFromTN
    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @Mikel

    Mikel maybe you are right, but whats good for you or me, is not good for everyone. Isnt that just the logic of religions, that our truth is for everyone?

    By the way sorry for my heated comments in our last exchange of words.

    Replies: @Mikel

    , @Bashibuzuk
    @Mikel

    When I don't know something, I just don't know. I don't try to justify my beliefs about what I don't know.

    😉

    Replies: @Mikel

  243. I believe European attributes are often mistaken for Christian ones. IMO, it is not Christianity that caused the changes in Europeans so much as it is Europeans that caused the changes in Christianity and made it distinct from other religions and from non European branches of Christianity.

    And there was a great change is Mesoamerica, when Europeans brought their blood and technology there, which consequently allowed for a population explosion, after the initial collapse. Try farming without fertilizer or draft animals, and it won’t get you very far.

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk
  244. @Morton's toes
    @Passer by

    The Popova op-ed is great but I don't read Russian and the only translation I can find is the one from the google translate bot. Is there an RT English version I missed?

    Replies: @Passer by

    It is incredible that you can get something like this from Government Media of any major power today.

    Eng translation

    https://www.stalkerzone.org/civilisational-fracture/

  245. @Aedib
    @Passer by

    Off course there were massive anti-Russian outbursts. What I mean is this crying-game is more and more funny every day.

    Replies: @Passer by

    Well, Borrel is now urging sanctions on Russia just as we speak.

    It is actually a good thing as it will force Russia to move away from that infectious zombie, the EU.

    • Agree: Aedib
  246. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    Your logic doesnt make any sense to me.

    How it was necessary, are you a determinist or fatalist?
     
    The precondition for the meteoric rise of the West and it’s eventual domination of the world was its conversion to Christianity. Abandonment of Christianity may be its downfall.

    Some large Indian kingdoms, like Viyanagara and Gajapatis, survived much longer than Byzantium
     
    Yes but these were much further from the Islamic heartland.

    In my humble opinion Christs power is not found in material inventions and great conquests, but in simple and pious life, such beliefs made people to feel spiritual kinship with each other, which strengthened bonds of community, when every man had just one lawful wife, there was no need to fight for women like in Islamic societies, where rich men had multiple wives, and such behaviour was legitimised by the religion. So often only way for a poor man to have women, was by being a warrior or bandit.
    Same with medieval Christian egalitarian ethos, though social classes existed, it was common for nobles to show piety by feeding and clothing the poor. There was even a common tradition that queens and kings washed the feet of the poor, just like Christ had done. Same with the belief that king could heal sick by his touch, it was common for kings to receive hundreds of sick people every year and touch them. Sultans and Padishahs would never done anything similar
     
    As usual you have written poetically and beautifully. You are correct. I have been describing the domination and improvement of the world by Christians but it went hand in hand with and was no less important than the conquest of oneself and self-improvement.

    Sad that God favored Islam over Zoroastrians
     
    This was one history’s greatest tragedies. The world lost such a jewel. I wonder if the Persian was against Byzantium that preceded the conquest contributed to this disaster. I am reminded of Russia’s tragic choice to support regicide against a Christian monarchy and go to war with it on the side of secular France and liberal Britain, and how this opened the door to the Bolshevik horror.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Bashibuzuk

    Because it was necessary but not (quite) sufficient.

    I understood that you meant that the Islamic rule and defeat of Eastern Christians was somehow necessary? Those poor Christian nations did not themselves choose to give up on Christianity, only after centuries of oppression greater Syria, Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Egypt became majority Muslim. Even in the 11th century Christians were probably a slight majority in Syria and Egypt, Greeks of Anatolia fought desperately for every inch. Easterners didnt abandon Christianity, still look what has happened to them.

    Yes but these were much further from the Islamic heartland.

    Whats your definition of Islamic heartland? Arabs conquered most of Pakistan in the early 8th century, from that time Sindh and most of Western Punjab has been under a rule of Islam, and if you dont accept them being parts of the heartland, surely greater Iran is? Which btw borders those lands which were once thought to be Indian(India+Pakistan).

    As usual you have written poetically and beautifully.

    Really? Im a quick thinker and English is not my native language, but I love to write extremely quickly, you know stream consciousness stuff, so everytime when I read again my old commenst, Im quite irritated by how many small grammatical errors I have verywhere, and how repetitively I use some words.

    Anyway it sadly seems that once again Christianity is becoming the religion of minority, in the west at least, so you guys should make some adjustments, learn again how to be the counter or underground culture in the society, if that was possible in such desperate circumstances as in the 3rd century, when both Rabbinic and Roman authorities persecuted you guys, then the Christianity of the 3rd century was probably quite manly religion, how else Christians could have gained numerous converts among Roman legionnaires, or run away slaves? By being whiny conservatives who constantly give up before the enemy?

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk
    • Replies: @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    I understood that you meant that the Islamic rule and defeat of Eastern Christians was somehow necessary
     
    No. Christianity was necessary but not quite sufficient for a people to experience a meteoric rise in civilization and power, making them hard for non-Christians to defeat. It turned Europeans into masters of the entire world, made isolated Ethiopia the best place in sub-Saharan Africa.
  247. @AP
    @AltanBakshi


    Your logic doesnt make any sense to me.

    How it was necessary, are you a determinist or fatalist?
     
    The precondition for the meteoric rise of the West and it’s eventual domination of the world was its conversion to Christianity. Abandonment of Christianity may be its downfall.

    Some large Indian kingdoms, like Viyanagara and Gajapatis, survived much longer than Byzantium
     
    Yes but these were much further from the Islamic heartland.

    In my humble opinion Christs power is not found in material inventions and great conquests, but in simple and pious life, such beliefs made people to feel spiritual kinship with each other, which strengthened bonds of community, when every man had just one lawful wife, there was no need to fight for women like in Islamic societies, where rich men had multiple wives, and such behaviour was legitimised by the religion. So often only way for a poor man to have women, was by being a warrior or bandit.
    Same with medieval Christian egalitarian ethos, though social classes existed, it was common for nobles to show piety by feeding and clothing the poor. There was even a common tradition that queens and kings washed the feet of the poor, just like Christ had done. Same with the belief that king could heal sick by his touch, it was common for kings to receive hundreds of sick people every year and touch them. Sultans and Padishahs would never done anything similar
     
    As usual you have written poetically and beautifully. You are correct. I have been describing the domination and improvement of the world by Christians but it went hand in hand with and was no less important than the conquest of oneself and self-improvement.

    Sad that God favored Islam over Zoroastrians
     
    This was one history’s greatest tragedies. The world lost such a jewel. I wonder if the Persian was against Byzantium that preceded the conquest contributed to this disaster. I am reminded of Russia’s tragic choice to support regicide against a Christian monarchy and go to war with it on the side of secular France and liberal Britain, and how this opened the door to the Bolshevik horror.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Bashibuzuk

    Sassanian Iran and the Zoroastrian clergy have been weakened by the Manichean heresy and the Mazdakite reforms, which led to a coup against the Shahanshah.

    [MORE]

    The Mazdakite reformers were egalitarian proto-Communists. According to Gumilyov they have received the enthusiastic support of the Babylonian Jewry (the most numerous and influential Jewish community at the time). Later on, after the Spenta Huna (Hephtalite / White Huns) intervention and the restauration of order by Khosrow Anushirvan, the population of the empire was burdened by increased taxes, the reactionary Zoroastrian clergy increased their power and persecuted the religious minorities. Gumilyov writes about Jews fleeing Iran and Mesopotamia towards the Caucasus and Khazaria.

    Later, when Islamic armies marched against the last Sassanian Shahanshah, the masses did not stand in defense of the royalty and the priestly class. The ethnic and religious minorities were tired of the Zoroastrian clergy oppression. Therefore Islam was as well received by the Syriac Christians, the Sabeans and Jews of the Sassanian Empire, as it was also welcomed by the Jews of the Byzantine Empire and later Spain.

    Also, one of the Prophets most important compagnons – Salman – was himself Persian, some of the early detractors to Islam actually accused Mohammad of changing the Arabic traditions under the influence of Salman Al Farisi. Therefore, Persian Muslims were treated rather well when compared with other converts. Finally, most Sassanian troops in Mesopotamia were Syriac Christian (Nestorian) Arabs that have sometimes supported the Mazdakite reforms and later easily converted to Islam.

  248. @Mikel
    @Bashibuzuk


    Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God
     
    Yes, there are many things that are impossible to prove or disprove: unicorns, fairies, werewolves, gods,...

    In fact, natural sciences don’t prove or disprove anything. Proofs only belong to the realm of mathematics and logic. Science only deals with empirical evidence that supports or falsifies hypotheses so, given the available evidence, the rational and scientifically minded person has to choose whether to believe or not in that type of things.

    But this does not mean that believing in fairies and not believing in them are equivalent positions. They’re not, for any rational and well informed person.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Bashibuzuk

    Mikel maybe you are right, but whats good for you or me, is not good for everyone. Isnt that just the logic of religions, that our truth is for everyone?

    By the way sorry for my heated comments in our last exchange of words.

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @AltanBakshi

    Yes, I agree. I should let people keep whatever beliefs float their boat. Life is hard enough as it is and if people manage to convince themselves that their existence has a meaning through religion, there's no much purpose in dissuading them.

    However, what are blogs for if not to debate beliefs and ideas? When I see religious people engaging in reasoned arguments to defend their beliefs, I must assume that these people are mature enough to withstand opposing views.

    As for your comments in the last thread, I did not find them especially heated. I must have learned to expect some personal attacks when debating you :-) What I do find off-putting is when you guys gang up against Aaron for no good reason that I can discern and use the ethnic card in an unprovoked way.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  249. I believe it’s perfectly natural to esteem one’s distant ancestors and to be curious about their lost customs. But even in the timeline of the Greco-Roman world, we can perceive a primitive beginning followed by increasing sophistication in the mythology.

    I confess I am fascinated by the subrosa paganism found in Tain, but I fear it would be disturbing to go back too far. Probably, we’d see human sacrifice later than we’d expect it. And there’s archeological evidence that supports the idea that among PIE the king had sex with a mare and then everyone ate it. Count me out, if neopagans want to revive that custom.

  250. @AP
    @Dmitry


    Within a short time after the adoption of Christianity that had been created in the Middle East, Europe fell into many centuries of Dark Ages (let’s say, from 524 – with the execution of Boethius, to 15th century Florence – or around 900 years)
     
    Myths of the Enlightenment whose purpose was not objective.
    and whose ideas about the middle ages were often false or exaggerated.

    https://theneomedievalist.blogspot.com/2021/01/how-enlightenment-ideology-obscured.html?m=1

    I hope you do not believe that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat?

    Explain how the lands of Rus, Germany, Scandinavia fell into "Dark Ages" after adoption of Christianity. And why did Byzantium not have "Dark Ages?" The civilized parts in the West fell to recently Christianized barbarians. Had they not been Christianized what would have become of those lands?

    is viewed typically by historians since Edward Gibbon, as being a symptom of the increasing weakness and fracturing of the Roman world.
     
    Gibbon - anti-Catholic bigot, whose well-written works are interesting as an example of thinking from his age but not so useful otherwise. Gibbon writing about the Christian age is like a Bolshevik writing about the time of the Tsars. Even wiki summarizes:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon#Legacy

    "Edward Gibbon's central thesis in his explanation of how the Roman empire fell, that it was due to embracing Christianity, is not widely accepted by scholars today."

    The key things about which knowledge was preserved as a byproduct of Church activities, was originally created by civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome – so there is a preservation of Ancient knowledge by the Church, but the value was more preservation of knowledge than production of it.
     
    Technological innovation in Europe of the Medieval Period:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology

    After the Renaissance of the 12th century, medieval Europe saw a radical change in the rate of new inventions, innovations in the ways of managing traditional means of production, and economic growth.[2] The period saw major technological advances, including the adoption of gunpowder, the invention of vertical windmills, spectacles, mechanical clocks, and greatly improved water mills, building techniques (Gothic architecture, medieval castles), and agriculture in general (three-field crop rotation).



    Architecture and construction
    Pendentive architecture (6th century)

    A specific spherical form in the upper corners to support a dome. Although the first experimentation was made in the 3rd century, it wasn't until the 6th century in the Byzantine Empire that its full potential was achieved.

    Artesian well (1126)

    A thin rod with a hard iron cutting edge is placed in the bore hole and repeatedly struck with a hammer, underground water pressure forces the water up the hole without pumping. Artesian wells are named after the town of Artois in France, where the first one was drilled by Carthusian monks in 1126.

    Central heating through underfloor channels (9th century)

    In the early medieval Alpine upland, a simpler central heating system where heat travelled through underfloor channels from the furnace room replaced the Roman hypocaust at some places. In Reichenau Abbey a network of interconnected underfloor channels heated the 300 m2 large assembly room of the monks during the winter months. The degree of efficiency of the system has been calculated at 90%.[20]

    Rib vault (12th century)

    An essential element for the rise of Gothic architecture, rib vaults allowed vaults to be built for the first time over rectangles of unequal lengths. It also greatly facilitated scaffolding and largely replaced the older groin vault.

    Chimney (12th century)

    The first basic chimney appeared in a Swiss monastery in 820. The earliest true chimney did not appear until the 12th century, with the fireplace appearing at the same time.[21]

    Segmental arch bridge (1345)

    The Ponte Vecchio in Florence is considered medieval Europe's first stone segmental arch bridge since the end of classical civilizations.


    Treadwheel crane
    Treadwheel crane (1220s)

    The earliest reference to a treadwheel in archival literature is in France about 1225,[22] followed by an illuminated depiction in a manuscript of probably also French origin dating to 1240.[23] Apart from tread-drums, windlasses and occasionally cranks were employed for powering cranes.[24]

    Stationary harbour crane (1244)

    Stationary harbour cranes are considered a new development of the Middle Ages; its earliest use being documented for Utrecht in 1244.[25] The typical harbour crane was a pivoting structure equipped with double treadwheels. There were two types: wooden gantry cranes pivoting on a central vertical axle and stone tower cranes which housed the windlass and treadwheels with only the jib arm and roof rotating.[1] These cranes were placed on docksides for the loading and unloading of cargo where they replaced or complemented older lifting methods like see-saws, winches and yards.[25] Slewing cranes which allowed a rotation of the load and were thus particularly suited for dockside work appeared as early as 1340.[26]

    Replies: @Dmitry

    My comment you respond to is summary of the standard view of mainstream historians.

    View of Edward Gibbon that Christianity was a cause of collapse of civilization, is not the standard view, as I have written in that comment.

    Christianity’s role in the re-emergence of civilization, was to the extent that institutional church activities helped to preserve Ancient Greek and Roman knowledge.

    about the middle ages were often false or exaggerated.

    Since at least the 19th century, there has been a re-adjustment in evaluation of medieval achievements. But this is a relative adjustment.

    You only need to compare a page written by anyone like Cicero, with texts from Middle Ages – it’s like comparing something written by an adult, with something written by 10 year old children.

    This is ended with the arrival of Renaissance writers like Montaigne and Machiavelli, who themselves learned their sophistication from studying Ancient writers.

    You can verify this yourself, in the bookshop – compare reading classic texts, with medieval texts. The decline of European thought compared to the Ancient World, is like if Classical Athenian writers, had been sent returned to the mythic world of Hesiod. Sophisticated writing exited only among scholastic schools, where it was constrained by dogma, but was able to preserve some aspects such as Aristotle’s logic.

    Myths of the Enlightenment

    Well here is example of decline and very slow re-birth – history in the sense that Thucydides wrote it as opposed to Herodotus, only re-emerges in limited way in Italian Renaissance, and then the enlightenment, after many centuries of absence.

  251. @Dmitry
    @Bashibuzuk


    Very modern indeed…LOL
     
    As described in the article, it is 19th century, and originated in a wonderful romantic book of Jan Potocki (Manuscript Found in Saragossa).

    should read the Sayings of the desert fathers. You would see for yourself that they did not deny the existence of other gods, but saw them as demons.

     

    This is the kind of text I would like to read, but the point of our argument is not whether they described other peoples' gods as demons, but whether they believed that gods could be created by people believing in it, and that gods would die when people stop to believe.

    The idea that gods are created by peoples' belief is an accurate perception of reality, but a perception which requires you to not see these gods as an objective reality. Those are gods which might sometimes interact with man, but such objective gods hardly require man's beliefs to exist.

    Once you see gods as requiring man's belief to exist, then they are no longer really gods - rather, they become as they had for writers like Herder, as part of collective culture, or "soul of the people".

    Early Christians believe that Pan might be some kind of demon, but the distinction between demons and god, is part of objective reality for them.

    If they believed the difference between demons and gods, is a result of peoples' belief systems, then they would undermine the strength of their own belief in god as an objective reality.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi

    As described in the article, it is 19th century, and originated in a wonderful romantic book of Jan Potocki (Manuscript Found in Saragossa).

    Sorry Dmitry, it seems that you didn’t read the article well, it is said that the egregores might actually originate in the Enochian traditions. Right there in the first paragraph.

    Egregore (also spelled egregor; from French égrégore, from Ancient Greek egrḗgoros ‘wakeful’) is an occult concept representing a distinct non-physical entity that arises from a collective group of people. Historically, the concept referred to angelic beings, or watchers, and the specific rituals and practices associated with them, namely within Enochian traditions.[1]

    LOL

    More info here:

    https://theosophy.wiki/en/Egregore

    The Ancients believed that gods needed to receive sacrifices to keep or increase their power. Even Jews fed their YHWH by burning sacrificial animals (he likes the smell of the burning flesh, I am not joking it’s in the Bible).

    And of course in some cultures they also believed that the gods could be destroyed or die. This is the case in the Norse/Germanic tradition about the Twilight of Gods. IIRC it was also the case in pre-Columbian Meso-American religions. Gods haven no infinite lifespan neither in Buddhism, nor Hinduism.

    That was one of the arguments Christians used to prove that pagan gods were not true gods, but demons parasiting on the pagan ignorance to derive power from worship and sacrifice. It is also discussed in the Gnostic Christian scripture: the Archonts and the Demiurge enslaved human souls because they basically derive their power and ultimately existence from this dominion.

    Muslims simply deny the existence of anything independent from Allah, they are radical Monotheists. For them there are no other gods but Allah, that’s why they deny Holy Trinity.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Bashibuzuk

    Muslims believe in angels and Jinn..

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Bashibuzuk

    , @Pericles
    @Bashibuzuk


    The Ancients believed that gods needed to receive sacrifices to keep or increase their power. Even Jews fed their YHWH by burning sacrificial animals (he likes the smell of the burning flesh, I am not joking it’s in the Bible).

     

    Next, look up the meaning of 'holocaust'.
    , @AltanBakshi
    @Bashibuzuk


    he likes the smell of the burning flesh, I am not joking it’s in the Bible).
     
    You are a very perceptible guy. Still Upaya.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

    , @Dmitry
    @Bashibuzuk


    Ancients believed that gods needed to receive sacrifices to keep or increase their power
     
    So that the gods will be favourable to them, rather so that the gods exist or have power.

    The idea you would have to sacrifice to a god, so that the god has power, would be inherently contradiction - as why would sacrifice to an unpowerful god. First we would have believed that the god is powerful over us, and then (somewhat fearing) to sacrifice to that god.


    Jews fed their YHWH by burning sacrificial
     
    Emerging from this Iron Age beliefs, they view sacrifice so the God is pleased with them, not so that the God is powerful or so that he exists.

    To zoom forward far into history - in the decades soon after the death of Jesus, Paul (and his students) created or propagated the theory that God has sacrificed his human son, so that man himself would be redeemed.

    God doesn't sacrifice his son to create man, but to redeem him spiritually.

    Paul himself writes quite clearly that you can eat sacrifices to idols, because idols are not important in this world.

    It's useful to read carefully Paul's opinion on sacrifice - he says that gentiles sacrifice to devils, but he also says idols are not anything compared to god.

    "18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

    19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

    20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

    21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

    22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?"

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010&version=KJV


    Gnostic Christian scripture: the Archonts and the Demiurge enslaved human souls because they basically derive their power
     
    Doesn't this sounds a little more like Scientology?

    We know Demiurge is from Plato's . He created the world, but it's not clear why. It may be for artistic motives, or as a kind of experiment. His own existence (in Plato) doesn't depend on man's belief in him.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

  252. @Mikel
    @Bashibuzuk


    Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the reality of God, one choses either to belive in God or to believe that there is no God
     
    Yes, there are many things that are impossible to prove or disprove: unicorns, fairies, werewolves, gods,...

    In fact, natural sciences don’t prove or disprove anything. Proofs only belong to the realm of mathematics and logic. Science only deals with empirical evidence that supports or falsifies hypotheses so, given the available evidence, the rational and scientifically minded person has to choose whether to believe or not in that type of things.

    But this does not mean that believing in fairies and not believing in them are equivalent positions. They’re not, for any rational and well informed person.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Bashibuzuk

    When I don’t know something, I just don’t know. I don’t try to justify my beliefs about what I don’t know.

    😉

    • Replies: @Mikel
    @Bashibuzuk

    Yes, it's a bit odd that in the 21st century one still has to explain why believing in fairies and other paranormal phenomena is not as sound as not believing in them but it was you who brought up the subject of believing in things that are beyond the sphere of empirical evidence.

    And, as you can see here, some people even have the nerve to argue that scientific progress was a consequence of one particular kind of supernatural belief. As if we didn't all know what happened to Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno and countless others. The authors of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum were the promoters of free exchange of ideas and scientific research in the Enlightenment, indeed...

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AP, @Mr. Hack

  253. @Dmitry
    @Bashibuzuk


    Very modern indeed…LOL
     
    As described in the article, it is 19th century, and originated in a wonderful romantic book of Jan Potocki (Manuscript Found in Saragossa).

    should read the Sayings of the desert fathers. You would see for yourself that they did not deny the existence of other gods, but saw them as demons.

     

    This is the kind of text I would like to read, but the point of our argument is not whether they described other peoples' gods as demons, but whether they believed that gods could be created by people believing in it, and that gods would die when people stop to believe.

    The idea that gods are created by peoples' belief is an accurate perception of reality, but a perception which requires you to not see these gods as an objective reality. Those are gods which might sometimes interact with man, but such objective gods hardly require man's beliefs to exist.

    Once you see gods as requiring man's belief to exist, then they are no longer really gods - rather, they become as they had for writers like Herder, as part of collective culture, or "soul of the people".

    Early Christians believe that Pan might be some kind of demon, but the distinction between demons and god, is part of objective reality for them.

    If they believed the difference between demons and gods, is a result of peoples' belief systems, then they would undermine the strength of their own belief in god as an objective reality.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk, @AltanBakshi

    The idea that gods are created by peoples’ belief is an accurate perception of reality, but a perception which requires you to not see these gods as an objective reality. Those are gods which might sometimes interact with man, but such objective gods hardly require man’s beliefs to exist.

    Once you see gods as requiring man’s belief to exist, then they are no longer really gods – rather, they become as they had for writers like Herder, as part of collective culture, or “soul of the people”.

    Im perplexed? In Buddhism we believe that ultimately different Buddhas and gods are just manifestations of our mind, that they dont exist objectively or independently. Such view has always been common among learned Buddhists, though in folk Buddhist practices of common people situation varies.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @AltanBakshi

    For Buddhist people, Buddhist doctrine is referring to objective reality, not a subjective beliefs.

    When Buddhist people say there is no self, or that "gods" are just a product of the mind, they are making objective claims about a reality, which doesn't depend on their belief in it.

    When Abrahamic religions believe that God exists objectively - the point is that God is not dependent on peoples' belief in it. Similarly, the difference between God and some demons, is not dependent on subjective belief, but is an objective reality, in the same way as there are objective laws of classical mechanics in our Enlightenment view.

    If you believe that Gods depend on man's belief in them (as in style of e.g. German romantics), then you are rejecting fundamental of worldview Abrahamic religion that was described in the Bible. This is nowadays a mainstream view, developed across the 19th century, and it seems very natural to us, including to people supportive of religion like Max Weber. But in God-fearing times, it would be quite a heresy.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  254. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry


    As described in the article, it is 19th century, and originated in a wonderful romantic book of Jan Potocki (Manuscript Found in Saragossa).
     
    Sorry Dmitry, it seems that you didn't read the article well, it is said that the egregores might actually originate in the Enochian traditions. Right there in the first paragraph.

    Egregore (also spelled egregor; from French égrégore, from Ancient Greek egrḗgoros 'wakeful') is an occult concept representing a distinct non-physical entity that arises from a collective group of people. Historically, the concept referred to angelic beings, or watchers, and the specific rituals and practices associated with them, namely within Enochian traditions.[1]

     

    LOL

    More info here:

    https://theosophy.wiki/en/Egregore

    The Ancients believed that gods needed to receive sacrifices to keep or increase their power. Even Jews fed their YHWH by burning sacrificial animals (he likes the smell of the burning flesh, I am not joking it's in the Bible).

    And of course in some cultures they also believed that the gods could be destroyed or die. This is the case in the Norse/Germanic tradition about the Twilight of Gods. IIRC it was also the case in pre-Columbian Meso-American religions. Gods haven no infinite lifespan neither in Buddhism, nor Hinduism.

    That was one of the arguments Christians used to prove that pagan gods were not true gods, but demons parasiting on the pagan ignorance to derive power from worship and sacrifice. It is also discussed in the Gnostic Christian scripture: the Archonts and the Demiurge enslaved human souls because they basically derive their power and ultimately existence from this dominion.

    Muslims simply deny the existence of anything independent from Allah, they are radical Monotheists. For them there are no other gods but Allah, that’s why they deny Holy Trinity.

    Replies: @AP, @Pericles, @AltanBakshi, @Dmitry

    Muslims believe in angels and Jinn..

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    They only exist by the will of the All Merciful, Lord of the Worlds, one and only, mighty Allah, brother! (According to Islam)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmJ8_GZRSVY

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    , @Bashibuzuk
    @AP

    Agree, but they are just other intelligent lifeforms and are absolutely not independent from Allah. Nothing is independent of Allah. Before the beginning of time Allah existed, after the end of times only Allah will remain. He created all his creatures only to manifest his mugnifucent powers and receive their devotion and adoration. This is Islamic orthodoxy.

  255. @Daniel Chieh
    @A123


    However, it is certain that the IslamoGloboHomo Empire continues to lose ground that vs Christian Populism. Dhimmi collaborators stealing the election from Trump has deepened the divide among the factions. And, it will ultimately backfire against the SJW sharia-left liberalism.
     
    Never change, my precious man. In honor of you, I'll have to record a clip of that.

    Replies: @songbird, @A123, @silviosilver

    Never change, my precious man.

    Of course not. THE TRUTH is constant.

    — In Russia, the failure of Communism heralded a return to Christian tradition and the Orthodox Church.
    — In the U.S. and Europe, the failure of SJW Left-slam will similarly herald a return to Christian tradition.

    It will be interesting to see if:

    • Existing Protestant Churches can return to traditional values.
    • Entirely new lines of Christian Churches arise to replace the failed ones.

    Best guess is a mix of both. Probably more the latter, especially overseas. Churches that have become Godless have no good way back. Every European church that declared “welcome rape-ugees” is pretty much eternally damned for placing Christian children at risk to serve ungodly masters.

    PEACE 😇

    • Thanks: AltanBakshi
  256. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk

    Muslims believe in angels and Jinn..

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Bashibuzuk

    They only exist by the will of the All Merciful, Lord of the Worlds, one and only, mighty Allah, brother! (According to Islam)

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @AltanBakshi

    When I hear anasheed I always recall that the Prophet considered the singing, dancing and playing of music as unbefitting for a Believer.

    A Salafi brother I once met (a blond and blue eyed berber) once told me that "George Michael is a devil's whistle ".

    https://youtu.be/zNBj4EV_hAo

    Perhaps he was up to something.

    😄

  257. @AltanBakshi
    @Mr. Hack

    You claimed that only Christianity promised better state in this life and salvation in the next, right? But in my knowledge every traditional religion promises higher spiritual states for those who take their faith seriously. Yes they often employ different terminology, and have different ways for reaching those elevated states of existence, but still they have the same marketing strategy. Your life is shitty without our true faith, so renounce your old ways and find true happiness with us, also as a free extra you get transcendental states, so subscribe now, before its too late!

    (Sorry, I couldnt resist, irony is a poison of mind...)

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Mr. Hack

    That’s sarcasm you were employing, not irony.

    • Thanks: AltanBakshi
  258. @Daniel Chieh
    @A123


    However, it is certain that the IslamoGloboHomo Empire continues to lose ground that vs Christian Populism. Dhimmi collaborators stealing the election from Trump has deepened the divide among the factions. And, it will ultimately backfire against the SJW sharia-left liberalism.
     
    Never change, my precious man. In honor of you, I'll have to record a clip of that.

    Replies: @songbird, @A123, @silviosilver

    His preposterous bullshit is a one-man knockdown argument for nuking the criminal state of Israel.

  259. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk

    Muslims believe in angels and Jinn..

    Replies: @AltanBakshi, @Bashibuzuk

    Agree, but they are just other intelligent lifeforms and are absolutely not independent from Allah. Nothing is independent of Allah. Before the beginning of time Allah existed, after the end of times only Allah will remain. He created all his creatures only to manifest his mugnifucent powers and receive their devotion and adoration. This is Islamic orthodoxy.

  260. @Kent Nationalist
    @silviosilver


    Christianity was responsible for considerable destruction of pagan writings, and much of what was “preserved” occurred unintentionally as Christian scholars pored over pagan texts in order to better denounce them.
     
    Why think that anything would have survived without Christianity? None of the pagan rulers at that time were interested in preserving them. Nor did the secular Romanised aristocracy.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Why think that anything would have survived without Christianity?

    Well, there are no guarantees in life, but since pagans (and pagan rulers) felt no inclination to eradicate pagan thought, a betting man around 300CE would surely have figured the odds of pagan writings surviving on into the future would be better under a pagan regime than under a Christian one.

    • Replies: @AP
    @silviosilver

    Not if the pagan rulers were Germanic barbarians who couldn’t care less.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    , @Bashibuzuk
    @silviosilver

    I think we could be reasonably certain that culture and knowledge would have been thriving under the imperial protection of the likes of Julian the Apostate. A shame that he did not rule long enough and that later Emperors did not follow in his footsteps.

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julian-Roman-emperor

    Replies: @AP, @Kent Nationalist, @silviosilver

  261. @AltanBakshi
    @AP


    Because it was necessary but not (quite) sufficient.
     
    I understood that you meant that the Islamic rule and defeat of Eastern Christians was somehow necessary? Those poor Christian nations did not themselves choose to give up on Christianity, only after centuries of oppression greater Syria, Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Egypt became majority Muslim. Even in the 11th century Christians were probably a slight majority in Syria and Egypt, Greeks of Anatolia fought desperately for every inch. Easterners didnt abandon Christianity, still look what has happened to them.

    Yes but these were much further from the Islamic heartland.
     
    Whats your definition of Islamic heartland? Arabs conquered most of Pakistan in the early 8th century, from that time Sindh and most of Western Punjab has been under a rule of Islam, and if you dont accept them being parts of the heartland, surely greater Iran is? Which btw borders those lands which were once thought to be Indian(India+Pakistan).

    As usual you have written poetically and beautifully.
     
    Really? Im a quick thinker and English is not my native language, but I love to write extremely quickly, you know stream consciousness stuff, so everytime when I read again my old commenst, Im quite irritated by how many small grammatical errors I have verywhere, and how repetitively I use some words.

    Anyway it sadly seems that once again Christianity is becoming the religion of minority, in the west at least, so you guys should make some adjustments, learn again how to be the counter or underground culture in the society, if that was possible in such desperate circumstances as in the 3rd century, when both Rabbinic and Roman authorities persecuted you guys, then the Christianity of the 3rd century was probably quite manly religion, how else Christians could have gained numerous converts among Roman legionnaires, or run away slaves? By being whiny conservatives who constantly give up before the enemy?

    Replies: @AP

    I understood that you meant that the Islamic rule and defeat of Eastern Christians was somehow necessary

    No. Christianity was necessary but not quite sufficient for a people to experience a meteoric rise in civilization and power, making them hard for non-Christians to defeat. It turned Europeans into masters of the entire world, made isolated Ethiopia the best place in sub-Saharan Africa.

  262. @silviosilver
    @Kent Nationalist


    Why think that anything would have survived without Christianity?
     
    Well, there are no guarantees in life, but since pagans (and pagan rulers) felt no inclination to eradicate pagan thought, a betting man around 300CE would surely have figured the odds of pagan writings surviving on into the future would be better under a pagan regime than under a Christian one.

    Replies: @AP, @Bashibuzuk

    Not if the pagan rulers were Germanic barbarians who couldn’t care less.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @AP

    They were happy enough to spread Christian teachings - surprisingly, given how much Christian values clashed with the traditional Germanic ethos - so it's safe to presume they'd have been at least as happy to spread/preserve pagan teachings.

    There's little reason to think that technological advancements would have been any slower (it would, presumably, have continued to be "incremental," just as it was under Christianity). As for the other historical developments you mentioned, there are so many variables in play that you couldn't possibly claim to know with certainty that, say, the Americas would never have been reached and settled. Get real.

  263. @silviosilver
    @Kent Nationalist


    Why think that anything would have survived without Christianity?
     
    Well, there are no guarantees in life, but since pagans (and pagan rulers) felt no inclination to eradicate pagan thought, a betting man around 300CE would surely have figured the odds of pagan writings surviving on into the future would be better under a pagan regime than under a Christian one.

    Replies: @AP, @Bashibuzuk

    I think we could be reasonably certain that culture and knowledge would have been thriving under the imperial protection of the likes of Julian the Apostate. A shame that he did not rule long enough and that later Emperors did not follow in his footsteps.

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julian-Roman-emperor

    • Replies: @AP
    @Bashibuzuk

    Assuming no eventual destruction at the hands of Arab, Turkic or German invaders, likely a long period of relative stasis, as in China. No discovery, expansion and transformation of the New World, and technological advancement would have been slow and incremental. The latter issue might have made resistance to some massive barbarian invasion harder.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    , @Kent Nationalist
    @Bashibuzuk

    Credulous Jew-lover impressed by magic tricks (literally, read his account of his conversion to Paganism)

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    , @silviosilver
    @Bashibuzuk

    A shame indeed. It was all too little, all too late by that point, I'm afraid.

    Perhaps it was never realistic that Christianity could be held at bay. For starters, the principal advantage monotheism has over polytheism is that it is intellectually more satisfying. Rather than a myriad of competing gods, each doing their own thing and vying with one another for often rather petty ends, making it all but impossible to draw any consistent moral lessons from their behavior, monotheism simplifies man's connection to the divine and makes the moral claims it presents seem more "objective."

    Secondly, I have this notion of "theological inflation," which is another way monotheism beats out polytheism. Polytheists make various claims about the abilities - the "power" - of their various deities, such that it's possible to compare them with each other. Eg, Apollo is said to have such and such ability, and Poseidon this and that ability, and you can compare them on this basis and argue about one being greater than the other. Even if society proscribes doing this publicly, it's something a person can always do in the privacy of his mind - when deciding which deity to become a special devotee of, for instance. Then along comes monotheism with its one God, whose powers are greater than all the polytheistic gods combined and then some. That's a pretty attractive proposition! Whatever you have to give up in terms of tradition and myth and culture, you more than make up for by the feeling that "My God is better than yours" - which is particularly appealing to those on the fringes of the existing society.

    Thirdly, Christianity made a big show of caring about the interests of the masses. I'm not aware of anything in pagan society that could compete with Christianity's elevation of the status of little guy, the pauper, the no-hoper. Christianity was able to combine the appeal of monotheism to intellectuals with the popular appeal of elevated status to the masses, and it was this combination of intellectual and popular appeal that made it politically portentous. And the rest is history.

    Replies: @AltanBakshi

  264. @Bashibuzuk
    @silviosilver

    I think we could be reasonably certain that culture and knowledge would have been thriving under the imperial protection of the likes of Julian the Apostate. A shame that he did not rule long enough and that later Emperors did not follow in his footsteps.

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julian-Roman-emperor

    Replies: @AP, @Kent Nationalist, @silviosilver

    Assuming no eventual destruction at the hands of Arab, Turkic or German invaders, likely a long period of relative stasis, as in China. No discovery, expansion and transformation of the New World, and technological advancement would have been slow and incremental. The latter issue might have made resistance to some massive barbarian invasion harder.

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @AP

    I have a hard time believing this AP for a variety of reasons, chief among them being that Greco-Roman and early Byzantine science and technology were superior to anything that Europe produced in the early Middle Ages. Possibly even superior to anything invented in Europe prior to the Renaissance. If anything they would have had a Renaissances type development in Europe 5-6 centuries earlier. They were much more rational compared to middle ages' European Christians, who were actually rather obtuse even compared to their Muslim contemporaries from the Islamic Golden Age. Petrarch called this period Dark Ages for a reason. Arguably early Muslims were better at preserving the heritage of Antiquity and building upon its basis. A notable example below :

    https://www.iis.ac.uk/publication/ikhwan-al-safa-and-their-rasail-introduction

    https://iep.utm.edu/ikhwan-al-safa/

    Replies: @Coconuts, @AP

  265. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry


    As described in the article, it is 19th century, and originated in a wonderful romantic book of Jan Potocki (Manuscript Found in Saragossa).
     
    Sorry Dmitry, it seems that you didn't read the article well, it is said that the egregores might actually originate in the Enochian traditions. Right there in the first paragraph.

    Egregore (also spelled egregor; from French égrégore, from Ancient Greek egrḗgoros 'wakeful') is an occult concept representing a distinct non-physical entity that arises from a collective group of people. Historically, the concept referred to angelic beings, or watchers, and the specific rituals and practices associated with them, namely within Enochian traditions.[1]

     

    LOL

    More info here:

    https://theosophy.wiki/en/Egregore

    The Ancients believed that gods needed to receive sacrifices to keep or increase their power. Even Jews fed their YHWH by burning sacrificial animals (he likes the smell of the burning flesh, I am not joking it's in the Bible).

    And of course in some cultures they also believed that the gods could be destroyed or die. This is the case in the Norse/Germanic tradition about the Twilight of Gods. IIRC it was also the case in pre-Columbian Meso-American religions. Gods haven no infinite lifespan neither in Buddhism, nor Hinduism.

    That was one of the arguments Christians used to prove that pagan gods were not true gods, but demons parasiting on the pagan ignorance to derive power from worship and sacrifice. It is also discussed in the Gnostic Christian scripture: the Archonts and the Demiurge enslaved human souls because they basically derive their power and ultimately existence from this dominion.

    Muslims simply deny the existence of anything independent from Allah, they are radical Monotheists. For them there are no other gods but Allah, that’s why they deny Holy Trinity.

    Replies: @AP, @Pericles, @AltanBakshi, @Dmitry

    The Ancients believed that gods needed to receive sacrifices to keep or increase their power. Even Jews fed their YHWH by burning sacrificial animals (he likes the smell of the burning flesh, I am not joking it’s in the Bible).

    Next, look up the meaning of ‘holocaust’.

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk
  266. @AP
    @silviosilver

    Not if the pagan rulers were Germanic barbarians who couldn’t care less.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    They were happy enough to spread Christian teachings – surprisingly, given how much Christian values clashed with the traditional Germanic ethos – so it’s safe to presume they’d have been at least as happy to spread/preserve pagan teachings.

    There’s little reason to think that technological advancements would have been any slower (it would, presumably, have continued to be “incremental,” just as it was under Christianity). As for the other historical developments you mentioned, there are so many variables in play that you couldn’t possibly claim to know with certainty that, say, the Americas would never have been reached and settled. Get real.

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk
  267. @Bashibuzuk
    @silviosilver

    I think we could be reasonably certain that culture and knowledge would have been thriving under the imperial protection of the likes of Julian the Apostate. A shame that he did not rule long enough and that later Emperors did not follow in his footsteps.

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julian-Roman-emperor

    Replies: @AP, @Kent Nationalist, @silviosilver

    Credulous Jew-lover impressed by magic tricks (literally, read his account of his conversion to Paganism)

    • Replies: @Bashibuzuk
    @Kent Nationalist

    You really should explain more why you despise Neoplatonicism so much. I am genuinely perplexed by your radical rejection of anything attached to this tradition.

  268. @Bashibuzuk
    @Dmitry


    As described in the article, it is 19th century, and originated in a wonderful romantic book of Jan Potocki (Manuscript Found in Saragossa).
     
    Sorry Dmitry, it seems that you didn't read the article well, it is said that the egregores might actually originate in the Enochian traditions. Right there in the first paragraph.

    Egregore (also spelled egregor; from French égrégore, from Ancient Greek egrḗgoros 'wakeful') is an occult concept representing a distinct non-physical entity that arises from a collective group of people. Historically, the concept referred to angelic beings, or watchers, and the specific rituals and practices associated with them, namely within Enochian traditions.[1]

     

    LOL

    More info here:

    https://theosophy.wiki/en/Egregore

    The Ancients believed that gods needed to receive sacrifices to keep or increase their power. Even Jews fed their YHWH by burning sacrificial animals (he likes the smell of the burning flesh, I am not joking it's in the Bible).

    And of course in some cultures they also believed that the gods could be destroyed or die. This is the case in the Norse/Germanic tradition about the Twilight of Gods. IIRC it was also the case in pre-Columbian Meso-American religions. Gods haven no infinite lifespan neither in Buddhism, nor Hinduism.

    That was one of the arguments Christians used to prove that pagan gods were not true gods, but demons parasiting on the pagan ignorance to derive power from worship and sacrifice. It is also discussed in the Gnostic Christian scripture: the Archonts and the Demiurge enslaved human souls because they basically derive their power and ultimately existence from this dominion.

    Muslims simply deny the existence of anything independent from Allah, they are radical Monotheists. For them there are no other gods but Allah, that’s why they deny Holy Trinity.

    Replies: @AP, @Pericles, @AltanBakshi, @Dmitry

    he likes the smell of the burning flesh, I am not joking it’s in the Bible).

    You are a very perceptible guy. Still Upaya.

    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @AltanBakshi

    Perceptive, not perceptible, silly me.

  269. @AP
    @Bashibuzuk

    Assuming no eventual destruction at the hands of Arab, Turkic or German invaders, likely a long period of relative stasis, as in China. No discovery, expansion and transformation of the New World, and technological advancement would have been slow and incremental. The latter issue might have made resistance to some massive barbarian invasion harder.

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    I have a hard time believing this AP for a variety of reasons, chief among them being that Greco-Roman and early Byzantine science and technology were superior to anything that Europe produced in the early Middle Ages. Possibly even superior to anything invented in Europe prior to the Renaissance. If anything they would have had a Renaissances type development in Europe 5-6 centuries earlier. They were much more rational compared to middle ages’ European Christians, who were actually rather obtuse even compared to their Muslim contemporaries from the Islamic Golden Age. Petrarch called this period Dark Ages for a reason. Arguably early Muslims were better at preserving the heritage of Antiquity and building upon its basis. A notable example below :

    https://www.iis.ac.uk/publication/ikhwan-al-safa-and-their-rasail-introduction

    https://iep.utm.edu/ikhwan-al-safa/

    • Replies: @Coconuts
    @Bashibuzuk


    Possibly even superior to anything invented in Europe prior to the Renaissance
     
    In the Dark Ages in Europe there seems to have been a few agricultural inventions that were unknown to the Classical World and which helped increase the population so that it was larger than it ever had been under the Romans.

    There might be a kind of argument along the lines of larger population, harsh warlike conditions and a patriarchal religion that believed in a divine moral code that contained evolutionarily advantageous teachings, progressively breeding a human of a different kind to that which had been seen in Europe for a long time, since the Classical period of Plato and Aristotle. This would be 'Based Western Man', who endured up until the 20th century but has since disappeared and was (in)famous for a lot of politically incorrect reasons.

    Replies: @AP, @Bashibuzuk, @silviosilver

    , @AP
    @Bashibuzuk


    I have a hard time believing this AP for a variety of reasons, chief among them being that Greco-Roman and early Byzantine science and technology were superior to anything that Europe produced in the early Middle Ages.
     
    It had built up slowly over thousands of years. Spengler and Berdyaev basically agreed that the Classical knowledge was largely contemplative in nature, not geared towards exploring new frontiers , transforming nature, and pushing limits.

    Spengler: "It need hardly be said that classical man, who felt himself and his environment alike Euclidian, set himself a priori in hostile opposition to the very idea of technique. If by "Classical" technique we mean something that arose with determined effort above the universal dead perfection of the Mycenean Age, then there was no Classical technique. Its triremes were glorified rowboats, its catapults and onagers mere substitutes for arms and fists - not to be named in the same breath as the war-engines of Assyria and China - as as for Hero and his like, it was flukes and not discoveries that they achieved...here and there they played with data (why not?) that probably came from the East, but..no one made a serious effort to introduce them into the ensemble-picture of life."

    So yes, likely incremental changes over time, but nobody was going to go to the other side of the Atlantic, much less to the moon, on the Christian timeframe.

    If anything they would have had a Renaissances type development in Europe 5-6 centuries earlier.
     
    Christian Europeans were driven to explore and master the physical world. Doing so was a way of understanding God, it was almost like a specific type of prayer or meditation for them. It was no coincidence that the basis of modern science was made by churchmen. Non-Christians would simply not have had such a drive. The Classical people simply didn't see the world and their place in it in such a way that would have made a Renaissance possible.

    Replies: @silviosilver

  270. @Kent Nationalist
    @Bashibuzuk

    Credulous Jew-lover impressed by magic tricks (literally, read his account of his conversion to Paganism)

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    You really should explain more why you despise Neoplatonicism so much. I am genuinely perplexed by your radical rejection of anything attached to this tradition.

  271. @Bashibuzuk
    @silviosilver

    I think we could be reasonably certain that culture and knowledge would have been thriving under the imperial protection of the likes of Julian the Apostate. A shame that he did not rule long enough and that later Emperors did not follow in his footsteps.

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julian-Roman-emperor

    Replies: @AP, @Kent Nationalist, @silviosilver

    A shame indeed. It was all too little, all too late by that point, I’m afraid.

    Perhaps it was never realistic that Christianity could be held at bay. For starters, the principal advantage monotheism has over polytheism is that it is intellectually more satisfying. Rather than a myriad of competing gods, each doing their own thing and vying with one another for often rather petty ends, making it all but impossible to draw any consistent moral lessons from their behavior, monotheism simplifies man’s connection to the divine and makes the moral claims it presents seem more “objective.”

    Secondly, I have this notion of “theological inflation,” which is another way monotheism beats out polytheism. Polytheists make various claims about the abilities – the “power” – of their various deities, such that it’s possible to compare them with each other. Eg, Apollo is said to have such and such ability, and Poseidon this and that ability, and you can compare them on this basis and argue about one being greater than the other. Even if society proscribes doing this publicly, it’s something a person can always do in the privacy of his mind – when deciding which deity to become a special devotee of, for instance. Then along comes monotheism with its one God, whose powers are greater than all the polytheistic gods combined and then some. That’s a pretty attractive proposition! Whatever you have to give up in terms of tradition and myth and culture, you more than make up for by the feeling that “My God is better than yours” – which is particularly appealing to those on the fringes of the existing society.

    Thirdly, Christianity made a big show of caring about the interests of the masses. I’m not aware of anything in pagan society that could compete with Christianity’s elevation of the status of little guy, the pauper, the no-hoper. Christianity was able to combine the appeal of monotheism to intellectuals with the popular appeal of elevated status to the masses, and it was this combination of intellectual and popular appeal that made it politically portentous. And the rest is history.

    • Agree: Bashibuzuk
    • Replies: @AltanBakshi
    @silviosilver

    Indians solved the problem, by claiming that all the gods are just different aspects of one God, for its hard for a man to comprehend the nature of the highest and infinite God, thus its easier that he communicates with the infinite absolute through his various manifestations. Neplatonists were trying to achieve something similar in the west.

    Its sad that Western Polytheism disappeared, because we could have easily syncretized with them.(Though we have already, partially at least)

  272. @AltanBakshi
    @AP

    They only exist by the will of the All Merciful, Lord of the Worlds, one and only, mighty Allah, brother! (According to Islam)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmJ8_GZRSVY

    Replies: @Bashibuzuk

    When I hear anasheed I always recall that the Prophet considered the singing, dancing and playing of music as unbefitting for a Believer.

    A Salafi brother I once met (a blond and blue eyed berber) once told me that “George Michael is a devil’s whistle “.

    Perhaps he was up to something.

    😄

  273. @AnonFromTN
    @Beckow


    Which ones are wolves and which ones sheep?
     
    At any given moment, whoever is weaker is sheep. However, after the crash of the Empire the tables would be turned. Considering the hatred of the Empire by ~80-85% of world population, many would cheer former sheep along when they become wolves and brutally tear still warm corpse. It won't be a pretty sight.

    Replies: @Beckow

    I agree that what is coming won’t be pretty. The contradictions have been allowed to accumulate longer than usually in the past – and contradictions are really just growth of hostility and hatred. The unique mono-power dominance plus the nukes have frozen the world for 2-3 generations. It might unravel.

    I am still troubled by the “wolves and sheep” analogy, it is too black and white and it suggests deterministic behaviour. Today we find an element of “self-hatred” in the West suggesting a “Waiting for the Barbarians” moment. As the poem suggests, many see the hated enemy Barbarians as a solution. It never works out that way. The “wolves” might have to work their way through the collapse on their own. As Job told his wife: “Just look away from the evil“. Quite simple, but she couldn’t resist.

  274. @EldnahYm
    @Coconuts

    Descartes, Newton, and the rest of the boys in the band wouldn't have seen it that way. To them, what they were doing is enunciating the divine laws by which the universe is governed. Newton in particular was a serious theologian. In all of the examples AP mentions of technological advances to be credited to Christianity, he would actually have a stronger case by singling out Newton's contributions, which were plainly influenced by Christian philosophical ideas.

    The ideas of Locke and Hume(Dmitry rightly mentions him) were damaging to religion in a different way than the people you mentioned. I believe there has been a tendency to conflate scientific and empirical thinking with skeptical and relativistic thinking as if they are the same. This conflation has introduced a great deal of rot. Locke and Hume are partly to blame for this state of affairs.

    Replies: @Coconuts

    Descartes, Newton, and the rest of the boys in the band wouldn’t have seen it that way. To them, what they were doing is enunciating the divine laws by which the universe is governed. Newton in particular was a serious theologian. In all of the examples AP mentions of technological advances to be credited to Christianity, he would actually have a stronger case by singling out Newton’s contributions, which were plainly influenced by Christian philosophical ideas.

    Yes, you are right here. I did have something fairly specific in mind, I was thinking of the way in which the new approach to empirical study of reality via experiment and using quantitative methods and mathematical description of the phenomena changed the way in which reality was understood. As far as I see it this was the beginning of the pursuit of an objective description of reality and an enhanced focus on maximising human utility and power over attaining truth or wisdom, the kind of thing Aristotle or Plato would have understood as the goal of philosophy.

    Though as you say Descartes, Newton and so on were all Christians and rationalists and were in many ways also motivated by traditional philosophical and theological concerns as well.

    Dmitry’s take that there was no great philosopher between the fall of Rome (St. Augustine?) and Hume was rather powerful and reminded me of Bertrand Russell.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Coconuts


    Dmitry’s take that there was no great philosopher between the fall of Rome (St. Augustine?) and Hume was rather powerful and reminded me of Bertrand Russell.
     
    If "great" is taken to mean "skillful at philosophizing" then there were a number of greats. If they no longer seem so great, it's because next to nothing of what they said is of any real relevance to the sorts of things that are believed today and the kinds of reasons that are given for believing them.

    Replies: @Coconuts

    , @Dmitry
    @Coconuts

    I didn't say there was no Great Philosopher between Ancient World and Hume.

    I just wrote that Hume is a strong example of a "Great Philosopher" of Modern History, where his text reads without a theologian style. He writes in a way which is in rebellion to theological style of writing, and his voice sounds more like the style of thinking we recognize from people writing in scientific papers today.

    In Descartes and Spinoza, the texts still has quite a theologian's style of writing and reasoning. About Leibniz, I cannot say, as I haven't read his books, but only some chapters about his philosophy.

    Locke writes in a very causal, conservational way, which reminds me reading texts some pages of Renaissance writers like Montaigne and Machiavelli. So with Locke also there isn't so much of theological way of writing, from my impression.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Coconuts

  275. @Bashibuzuk
    @AP

    I have a hard time believing this AP for a variety of reasons, chief among them being that Greco-Roman and early Byzantine science and technology were superior to anything that Europe produced in the early Middle Ages. Possibly even superior to anything invented in Europe prior to the Renaissance. If anything they would have had a Renaissances type development in Europe 5-6 centuries earlier. They were much more rational compared to middle ages' European Christians, who were actually rather obtuse even compared to their Muslim contemporaries from the Islamic Golden Age. Petrarch called this period Dark Ages for a reason. Arguably early Muslims were better at preserving the heritage of Antiquity and building upon its basis. A notable example below :

    https://www.iis.ac.uk/publication/ikhwan-al-safa-and-their-rasail-introduction

    https://iep.utm.edu/ikhwan-al-safa/

    Replies: @Coconuts, @AP

    Possibly even superior to anything invented in Europe prior to the Renaissance

    In the Dark Ages in Europe there seems to have been a few agricultural inventions that were unknown to the Classical World and which helped increase the population so that it was larger than it ever had been under the Romans.

    There might be a kind of argument along the lines of larger population, harsh warlike conditions and a patriarchal religion that believed in a divine moral code that contained evolutionarily advantageous teachings, progressively breeding a human of a different kind to that which had been seen in Europe for a long time, since the Classical period of Plato and Aristotle. This would be ‘Based Western Man’, who endured up until the 20th century but has since disappeared and was (in)famous for a lot of politically incorrect reasons.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Coconuts


    In the Dark Ages in Europe there seems to have been a few agricultural inventions that were unknown to the Classical World and which helped increase the population so that it was larger than it ever had been under the Romans.
     
    Correct. Also crop rotation.

    But Bashibuzuk spoke about prior to Renaissance, not just Dark Ages. There was an explosion of new technology in Europe in the 11th-13th centuries, prior to the Renaissance. From wiki:



    Artesian well (1126)

    A thin rod with a hard iron cutting edge is placed in the bore hole and repeatedly struck with a hammer, underground water pressure forces the water up the hole without pumping. Artesian wells are named after the town of Artois in France, where the first one was drilled by Carthusian monks in 1126.

    Central heating through underfloor channels (9th century)

    In the early medieval Alpine upland, a simpler central heating system where heat travelled through underfloor channels from the furnace room replaced the Roman hypocaust at some places. In Reichenau Abbey a network of interconnected underfloor channels heated the 300 m2 large assembly room of the monks during the winter months. The degree of efficiency of the system has been calculated at 90%.[20]

    Rib vault (12th century)

    An essential element for the rise of Gothic architecture, rib vaults allowed vaults to be built for the first time over rectangles of unequal lengths. It also greatly facilitated scaffolding and largely replaced the older groin vault.

    Chimney (12th century)

    The first basic chimney appeared in a Swiss monastery in 820. The earliest true chimney did not appear until the 12th century, with the fireplace appearing at the same time.[21]

    Treadwheel crane (1220s)

    The earliest reference to a treadwheel in archival literature is in France about 1225,[22] followed by an illuminated depiction in a manuscript of probably also French origin dating to 1240.[23] Apart from tread-drums, windlasses and occasionally cranks were employed for powering cranes.[24]

    Stationary harbour crane (1244)

    Stationary harbour cranes are considered a new development of the Middle Ages; its earliest use being documented for Utrecht in 1244.[25] The typical harbour crane was a pivoting structure equipped with double treadwheels. There were two types: wooden gantry cranes pivoting on a central vertical axle and stone tower cranes which housed the windlass and treadwheels with only the jib arm and roof rotating.[1] These cranes were placed on docksides for the loading and unloading of cargo where they replaced or complemented older lifting methods like see-saws, winches and yards.[25] Slewing cranes which allowed a rotation of the load and were thus particularly suited for dockside work appeared as early as 1340.

    Oil paint (by 1125)

    As early as the 13th century, oil was used to add details to tempera paintings and paint wooden statues. Flemish painter Jan van Eyck developed the use of a stable oil mixture for panel painting around 1410

    Mechanical clocks (13th to 14th centuries)

    A European innovation, these weight-driven clocks were used primarily in clock towers.

    Blast furnace (1150–1350)

    Cast iron had been made in China since before the 4th century BC.[29] European cast iron first appears in Middle Europe (for instance Lapphyttan in Sweden, Dürstel in Switzerland and the Märkische Sauerland in Germany) around 1150,[30] in some places according to recent research even before 1100.[31] The technique is considered to be an independent European development

    Paper mill (13th century)

    The first certain use of a water-powered paper mill, evidence for which is elusive in both Chinese[33][34] and Muslim paper making,[35] dates to 1282.

    Vertical windmills (1180s)

    Invented in Europe as the pivotable post mill, the first surviving mention of one comes from Yorkshire in England in 1185. They were efficient at grinding grain or draining water. Stationary tower mills were also developed in the 13th century.

    Water hammer (12th century at the latest)

    Used in metallurgy to forge the metal blooms from bloomeries and Catalan forges, they replaced manual hammerwork. The water hammer was eventually superseded by steam hammers in the 19th century.

    Dry compass (12th century)

    The first Europ