Login | Register

Post Reply 
Globohomo
03-19-2019, 04:49 AM
Post: #31
RE: Globohomo
(03-19-2019 04:38 AM)jho Wrote:  Liberalism is a disease, I will agree. Enlightenment Era Classical liberalism is where went astray as a civilization, IMHO.

My sympathies are with the Stoics, Cynics, Neoplatonists, Orthodox Christians and Traditional Catholics.

weren't Catholics/Christians kind of "Globalist"? Didn't they wish to convert the masses which would create one shared culture/ideology shared in common?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-19-2019, 04:51 AM
Post: #32
RE: Globohomo
(03-19-2019 04:47 AM)jho Wrote:  EY, thinks speaking the Queens English is acting white.
[Image: the-black-kids-make-fun-of-other-blackki...392732.png]


[Image: Screen-Shot-2016-06-29-at-10.35.47-AM.png]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-19-2019, 04:52 AM
Post: #33
RE: Globohomo
(03-19-2019 04:38 AM)jho Wrote:  Liberalism is a disease, I will agree. Enlightenment Era Classical liberalism is where went astray as a civilization, IMHO.

My sympathies are with the Stoics, Cynics, Neoplatonists, Orthodox Christians and Traditional Catholics.

"Kumbaya", "we are all one" BS, as EY puts it, is occultism. It is inversion of the truth.

Globohomo is destroying traditional cultures and ethnic traditions the world over. White culture and tradition first and foremost!

Think of someone like John Stuart Mill.

"John Stuart Mill (20 May 1806 – 8 May 1873), was a British philosopher, political economist, and civil servant. One of the most influential thinkers in the history of classical liberalism, he contributed widely to social theory, political theory, and political economy. Dubbed "the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century",[8] Mill's conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social control.[9]

Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by his predecessor Jeremy Bentham. He contributed to the investigation of scientific methodology...

A member of the Liberal Party, he was also the second Member of Parliament to call for women's suffrage after Henry Hunt in 1832"

Wow, utilitarianism sure sounded good when it was explained to me in Philosophy 101! It takes some cynicism, to see how it can EASILY be used to justify evil.

[Image: Criticisms+of+Utilitarianism.jpg]

It is actually quite easy to see the problem with it, when you set out to. People will tend to think about THEIR OWN happiness, value it higher than those of others, and thereby justify doing what THEY want themselves, regardless of what happens to others.

Think of a billionaire, who donates some money to philanthropy. In their mind, that justified the cruelty, fraud, and theft, involved in accruing the billions in the first place. Think of communism. Same thing.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-19-2019, 04:58 AM
Post: #34
RE: Globohomo
(03-19-2019 04:49 AM)karasu Wrote:  
(03-19-2019 04:38 AM)jho Wrote:  Liberalism is a disease, I will agree. Enlightenment Era Classical liberalism is where went astray as a civilization, IMHO.

My sympathies are with the Stoics, Cynics, Neoplatonists, Orthodox Christians and Traditional Catholics.

weren't Catholics/Christians kind of "Globalist"? Didn't they wish to convert the masses which would create one shared culture/ideology shared in common?
Certainly that's what they have become. I'm talking about before the Carolingian Era, and before the Great Schism.

Regardless of that, new converts to Catholicism were always allowed room for their cultural beliefs and practices. These cultures have retained much of their traditions for the most part, they have just adapted it into the Catholic feast day schedule. That's were we get believes like Voodoo, Santeria, Santa Muerte, etc.

That type of Globalism isn't a corporate global-monoculture, IMHO.

“Signs and symbols rule the world, not words nor laws.”
― Confucius
jamthesignal.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-19-2019, 05:04 AM
Post: #35
RE: Globohomo
(03-19-2019 04:52 AM)Chaos Reigns Wrote:  [Image: Criticisms+of+Utilitarianism.jpg]

It is actually quite easy to see the problem with it, when you set out to. People will tend to think about THEIR OWN happiness, value it higher than those of others, and thereby justify doing what THEY want themselves, regardless of what happens to others.

Think of a billionaire, who donates some money to philanthropy. In their mind, that justified the cruelty, fraud, and theft, involved in accruing the billions in the first place. Think of communism. Same thing.

My favorite modern philosopher is Albert Schinz, someone most people have never heard of. That's understandable. He went to go to war with John Dewey and the pragmatists, pretty much by himself.

We declare pragmatism to be bad, not indeed in its moral consequences (which, as a matter of fact, ought not to count in philosophy), but because it introduces into our fashion of thinking a degrading sophistry. Pragmatism, in its modern systematized form, would scarcely have been possible in earlier times. It has, however, become so since erudite scholars and original thinkers have deemed it fit to cater to a public incapable of taking a genuine interest in their researches and their speculations, a public which in the last resort wishes simply to amuse itself with these as it amuses itself with everything else, — the public of our modern democracies. We feel flattered by the plaudits of the crowd, and to procure these we are satisfied to get down to the level of those whom as thinkers we should disdain. Popular science, popular art, popular theology — only one thing was lacking — popular philosophy.

Anti-Pragmatism; an Examination into the Respective Rights of Intellectual Aristocracy and Social Democracy (1909), p. xv.

“Signs and symbols rule the world, not words nor laws.”
― Confucius
jamthesignal.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-19-2019, 05:41 AM
Post: #36
RE: Globohomo
Well, I don't know how pragmatism is defined, but I definitely find myself leaning towards being pragmatic these days, over idealistic, which is how I spent my youth.

These days, I don't think there is ONE philosophy for all places, times, cultures. Like globohomo, but for philosophy.

I know that sounds 'wishy washy', but it is because circumstances in the world are so varied.

For example, take the 'ancient' Greek city states, and the late medieval Russian empire.

Is it correct to think that there should be ONE system of governance that suits both, perfectly? Be it, democratic republic or rule by some military authority in combination with a religious authority (King + Patriarch)?

Maybe both had it right? Democratic republic for the maritime trading city states, and more authoritarianism for a sprawling land-based empire, that will constantly have neighbors nibbling at its edges, if it doesn't project itself as being EXTREMELY STRONG.

Or maybe at one time you can have/need an emperor, who is both the religious and military authority, to deal with a problem, such as extreme corruption, but when the corruption has been dealt with, you revert to democratic republic. And yes, I know history is not exactly full of examples of successful peaceful transitions from authoritarianism to a republic with widespread suffrage.

I visualize it as different points and different directions on a torus.
[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...mp;amp;f=1]

Depending on your position and relative velocity, a different philosophy would be ideal.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-19-2019, 03:57 PM
Post: #37
RE: Globohomo
(03-19-2019 05:41 AM)Chaos Reigns Wrote:  Well, I don't know how pragmatism is defined, but I definitely find myself leaning towards being pragmatic these days, over idealistic, which is how I spent my youth.
I'm talking strictly of Philosophical Pragmatism aka post-Modernism. Not to be confused with ordinary people behaving in a pragmatic way or practicing practicality.

The Socialist Vision and Global Connections of the National Education Association
Quote:It happened slowly -- largely through stealth and deception. Today's educational establishment, birthed over a century ago by John Dewey and his associates, learned early the tactics of social transformation: infiltration, propaganda, secret councils and continual multiplication through networks of influential new organizations. New York city Mayor John Hylan described it well back in 1922,

"... the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, State and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of self-created screen. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers and every agency created for the public protection."[1] D. L. Cuddy.

This malignant "octopus" grew until its tentacles reached around the world. Strengthened by its countless affiliates -- including tax-exempt foundations that shared its vision and funded its programs -- NEA leaders and their international partners won power and influence in every strategic corner of the world. All along the way, they were molding minds that would fit their quest for a new world order.

From the beginning, they were determined to destroy the old education system in order to build the collective world of their dreams. Reporting to the annual NEA meeting in 1935, Willard Givens (soon-to-be executive secretary) wrote: "...many drastic changes must be made.... A dying 'laissez-faire' must be completely destroyed and all of us, including the 'owners', must be subjected to a large degree of social control.... The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual. It must seek to give him understanding of the transition to a new social order."[2] Samuel Blumenfeld.

Psychology would provide the "scientific" tools for that transition. Dewey -- who equated individual thinking with insanity -- had begun experiments with behavioral psychology even before 1900. Half a century later, B.F. Skinner outlined the practical steps to behavioral control. "Operant conditioning shapes behavior as a sculptor shapes a lump of clay," he wrote in Science and Human Behavior (1953).

His goal for the human "clay" was no secret. Five years earlier, he had exposed his vision of a reshaped humanity: "What was needed was a new conception of man, compatible with our scientific knowledge," he wrote in Walden Two. (1948) [3] Charlotte Iserbyt.

Like their Soviet counterparts, who also envisioned a "scientifically" engineered human prototype (the "new Soviet man"), these revolutionaries knew well that their biggest obstacle would be Christianity. Therefore their main assault would be directed at the uncompromising truths of the Bible. Trust and loyalty to God must be replaced by loyalty and submission to the greater whole -- the collective global village -- represented by a Marxist-oriented world government.

Their goals and tactics haven't changed. Take religion. Back in 1933, John Dewey co-authored the first Humanist Manifesto which called for a new world religion: "...a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present."

They have come a long way. Today, Christianity is banned from our government schools. Instead, students are immersed in the new global spirituality -- a contemporary, idealistic blend of all religions -- through classroom myths, rituals, symbols and multicultural experiences. This new spiritual synthesis has been adapted to fit the amoral, religious standards outlined by UNESCO's Declaration on the role of religion in a culture of peace and Declaration of Principles on Tolerance.

“Signs and symbols rule the world, not words nor laws.”
― Confucius
jamthesignal.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-30-2019, 05:27 AM
Post: #38
RE: Globohomo
https://www.gty.org/library/questions/QA...-is-it-bad
What's wrong with pragmatism?

After all, common sense involves a measure of legitimate pragmatism, doesn't it? If a dripping faucet works fine after you replace the washers, for example, it is reasonable to assume that bad washers were the problem. If the medicine your doctor prescribes produces harmful side effects or has no effect at all, you need to ask if there's a remedy that works. Such simple pragmatic realities are generally self-evident.

But when pragmatism is used to make judgments about right and wrong, or when it becomes a guiding philosophy of life and ministry, it inevitably clashes with Scripture. Spiritual and biblical truth is not determined by testing what "works" and what doesn't. We know from Scripture, for example, that the gospel often does not produce a positive response (1 Cor. 1:22, 23; 2:14). On the other hand, Satanic lies and deception can be quite effective (Matt. 24:23, 24; 2 Cor. 4:3, 4). Majority reaction is no test of validity (cf. Matt. 7:13, 14), and prosperity is no measure of truthfulness (cf. Job 12:6). Pragmatism as a guiding philosophy of ministry is inherently flawed. Pragmatism as a test of truth is nothing short of satanic.

Nevertheless, an overpowering surge of ardent pragmatism is sweeping through evangelicalism. Traditional methodology—most notably preaching—is being discarded or downplayed in favor of newer means, such as drama, dance, comedy, variety, side-show histrionics, pop-psychology, and other entertainment forms. The new methods supposedly are more "effective"—that is, they draw a bigger crowd. And since the chief criterion for gauging the success of a church has become attendance figures, whatever pulls in the most people is accepted without further analysis as good. That is pragmatism.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-30-2019, 05:32 AM
Post: #39
RE: Globohomo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_vie...nd_charity
Evolution of attitudes towards wealth and poverty in the Tanakh

In contrast to the consistently negative view of poverty, Kravitz and Olitzky describe a rapidly changing attitude towards acceptance of wealth as desirable as the Hebrews transitioned from being nomadic shepherds to farmers and ultimately to city dwellers. They assert that the three divisions in the Tanakh starting with Abraham can be viewed as representing three chronological periods in Jewish history: the wilderness, the land and the city. The Hebrews are depicted in the Tanakh first as nomadic shepherds, then as farmers and finally as urban dwellers.

Kravitz and Olitzky assert that, during the time of the Patriarchs through the years in the wilderness, wealth seemed to have been "held in common with no real distinctions between the rich and the poor". However, they note that the possibility for individual wealth arose as the Hebrews transitioned from a nomadic pastoral society to a more agrarian economy. They cite early prophets such as Amos, who viewed themselves as the heirs of the pastoral tradition and spoke out against those who oppressed the poor. The transition of Jewish society to an urban economy in the Hellenistic period intensified the societal issues surrounding poverty and wealth. Kravitz and Olitzky characterize rabbinic Judaism as "the Judaism of the city" rather than that of the shepherd or the farmer. As such, rabbinical Judaism found it necessary to address the needs of business and commerce including the need to raise money and protect capital investments. As an example of such accommodations, Kravitz and Olitzky cite Hillel's invention of p'rozbol, a legal fiction to nullify the requirements of the sh'mitah. According to Joseph Lifshitz, "Jewish tradition insists that man can, and should, have a powerful impact on the material world.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-30-2019, 05:34 AM
Post: #40
RE: Globohomo
[Image: michael-horowitz-quote-things-shifted-a-...he-jew.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-30-2019, 07:08 AM
Post: #41
RE: Globohomo
[Image: robbing%2Bstudents.jpg]

If we educate the students of today the opposite of how we educated the students of yesterday, we can steal the future for ourselves.

John Dewey, what he actually meant
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-30-2019, 07:24 AM
Post: #42
RE: Globohomo
[Image: 64555-333787396719890-1465346194-n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-30-2019, 07:35 AM
Post: #43
RE: Globohomo
John Dewey Is a Fraud
By Bruce Deitrick Price


There is one little problem at this point: almost nobody in America was asking for this transformation. So Dewey was in the awkward position of redecorating your house when you didn't ask for it to be redecorated, or more precisely seducing your kids when you don't want your kids to be seduced.

Dewey basically had to ignore law, precedent, tradition, legislatures, voters, elections, expectations of families, and the needs of society. He attempted an end-run, and thus a conspiracy. His project is best called Socialism-on-the-Sly.

John Dewey and cohorts were so smugly confident that their views were correct, they were not apologetic about hiding their plans, using false terminology, and working subversively and covertly at all times.


Dewey and his co-conspirators were professors of education. Schools were where they felt comfortable. When they thought about transforming the country, they certainly didn't think about campaigning for office or writing articles in the popular press (except occasionally). No, they had a much more direct scheme.

John D. Rockefeller was the billionaire that nobody liked. His PR experts said, "Mr. Rockefeller, give away one dollar so they let you keep the other nine." Rockefeller did this to an extraordinary degree, creating universities and many other famous institutions. In particular, he created Teachers College at Columbia University. Wannabe teachers came there to be indoctrinated into the new ways. These teachers -- this whole process started around 1910 -- then returned to their communities and began work on the raw material known as students.

So it's obvious at a glance that there was a common element throughout Dewey's life and work. He was doing something on the sly because the public didn't ask for his ideas and would have rejected them if they had had the chance.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2019, 05:11 PM
Post: #44
RE: Globohomo
(03-18-2019 08:40 AM)jho Wrote:  I like to use the invasive species analogy. Humanity is a hybrid-species after-all.

Every race evolved over tens of thousands of years within their native environment/climate.

We can't just allow Asian carp to take over over rivers in Illinois because they have no natural predators. They will out-breed and out-compete for resources, and native species will die out.

Humans are the apex predator of the world, and should be doing the jobs of the animal Apex predators, in order to control the resources down the food-chain. We shouldn't be banning Whaling & Shark-hunting, or getting sad when some dentist kills Cecil the Lion.

The same should apply to a Nations. Those people who are the dominate culture within a nation shouldn't have to answers to the whims of every minority that lives among them as guests. The predominant culture deserves to preserve their language and their traditions.




“Signs and symbols rule the world, not words nor laws.”
― Confucius
jamthesignal.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2019, 05:15 PM
Post: #45
RE: Globohomo
[Image: The-zones-of-tension-between-Africanized...ropean.png]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)