Posts by ironmarlin1

I’ll tell you, there really are only two ways to look at this...

If you're actually interested in that whole rabbit hole of hallucinations, LSD, and the hippie era, there’s that sharp, rather biting commentary from Thomas Mann regarding Aldous Huxley... a critique that is, at its core, quite negative. Then again, Thomas Mann was deeply shaped by the shadow of Friedrich Nietzsche, so perhaps none of it carries much weight, or so Steven Pinker would have us believe.

I know plenty of folks who get completely obsessed with those narratives—people who can recite the exact molecular makeup of various hallucinogens or pharmaceuticals like it’s scripture. I honestly can't fathom who finds that level of detail compelling, but I suppose there’s a certain breed of person who finds solace in molecular structures. To me, an atom is just... an atom.

As for this idea of "optimism"—which isn't necessarily the flip side of pessimism, mind you—I have a particularly instructive quote from Nietzsche for you:

"Where good begins. — It begins where the eye becomes too weak to perceive the subtle nuances, failing to recognize the evil impulse for what it truly is; man then postulates a kingdom of good, and this sensation of having entered a circle of goodness stirs up all those impulses that previously felt threatened or endangered by darker urges—feelings of security, comfort, benevolence, and so on. Thus, the duller the eye, the greater the perceived good. From this arises the eternal cheerfulness of common folk and children! And from this, too, comes the gloom and melancholy—born of a guilty conscience—of the great thinkers!"

He probably wasn't thinking of Pinker when he wrote that.

Lisa Jackson7 said:I've only ever read bits and pieces of Hamvaš—just snippets and quotes, unfortunately.
But I've been hearing that specific kind of "vibe" for a long time now—not just from him—it just pops up every once in a while.

As for that article you mentioned, the author immediately frames Traditionalism as this obscure, lurking beast—something even more dangerous than nationalism.
An "expert" on the far right, clearly....

But according to Pinker and those American ideologues, Nietzsche leads straight to Evola (that’s what the maniac wrote in his book) and then down to the "far right"... whereas Guenon and Evola lead to Dugin and Bannon.

Pinker is completely blinded by his hatred for Nietzsche—he’d probably censor him if he could... and yeah, he brings up Evola as some "early fascist intellectual."

The thing is, Evola is primarily an aristocratic traditionalist.

Exactly; they give all the university professors a platform. Reading between the lines, one would conclude the author hasn't actually cracked a single book by any of the Traditionalist authors. If that’s what passes for an "expert," then you already know the current climate at our universities. Especially within the humanities. It’s basically a "hunt for the youth," as they call it in academic circles. Honestly, why don't they just rename those institutions altogether?

Steven Pinker is utterly blinded by his animosity toward Friedrich Nietzsche; he’d love nothing more than to censor him... and yes, he refers to Julius Evola as an "early fascist intellectual."

Evola is, first and foremost, an aristocratic traditionalist.

Perhaps I could stomach that label for Evola, but that isn't why people turn to him. Pinker is essentially a mouthpiece for American think tanks, and his job is to travel the globe "classifying people"—essentially, if you aren't some caricature of Pangloss, you're labeled "far right" or compared to Anders Breivik and the like. In those circles, even a hint of pessimism is viewed as dangerous, a gateway to extremism and such. Granted, Nietzsche also grappled with pessimism, but there is a vast chasm between a profound thinker and a mere propagandist or lobbyist. I won't go into full detail here, but these days they actually monitor the psychological profiles of students to "mold" them accordingly. Even the old Joseph Stalin would have been envious. His interpretation of Nietzsche is a laughingstock, even within those very academic circles that are themselves exactly what we see today. Is a true intellectual someone who hasn't even heard of Thomas Mann? But then again, we shouldn't expect much from Nobel Laureates. Just look at the entire artistic scene in France or Russia at the dawn of the 20th century, or Henry Miller in the States. Or Bel Hamvas in Eastern Europe, and so on, and so forth.

To be fair, whenever someone starts preaching Pinkerism, you instantly know what's happening—there's either a dirty underlying interest at play, or it’s pure, unadulterated idiocy. Most likely, it’s the former. I know exactly what's going on.

William Palmer7 said:Is this the same guy who took DMT and decided we’re all just bacteria?

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised one bit.

How on earth did this thread morph into its own version of The Joe Rogan Experience?

Lisa Jackson7 said:The only real value in eco-primitivism or any movement trying to drag us back to the past is that they act as a necessary reality check for those obsessed with progress, the Enlightenment, etc.—basically, they counter Pinker's "Enlightenment Now!" style of thinking.

Humanity is like a guy lugging around way too much luggage—he's stumbling, rushing too hard, dropping stuff everywhere, and constantly having to backtrack just to pick up the pieces.

You sound a bit like a passage pulled from an essay by Bill Hamvas... which is actually quite good. I was recently reading a radical progressive piece written in that classic Pinker style: https://www.thenation.com/article/po...-bannon-putin/

Of course, Hamvas was well known for following the traditionalist teachings of René Guénon and, to some extent, Julius Evola.

But according to Pinker and those American ideologues, Nietzsche leads straight to Evola (that's what the madman wrote in his book), which then leads to the far right... whereas Guénon and Evola lead to Darya Dugina and Steve Bannon.

Why couldn't Nietzsche lead to Thomas Mann, or Guénon and Evola lead to Bill Hamvas? You might have asked that same question to Georg Lukács when he was persecuting Hamvas. We all know the kind of answer you would have received in those days. Then again, Lukács had much closer ties to Mann (through his essays, for instance), so he wouldn't have made such a glaring oversight regarding Nietzsche.
Even John Zerzan—who, with his particular set of views, bears a certain resemblance to the Unabomber—serves as a lifeline for some, a way to resist those ideologues. These days, people are showing up at your doorstep threatening death and physical violence if you happen to own the "wrong" books, all in the name of that radical-progressive fanaticism. I've experienced it personally. These are heavy times. And the communists used to hunt down Hamvas. Imagine what it's like today...

It is fascinatingly ironic that the "far-right" today finds its fuel in evolutionary theories of biological racism. It’s a fertile ground that Pinker and his cohort of "evolutionary psychologists" helped till years ago. If you ask me, evolutionary theory will serve their racist agendas much better than Hamvas or Mann ever could. We even have an example right here on this forum (Alyosha) with such theses. But honestly, examples aren't even necessary; it's blindingly obvious to anyone looking. (Those who find it unclear should be viewed with suspicion.)
Though, I suppose we shouldn't get bogged down in questions of race or the right wing. People who claim to be dedicated to "hunting racists"—which sounds like a profession far too noble a name to exist without being a mere front for something else—have plenty of them in their own ranks. And Black Americans aren't even their primary target. Today, anti-Islam sentiment is a regular fixture within these "progressive" circles. For instance, for years, these federal agencies were busy inquiring about Black rights, yet never once did they mention Muslims.
But let's be real, I think it's mostly just a public spectacle designed to mask massive financial and ideological interests behind lofty ideals: human rights, civil rights, gender equality, and so on. It's the classic playbook... blacklists for certain authors, and whitelists for ideals that seem non-existent to everyone else, making them perfect breeding grounds for various subversions. To me, someone who spends all day preaching progress and equality while simultaneously harassing people and threatening them with death is far more suspicious than someone who openly advocates for criminality. It's quite simple to grasp, and you don't need much intellect to see why that is.
Didn't Hegel say: ""Even the criminal thought of a villain is greater and more sublime than all the wonders of heaven."? There is profound wisdom behind that, even if the thought seems foolish on the surface.

While Bertrand Russell certainly held Saint Augustine’s musings on the nature of time in high regard, I can't help but feel those reflections are little more than the frantic ramblings of a madman. Then you have John Zerzan, who suggests there is something far more insidious lurking beneath the surface of it all. Even Friedrich Nietzsche—long before Zerzan arrived on the scene—seemed to grasp, as evidenced by the quote above, that the entire edifice of Christianity is built upon something quite predatory.
I have absolutely no intention of wading through those dense theological formulations regarding this supposed "problem" (assuming you even have the patience for such things) just to have my mind further scrambled, which, if I’m being honest, is likely exactly what the author intended.

ironmarlin1 said:Ah, I feel like I stumbled upon that one somewhere back in my younger, more idealistic days... though, honestly, it’s quite refreshing to see this idea that the sheer terror of linear time actually finds its roots with Augustine. You know, even Wittgenstein's second major work kicked off by circling back to Augustine... albeit focusing on language instead. Of course, Augustine—true to form—got the whole thing spectacularly wrong. First with the concept of time, and then with the mechanics of language. We even have the sharp-witted Nietzsche weighing in on the Christian era, noting: "One must read any of the Christian agitators, such as St. Augustine, to understand and sense the kind of filth that has surfaced at the peak." (Nietzsche, The Antichrist)
The fact that he completely misread the situation really highlights the sort of decadence that began to seep into "civilization" once Christianity took hold. Now, there was one British philosopher who actually held some affection for Augustine's little ramblings about time. Then there’s another fellow who, calling him a "British philosopher" feels almost like an oxymoron, routinely misinterpreted everything he touched. I am, of course, referring to Russell. Honestly, I don't see why we wouldn't just categorize him under the history of activism rather than actual philosophy.
To be fair, one could make a similar argument about Zerzan, who spends his time writing while simultaneously handing out free vegan food on street corners and setting up video projections about animal slaughter, but well... c'est la vie. Don't go telling me that things aren't clichés.

EDIT: Regarding that point about how he's fundamentally misunderstood everything...

Melissa Stewart6 said:You should check out his essay on time.

https://anarchist-library.net/...the-end-of-time

Ah, I feel like I stumbled upon that one somewhere back in my younger, more idealistic days... though, honestly, it’s quite refreshing to see this idea that the sheer terror of linear time actually finds its roots with Augustine. You know, even Wittgenstein's second major work kicked off by circling back to Augustine... albeit focusing on language instead. Of course, Augustine—true to form—got the whole thing spectacularly wrong. First with the concept of time, and then with the mechanics of language. We even have the sharp-witted Nietzsche weighing in on the Christian era, noting: "One must read any of the Christian agitators, such as St. Augustine, to understand and sense the kind of filth that has surfaced at the peak." (Nietzsche, The Antichrist)
The fact that he completely misread the situation really highlights the sort of decadence that began to seep into "civilization" once Christianity took hold. Now, there was one British philosopher who actually held some affection for Augustine's little ramblings about time. Then there’s another fellow who, calling him a "British philosopher" feels almost like an oxymoron, routinely misinterpreted everything he touched. I am, of course, referring to Russell. Honestly, I don't see why we wouldn't just categorize him under the history of activism rather than actual philosophy.
To be fair, one could make a similar argument about Zerzan, who spends his time writing while simultaneously handing out free vegan food on street corners and setting up video projections about animal slaughter, but well... c'est la vie. Don't go telling me that things aren't clichés.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Eco-primitivism, often called anarcho-primitivism, is this radical anarchist movement that calls for a total return to our original, primal communities. It isn’t exactly a mainstream topic here in the States. For decades, American thought has been dominated by Marx, along with some Hegel and Kant—essentially that Enlightenment school of thought that tends to be somewhat favorable toward the state, legal structures, reason, and symbolic thought.

Anarchists and Marxists split ways very early on, and they’ve never truly reconciled, even though they share a common enemy in capitalism. But anarchists don't believe you can build a better society through a communist state. Anarcho-primitivists take it a step further; they reject not just the state, but civilization itself, technology, and—according to people like John Zerzan—even symbolic thought. In his view, alienation doesn't start with class struggle like Marx argues, but with the very invention of symbols and rituals.

Essentially, John Zerzan argues that humans were truly free only in a state of immediacy, before we had the ability to describe anything because language didn't exist yet. From this perspective, the birth of symbols (and words) was the catalyst for both the rise of civilization and the inherent restlessness found within it.

The core argument of eco-primitivism goes like this: civilization isn't necessary, sustainable, or even the right direction. It’s a detour. The "true path" is how we lived for hundreds of thousands of years before organized society ever began. Some anarcho-primitivists openly advocate for violence and attacks on technology—take Derek Jensen, for example, who writes about using bombs to tear down things like dams—though most are content to stick to lectures and writing.

Now, this is quite fascinating... even if anarcho-primitivism strikes me personally as being a bit unhinged. It catches my interest because I once encountered a theory suggesting that language—this archetype of symbolism—acts somewhat like a parasite.

Acclimatizing oneself to time—that is the essence of schooling—is absolutely vital for the stability of society.

That point is also compelling and likely hits the mark. Do you happen to have a specific quote where they dive into the "why" (though one might question whether "reason" even applies to this school of thought) or at least hint at the underlying motives? I remember reading about how sleep patterns in the Middle Ages were entirely different from our modern rhythms. The quote touches on certain elements, but it feels a bit thin. I'm not particularly inclined to turn to Fraser for this, given his expertise lies more in ancient civilizations rather than the nuances of the modern era.

I’m still sitting here, waiting for some semblance of an explanation. You went ahead and scrubbed posts of mine that were written over two months before you even stepped into a moderator role, and as for this specific one I mentioned above, you haven't offered a single shred of reasoning beyond just being heavy-handed and claiming I'm acting underhandedly. It really makes me wonder—are you just pathologically obsessed with my posts, given how much energy you seem to expend on them?

Andrew Booth29 said:It’s no mystery—I wiped them out myself, acting as moderator.

But why? I can say with absolute certainty that you weren't behind those previous deletions, yet for this particular instance, you aren't offering any explanation at all?

Eric Newman75 said:What on earth does "recruiting" for my posts even mean? Do you actually know what that word implies? ☕

Fair point, I really have no idea why that specific word slipped out of my mouth. I was searching for something more along the lines of "messing around with me" or some such expression, and I clearly missed the mark entirely. Though, if we're being honest, it’s quite possible I am being recruited. 😁

I seem to have lost my previous post, the one containing that quote from Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller regarding the concept of a party cell. Does anyone have an explanation for what happened there?

For about six months now, I’ve noticed someone—someone who certainly isn't the thread moderator—quietly hovering over my contributions and deleting them without so much as a word of explanation.

Oh, absolutely, without a doubt, yes. I really ought to give this some more earnest thought instead of just drifting along with whatever the media cycle happens to be pushing this week. It feels like I should perhaps open my heart a bit wider and learn to embrace another human being with the same grace I’d extend to myself if I happened to catch my own reflection in some dark, lonely alleyway. This isn't exactly the kind of thing you can just joke around about.

If I may be so bold as to indulge in a bit of intellectual grandstanding: "a return to the self, a leap toward freedom acting as the self-creation—the self-making of the Only One and His All within their own unity. While philosophy, in its essence as 'the love of knowledge,' transcends itself and finds satisfaction in itself through absolute science—which is just another way of saying absolute truth—it does so through a freedom that has been rendered lifeless by its own nature. In this very rebellion, this uprising, love—once liberated from freedom as that singular, absolute thing—returns to its own essence, becoming the love of that which alone is worthy of love: the love of power, of true Selfhood, of that creative Nothingness of freedom, or perhaps, quite simply, pure self-love."

What kind of pedantic, narrow-minded philosophy is that? The whole "we just need to study harder and produce more engineers" mantra?

Jonathan Brooks8 said:The concept of a truly "free individual" is nothing more than a myth—because at best, such a person is merely a prisoner of their own psyche and their rigid, unyielding perspectives. And frankly, there is even less clarity regarding the underlying forces that shape such an attitude in the first place... all of which ultimately stifles any real capacity for learning.

I don't buy the idea that a person can be a prisoner of themselves. At most, you can be held captive by something external to your own being. If that influence is truly yours, then you're the one pulling the strings. To me, your whole premise just doesn't hold water.

A truly free individual refuses to let anything—absolutely nothing—take precedence over their own existence. Not even civilization itself. They can digest the structures of society and harness them for their own ends, certainly, but the moment this supposed "civilization" attempts to consume the individual, they will dismantle it. Take the pervasive ideologies of humanitarianism and altruism, for instance. These are often just hollow concepts positioned above the person; if an individual wants to remain authentically themselves, they must conquer such ideals for their own sake rather than allowing those ideas to exist solely for the benefit of some greater social collective. As for the rest of us, the supposedly "civilized" masses, we might actually find ourselves accepting this brand of egoism as the next logical evolution of our culture—a genuine leap toward true liberty.

When you consider these modern-day, almost inquisitorial missions aimed at liberating our emotions, our passions, those buried feelings, and ultimately trying to forge this supposed "new man," I find myself taking a purely subversive approach. I aim to dismantle this dominant ideology through a sort of emotional castration, a deliberate act designed to expose just how utterly helpless such an ideology truly is. In my view, we are witnessing a godless kind of Dark Age—a new philosophy that cherry-picks all the worst elements of the medieval era and integrates them into the construction of a new, hollowed-out version of humanity.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:If someone feels empathy—that is, if they actually sense another person's pain—and then chooses to step in and help, their motive is perfectly transparent: they want to alleviate or entirely eliminate their own discomfort. Honestly, what's so surprising about that?

It isn't at all unusual for a person stuck in a more primitive stage of development, lacking the necessary intellectual depth, to be unable to parse the true origins of their emotions, leading them to blindly follow whatever impulses take hold. However, once an individual begins to dissect those biological, once-adaptive urges—viewing them through the lens of raw survivalism as an ancient attempt to impose one's will upon nature and fellow man—then that sensation shifts its focus toward an entirely different objective.
In short, a human being acting purely as a biological organism (much like, say, a common rat) devoid of any cultural heritage, operates strictly according to those self-serving interests, and there is nothing peculiar about that behavior. What I am discussing here is a person—whether human or otherwise—who has gained the perspective to view those impulses within a much broader context.

Amanda Jackson5 said:It’s honestly a little surprising that after being around this forum for so long, you still haven't caught on to the fact that Davor—by his own admission—is just incapable of feeling those kinds of things. No hard feelings 😁

On the contrary, I am working quite diligently to suppress them. Currently, they lie buried deep within the shadows of my soul. In fact, they have likely gone dormant, and I feel nothing at all. No hard feelings. 😁