Post: #26

< Fuck Wired and their transhumanist propaganda. The upper top is not worried at all.

No one wants to live under feudalism. Technology gives opportunities, but it entails also risks. That is where sane leadership and discrimination comes in. Currently we are led by traitors who are even worse than the old feudal rulers. At least they wanted their nation to succeed. That is a bigger issue than science.

Post: #27

(05-09-2018 01:33 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  < Fuck Wired and their transhumanist propaganda. The upper top is not worried at all.

No one wants to live under feudalism. Technology gives opportunities, but it entails also risks. That is where sane leadership and discrimination comes in. Currently we are led by traitors who are even worse than the old feudal rulers. At least they wanted their nation to succeed. That is a bigger issue than science.

On your first post here you've criticized the original post without reading it properly (as you stated that I didn't understand something I had clearly stated already), and now you clearly have not even read the first few paragraphs of the article I shared - which is the opposite of transhumanist propaganda, if anything it's an indictment of this (again, as clearly shown even within the first few paragraphs).

You are simply making baseless assertions and not even reading what I am writing - which is fine, just let's not pretend this counts as a discussion. It's clear this is the case since you keep stating 'the problem is globalist tyrants' and I have given you my perspective that technology enables this, and also stated why I hold such a view. You haven't address any of this, not even tried.

Lastly, maybe no one wants to live under feudalism, but it's still very much arguable that the feudal serfs had more freedom, agency and dignity than the common man does today. So people may not want it, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't want it. They hold this view out of ignorance of what life was like (the same way they hold many views out of ignorance, as I'm sure you are aware). Quintus Curtius had a great piece about this a couple of months ago, maybe some lurker will find it of interest: https://qcurtius.com/2018/01/11/what-wer...ligations/

Post: #28

(05-08-2018 03:25 PM)ilostabet Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 04:26 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  Cultural Marxism should definitely not be called Cultural Capitalism because the essence of Marx has nothing to do with economics. It's Dialectical Materialism, and applied to the real world it means relentlessly overthrowing "oppression" because other people have things you think you should have but don't really want to work for or accept that you don't have the skill, luck, or fate to possess.

In fact "capitalism" as a term is usually applied as a linguistic framing device to get people into a Marxist mode of thought. As in "that person's a capitalist," not a human being with a personal drama and individual existence. Makes them easier to justify a fight against, just like the terms "patriarchy" or "privilege." In a normal world, "capitalism" would just be "business."

I agree with your assessment. I think I may not have made my point very clearly. What I was trying to say was not that these ideas were not marxist, but that as Marx himself pointed out:

"generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade"

it was via free trade that the social values of yesteryear were destroyed.

I am not against business as such (understood as exchanges between private property owners), but after being a libertarian and extreme proponent of the international free market, I have come to realize that this unbridled openness in business carries with it many trade offs. ultimately one must choose between a high rate of material wealth and technological progress and traditional societal structures. I choose the latter.

The overall idea that technological change and wealth brings about social and cultural change is correct, but not absolute. The nature and fruits of these changes are not really predictable, much less predetermined.

Marx had a very ignorant view of the world colored by his dim philosophy of class struggle and his limited knowledge. Instead of history everywhere following the same patterns based on technological improvement, different cultures have religious and philosophical paradigms that influence what they do with their means of production. It is not inevitable that a high level of technological achievement means the death of traditional values, rise of atheism, etc., since you have to take into account the character of the people and their leaders.

Strictly speaking, the level of wealth that even people of below-average income enjoy in the developed world today is more than enough to establish, feed, and house a family without having to die in work or combat — the type of lifestyle that people in traditional society might have worked their whole lives for and still not be able to obtain. Today, the reason why this is actually hard to do is because instead of using these newfound technological and economic means to reinforce our moral awareness and enrich our culture (think about how many more da Vincis could be supported today than during the Renaissance), the entire religious and philosophical paradigm was torn down by dark actors and their misguided followers to usher in the social dystopia we have today.

Now this is not to say that technological progress didn't aid in bringing about SJWs, feminism, etc., but that it was more of a powerful catalyst, a tool that has fallen into the wrong hands — not some malevolent force bent on destroying us. The real malevolence is spiritual.

Post: #29

Quote:Now this is not to say that technological progress didn't aid in bringing about SJWs, feminism, etc., but that it was more of a powerful catalyst, a tool that has fallen into the wrong hands — not some malevolent force bent on destroying us. The real malevolence is spiritual.

I agree, with some reservations (or qualifications).

Until very recently I held the idea that technology was neutral and did not realize this conflicted with my view on human nature, which I have held for much longer, which is: humans, having been created in the image of God, are fallen creatures due to their original disobedience in the Garden, which makes us here on earth prone to corruption.

So logically you cannot say that any tool we devise is neutral, as our tendency is always to use it for evil - not just technology per se, but any cultural or social tool (language, art, etc). This is why we should be very careful when using these things and all upright societies have had restrictions on the use of our various tools, to safeguard against our tendency towards corruption (obviously, even our political and even religious institutions suffer from the same tendency - but that is not to say that because of this we should dispense with them - some puritans argued this or came very close).

Now, with such a powerful tool as modern technology (since the Industrial Revolution) and the exponential growth (furthermore unchecked), offers an incredibly powerful outlet for evil as well. I don't think technology has a will of its own trying to destroy us (not yet at least, maybe when we create the first truly sentient machine), but our natural tendencies point it towards this direction. It then becomes a snowball - the more technologically advanced, the more our tendency for corruption has a powerful outlet, the more this becomes so, the less restrictions are put on it, and less restrictions lead to even more advanced tech, and so forth.

So having said this, yes, the problem is primarily spiritual, but understood in this way. I don't see a way out of our predicament without rolling back (or severely restricting the access to) several advanced technologies through which hedonist and relativist ideas spread as well as ending the scientific/technological dictatorship (accountable to no one but itself and its drive for unbridled progress).