On objection (2)

From Achilles to Jesus, the graeco-christian paideia on internal opposition (to corrupted Kings & Pharisees) precedes any “western democracy”. That’s why “Muslim democracy” is an oxymoron. Not the fault of Erdogan. Muslim culture is not based on models of INTERNAL OPPOSITION.

That’s why distinguishing between Objection & Disrespect was in the Core of western education, the fine line between liberty and tyranny. Older thread.

That’s why left-wing progressive regimes eradicate classical education from primary education (no Achilles, no Jesus). They share common core values with muslim regimes & pharisees: zero tolerance to internal objection.

The same theme is repeated in history again and again. From the christian objection to classic Roman authority to Protestant objection to Roman Catholic authority. Same root: return to the ancient texts. For the illiterate black slaves, it was the “trope of the talking book”


Source

Individual mechanics ≠ Group mechanics

This should be a golden rule, in page 1 of every evolutionary textbook. That’s why [naive] evolutionary biology can’t beat [complex] classical education. History of ancient world provide us with nice metaphors on “evolutionary fitness”

Example: Who was more fit in a battle 2500 years ago?
– A poor peasant (untrained soldier)?
– Or an aristocrat (trained for years) using cavalry (horses + rich equipment)?
In one-by-one comparison it’s obvious: cavalry.

The ancient greek army made all major decisions in a systems level: did NOT focus on cavalry (thus, denying military power & prestige to aristocrats) and created something new: phalanx (φάλαγξ). Groups of untrained (“unfit”) peasants built the most deadly fit infantry.

Students of classics often wonder how philosophers, like Socrates, describe their days in battles as simple soldiers. How on earth can you have unfit individuals in an army fit enough to beat the Persians? This is where most evolutionary textbooks fail.

Aristotle goes as far as proposing that democracy is a political regime that is ONLY fit for a collective body of peasants of middle income (military untrained). It’s [almost] impossible for a group of military trained to naturally form democratic (pluralistic) government.

If you notice, most “evolutionary” atheists focus on comparing individuals: a modern “scientist” vs. an ancient “dogmatic”. They have failed to give examples (modern or ancient) where collective atheist communities produce anything more than self-righteousness & misery.


Source

On Atheism (3)

The asymmetry of atheism
1/ The first thread was around the idea that atheists have a natural animosity to figurative speech. It seems they generally detest metaphors & any indirect way of approaching the Truth. In this Thread we have an explicit confirmation.

2/ Atheists’ antipathy for any indirect way to explore the Truth is reflected on how they use terms like “evidence”. “Show me evidence for God” is supposed to be a new argument that took humanity 3000 years to develop? And what consists evidence? A digital photo of His Throne?

3/ Hypothesis: Atheism = literalism = detest of indirect & figurative thinking. To fight against religious literalism (can’t get metaphors) → atheists develop anti-religious literalism (still can’t get metaphors). They fight fire with fire.

4/ Yuval Noah Harari just confirmed the hypothesis. Harari (atheist): “As historian I kind of developed a HORROR for METAPHORS because they have been solidified & reified”.

5/ N. Portman: why do you think LITERALISM is more helpful for you? Yuval Noah Harari (atheist): being able to observe reality as it is, to tell the difference between what is REAL and what is just stories, fictions & METAPHORS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ledJBbRfH8g&feature=youtu.be&t=815

6/ That’s why it is easy for a dogmatic atheist to debate a religious fundamentalist, since they both use the same rigid definitions (e.g. faith = blind faith) & read the Bible the same way: literalism. Ironically, it’s exactly what the Bible condemns (pharisaism).

7/ The dogmatic examples that Harari mentions belong to what Christian theologians consider idolatry. Idolatry: taking abstract notions (e.g. God) & reify them into solid materials. Those who need material representation can’t “believe” or “see” Truth in the abstract.

8/ For example, who considers a cast of Priests as a literal “representatives of God” or “representatives of religion”? Two types of people: atheists & religious dogmatics. Jesus had no problem separating the material manifestation of a doctrine (Priests) with the doctrine (God).

9/ Atheist literature is in a state of sin, not as alternative view of reality but as a distortion that:
– lacks consistency (symmetry)
– lacks self-reflection (symmetry)
Dogmatic/atheist literalism is always ASYMMETRICAL, tailored against *others*.

10/ Harari, total hypocrite, admits he sells books by telling stories that “change reality”, since humans need stories. He has a “horror for metaphors”, but makes a living by selling BS speculations and metaphors on undocumented human prehistory (assumptions with zero facts).

11/ Harari also claims we have to create new stories & metaphors to promote awareness for issues like… climate change. And it’s exactly what the Pope, in 2019, is also trying to do. With all-knowing Cardinals trying to educate the pleb with the Truth.

12/ Hypocrisy = Asymmetry
While the theologically-inclined are organically open to discuss “conspiracy theories” about possible antichrists (puppet masters) of this earth, atheists ridicule this tendency as being nonfactual, religious, conservative, conspiracist.

13/ Asymmetry 1: Until it’s time for atheists to promote their own crazy conspiracy theories on how religion controlled everything in the past and it’s still the #1 problem we have to tackle (you know the story) while atheism brings the best out of people.

14/ Asymmetry 2: in 2019, Harari still believes the #1 threat comes from “religious thinking” and not, let’s say, the crazy liberals. The teachings of Jesus are represented by what institution exactly? The Parliament? The banks? The Universities? By Who?
By -virtually- nobody.

15/ Asymmetry 3: atheists typically read history by listing examples of religious dogmatism. Typically they compare actions of ILLITERATE believers w/ a LITERATE secular atheists. They almost NEVER compare actions by people from same socio-economic background. ( cont >>)

16 / So, they don’t compare peasants w/ peasants. They don’t compare educated w/ educated, rulers w/ rulers etc. e.g.: Byzantium introduced 1st Christian Emperor (religious “dogmatism” etc.) But in Rome, we have 1st LGBT activist Emperor to compare with, his name was Nero.

17/ When it comes to notions, atheists compare [modern] scientists w/ [ancient] peasants, not w/ scientists & logicians.
➤The notion of δημιουργoς (Creator) was examined by Plato / Aristotle centuries before the gospels
➤The concepts of physics & soul have same origin: Thales


Source

On Jordan Peterson

1/ J. Peterson is one of the few modern intellectuals with the ambition to alter the contents of Jesus’ message (forming a new type of religion) by teaching biblical symbolism to ignorants. He makes staged fights w/ atheist buddies but accepts “the spirit of the world”.

2/ Peterson tried to unite two domains of study (theology & psychology) through “Biblical Symbolism”.
His core message is “clean your room” & “put your house in order” but without ever quoting Jesus on the subject. Why?

3/ The New Testament explicitly warned against “the house swept clean and put in order” as a trap for the human soul. According to Jesus “the final condition of that person” will be “worse than the first”.
Bible beats [naive] psychology. Once again.
Luke 11: 24-25

4/ Self-help ≠ Jesus-help
It’s a tragic story, but not without a lesson. Jordan Peterson’s core message comes to hunt him back. His house was out of order. And when he tried to clean it “the final condition” got, surprisingly, “worse than the first.”

5/ Of course, it’s not the time to defend what Jesus claims & why in every topic that Peterson touched. But as said before (Sept 2018), there is a reason why he has a free pass in modern society. He’s not the only one.

Comments
And, at the same time, they define every expression of human psyche as a disease. You’re a perfectionist? No, a neurotic. You’re an optimist? No, you have “optimism bias” (yes, this thing exists). You may be also “too agreeable” etc. Medicine-mimicking pseudoscience.


Source

On originality

Every original painting is a new combination of the same colours. Artists don’t invent colours. Every animal & plant is combination of same 4 nucleobases (DNA). Every masterpeace of literature combines the same letters & mostly same vocab.

Originality of Scientific Research “Copy from one, it’s plagiarism; copy from two, it’s research.” ~ Wilson Mizner (American playwright and entrepreneur)

Inspired by the front cover of this little beauty

Plagiarism vs. Originality? It’s a double-edged sword. If you’re creative enough you can play the system: appear original by putting new spin to old ideas, unknown to the public.

The moral of the story.
Tracing concepts back to history, studying their intended & unintended consequences, is not just for library rats. It can be a strong force for innovation & original thinking.

Adaptation = innovate in copying (stealing) competing ideas
e.g. concept of Windows (graphical interface) was copied from Apple (Lisa) that was copied from Xerox PARC etc.
For the ancient world the keyword is “traveller”. Philosophers were travellers.


Source

On Atheism (2)

There is a profound childish simplicity in atheistic book titles, and I don’t think it’s just marketing. Looks like a mindset with innate lack of literary wealth. They seem repelled by figures of speech & metaphors. They seem contained in a safe set of buzzwords & platitudes.

Let’s compare with some religious Christian material that come up in Amazon #1 page The Armor of God (metaphor) The Language of God (metaphor) Let there be light (metaphor) Their eyes were watching God (metaphor) … Not all, but a whole lot of christian literature is like this.

This was inspired by another atheist scholar I just discovered: P. Boghossian. Being curious of his ideas, I found out his most influential work is: Socratic pedagogy, Critical Thinking, Moral Reasoning…. he could add Reason, Enlightenment…. Same platitudes, same buzzwords.

Francis Bacon (founder of modern scientific method) noticed that atheism is a byproduct of “little philosophy”. Maybe it’s more than that: a serious literacy/linguistics challenge. An incapacity to detect ANY indirect type of Truth in ANY figurative (indirect) type of speech.

For those who still don’t get it. Let’s use an another example: @nntaleb published an excellent book, “SKIN IN THE GAME”. A figurative title consolidates a background in probability & statistics. He didn’t name it “Enlightened Reason & Science of Risks in Humanism” (Pinker-like).

Of course, there is one notable exception, which I find distasteful. Atheists often try to appropriate strong religious symbolism. “The better ANGELS of our nature”, “the FOUR HORSEMEN of atheism” etc. As low as feminists trying to appropriate James Bond.

Now, let’s do an atheistic book title generator Poison (Hitchens), Delusion (Dawkins), Lying (Harris) or simply… Bad (Offit) + God or Faith or Religion Add some Science / Reason / Enlightenment. Extra points: Moral, Critical, free will Super extra: Cosmic, Universe, Humanism


Source

Conservativism ≠ conservatism

Conservativism adopted all fundamental marxist principles
1. Conservativism = capitalism (naive materialism, no invisible hand)
2. Christian theology should not be taught in national schools
3. Truth is instrumental, not sth to die for (e.g. support fake “macedonia nation”)

conservatism ≠ conservativism
classic ≠ novel conservative spin of liberal values
“Classic: judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.” (Oxford dictionary)

To put it in other words: there is NOTHING that we consider today “new” or “progressive” that Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero etc… & the fathers of Church didn’t debate for. Nothing. Gay marriage, gun ownership, survival of the fittest, you name it.

What changed today is the FRAMING. People get “educated” by repeating catch phrases like “survival of the fittest” (Darwinian natural selection). Unable to trace this simple idea back to Darwin, copied from Malthus, taken from… the Bible! Yes, the Bible.

Widespread ignorance appears as inability to trace “modern” ideas back to their history. This gives the illusion of progress.
This illusion is ironic since, in reality, philosophy is heading back to caves (sexual & naturalistic framing of human drives to serve “mother earth”).


Source

True intentions ≠ Declared intentions

Taking people’s intentions at face value, in public discourse, is a product of failure of western education. The classics & Bible were taught for this exact reason: aiding to detect hidden demons & intentions (e.g. Homeric Trojan Horse).

Greek language (New Testament & Classics) uses verbs particularly to distinguish public intentions from internal (true) ones. μερμηρίζω δόλον: thinking [internally] to harm μηχᾰνάομαι (same root w/ word “machine”): elaborate complex plans, typically to hide intentions

Modern education, dominated by naive STEM logic, teaches the mechanical (materialistic) nature of Truth. Thus, today, the perfect Government is the one which applies the “mechanics” of democracy (e.g. voting) and applies good “mechanical” solutions (bureaucracy).

The classics, however, teach the opposite: Aristotle distinguishes forms of gvmt in good or bad based solely on the TRUE INTENTION of leadership to serve the public interest (of course intention is evaluated by actions). All types of gvmnt are bad when serving private interest.

The word Aristotle uses for intention is “proaireton” (literally “to choose before”). According to classics (and New Testament) a sin (αμαρτια) can be side effect of ignorance. But only if the person REGRETS (and adapt his/her behaviour) it may be considered as involuntary.

Example: Left-wing scholarship promotes group-based BS generalisations: If you belong to X group you’re morally superior. Thus, being poor & evil or rich & good would be a communist logical paradox. After communist atrocities, they never regretted these fundamental logical flaws.

According to christian scholarship, the evil resides:
1. inside our best leadership (Judas one of 12)
2. in our best leader (Peter denied Jesus)
3. inside the Paradise (snake)
Evil-free theories of utopia (leadership w/ no INTERNAL demonic voice) hide evil intentions.

All can be summarised in the concept of *hubris* also referred to as “pride that blinds”. Blindness means, of course, not being aware of the self-destructive side effects. But, again, it’s the product of INTENTION to outsmart instead of researching the Truth in its highest form.

Comment
Taleb: I would argue it is not hidden intentions but rather side effects of policies.
That may be true when there is a symmetry in side effects of policies (e.g. Terror in Fr Revolution). But when the side effects concern *others* (e.g. communist revolutions) and not the demagogues themselves (who become powerful), it’s the asymmetry that may reveal intention.


Source

US healthcare system

1/ Good point by Minko Cechev, a web developer at google.
Next question: how much are you payed by the hour Minko? Are you easily available for web dev appointments? This simple question boils down the difference between EU & US capitalism.

2/ US has the largest number of well-payed general practitioners in the world
= attracts the best minds from the rest of the planet
= US medical textbooks become the global standard (translated in other languages) Similarly, google & FB are backbones of computer science.

3/ The US healthcare system is an integrated part of “the winner takes it all” global capitalism. US med schools attract the best minds in the world. This doesn’t solve the internal healthcare problem. It solves the “world domination” problem.

4/ I’m not advocating for free market healthcare. In fact, it’s inhumane & unsustainable. Just saying we should carefully analyse the parameters of every game. When a country becomes “second” in any domain, it loses in a “winner takes it all” game.

5/ Show me the country that has the *largest number* of imported well payed general practitioners. And I’ll show you students around the world who burn the midnight oil to fulfil “the dream” (reading US textbooks, theories & practices). You can take the USMLE exam… in India.

6/ Guns is not the only issue US culture can’t handle anymore. Just take a look at new movies, Netflix series & songs. By eliminating conservative voices (liberal & neoliberal final solution) they created a monoculture: sexualised, dark, irrational.
In one word: unsustainable.


Source

Radicalisation and The Talibans Of San Francisco

1/ Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998.
The Nouvel Observateur‘s reporter asked Brzezinski: “And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?”

2/ Brzezinski responded: “What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

3/ The Brzezinski geopolitical strategy was clear: radicalise the muslims to fight against the Russians. Radicals are political INSTRUMENT serving a greater goal.
The unknown Osama bin Laden was presented in western media as a “freedom fighter”. (The Independent, 6/12/1993)

4/ According to psychotherapists, radicalisation takes place in 3 steps:
1. dis-identification (loss of a fragile identity)
2. conversion
4. re-identification (radical new identity)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014385518301312?via%3Dihub

5/ Radicalisation = crush of a fragile identity, loss of (pro)social common identity.

6/ The Brzezinski scheme was mainstream until very recently.
If the bombs dropped by Bush administration didn’t manage to radicalise enough muslims, the task was accomplished by Fox News (in US) & CNN (globally) constantly bombing the airwaves with anti-muslim paranoia.

7/ Remember this video? It was one of the first youtube virals making fun of ridiculous CNN worldwide anti-muslim propaganda, all day, every day, with reporters “in the field”. This took place until very recently. (now in better video quality)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0m4rcx0of4

8/ Today, suddenly, CNN discovered that muslims are victims of islamophobia. The perpetrators discovered their victims. The agenda changed, and now they use their ex-victims against their new victims: white christians.

9/ By spreading shameless lies on race, slavery & distorting western history they try to crush the fragile identity of uneducated white christians (1st step of radicalisation).

10/ Next step is to “help” white radicals create ISIS-style of terrorist networks (see how Obama administration politically armed Muslim Brotherhood. Google had people in the field coordinating local radicalisation across the “Arab spring”.)

11/ The same exact network, CNN & Google, use the same techniques to radicalise the domestic US population. Mobilising the ex-“evil muslims” against the current “evil white christians”. The same naive viewers who fell for the first trap, are falling for the second.

12/ “Le Monde Diplomatique”, in its last cover, hosts an interesting headline “Les talibans de San Francisco” (The Talibans of San Fransisco) were it presents a shocking reality: the School commission of San Fransisco decided to tear down historical paintings… like Talibans.

13/ Another article, from the latest Le Monde Diplomatique on US higher education: “La gauche cannibale, un syndrome universitaire” (“The cannibal left, a university syndrome”)

14/ To make the long story short, the moral of the story comes from the official memoirs written by by David Rockefeller. In his own book, by his own words. The title is “Populist Paranoia” (page 405).
Please read it carefully.

15/ Another “war on terrorism”. It’s exactly that. By the same apparatus (including CNN) that orchestrated the previous one. Instead of “evil muslims” ( the “axis of evil”) the target is “evil white christians”.

16/ CNN-GOOGLE radicalisation apparatus. by a Google insider
Source


Source