Oeaohoo

This is a very childish view of authority. In fact, life is much harder at the top. ‘The most spiritual human beings, as the strongest, find their happiness where others would find their destruction: in the labyrinth, in severity towards themselves and others, in attempting; their joy lies in self-constraint: with them asceticism becomes nature, need, instinct. They consider the hard task a privilege, to play with vices which overwhelm others a recreation… Knowledge - a form of asceticism.’ ‘Inequality of rights is the condition for the existence of rights at all. - A right is a privilege. The privilege of each is determined by the nature of his being. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the mediocre. Life becomes harder and harder as it approaches the heights - the coldness increases, the responsibility increases. A high culture is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base, its very first prerequisite is a strongly and soundly consolidated mediocrity.’ ‘Whom among today's rabble do I hate the most? The Socialist rabble, the Chandala apostles who undermine the worker's instinct, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his little state of being - who make him envious, who teach him revengefulness... Injustice never lies in unequal rights, it lies in the claim to ‘equal’ rights… What is bad? But I have already answered that question: everything that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revengefulness. - The anarchist and the Christian have a common origin…’ Nietzsche in The Antichrist crushing all your delusions! I spoke about an esoteric priestly class, which you have immediately interpreted as “strong man”. You think you’re being clever when you’re just being silly. This attitude towards hierarchy is exactly what every stupid TV show, mass-market novel and mediocre atheist “intellectual” promulgates today. Oh yeah… Woke Capital is the perfect earthly embodiment of transcendent wisdom and beatitude. What could possibly be the problem?! It’s practically the Absolute incarnate!

Anyway, it’s 3:30AM here in England. I’m going to sleep… I will have wonderful dreams of an esoteric avatar of Absolute Consciousness destroying all traces of relativistic tomfoolery!

That is what democracy makes history show you. Every regime will of course rationalise it’s own existence. I agree that democracy is (or at least, was - there are many signs that it will be difficult to sustain democracy in the West for much longer) the best system for our time. As Schuon brilliantly expressed, however, that is not because of progress or “evolution” - it is because our times are extremely decadent. Consequently, there are so few people remaining who would be endowed with the spiritual integrity required to embody absolute authority. That is what “history has shown” most people who have enquired into this subject, the historical significance of democracy.

Joking aside, I’m not sure what you are getting at here. It is obviously important that there be a certain affinity between the rulers and the ruled. That doesn’t mean that you can’t “contrast” them.

The only thing which IS is Absolute. Everything else has only a relative existence! *The pseudo-religion of humanitarian egalitarian emerges…* “Oh no! A group of people with authority over others! It can only be… OPPRESSION!” “It is impossible that anyone could be selfless enough to rule benevolently! I know this, because as a relativistic pluralist, I am so selfless!”

Come on… That is just a silly word game, on the basis that anyone who wants to change the status quo is a progressive. We all know that certain historical trends have taken place over the last years, decades or in some cases even centuries which certain people regard as positive and others as negative: the former are progressives, the latter are conservatives. Society is increasingly ruled by people of the former camp. Most so-called “conservatives” are only conserving yesterday’s progressive victories, hence the joke: conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit. Yes, Christianity is senile. Like an old man, it’s body is falling apart. Everything dies. Welcome to reality - and away from Spiral Progress fantasy world where everything just gets better forever! Why not have something within society which points to that constant? A priestly class, an initiated esoteric elite, perhaps… As your saying points out, there are so many universal features underlying this change. I still don’t understand why you want to focus on the relative. (I mean, I do understand. Like many people today, you clearly have some kind of personal complaint with dogmatic religion and are rebelling against this. Fine, but I’m not interested in that).

So what? Better than the pseudo-religions of evolutionary progressivism and humanitarian egalitarianism. So why prioritise one over the other? If the absolute is half of existence, why are you so keen to organise society relativistically?

I will even admit that, precisely for this reason, conservative complaints against “cultural relativism” are fuel for the fire of liberalism. Any intelligent person today knows that, short of a divine intervention, the present society is on the course of relativism. One of the reasons I admire people like Schuon and Guénon is that they understood this. They were able to uphold a Traditional perspective whilst acknowledging the water we swim in, which is cultural relativism. Not when the machine has been hijacked by liberals.

Heaven forbid! The ultimate goal of life is to escape the subjective state of relativism and realise the Absolute Truth! Subjective relativism is the endless wheel of generation; Absolute Truth is liberation. Of course. It is ridiculous to oppose relativism if you aren’t opposing it with something absolute. I, like Schuon in that essay, am opposing relativism from the perspective of an esoteric universalism, not from the perspective of a mediocre “classic liberal” conservatism which itself knows very little of what lies beyond the relative plane. Also, an objective view of things today ought to reveal that there can be no return to an absolutist Christianity, which is implicit in someone like JP’s critique of relativism. Even if it could be enforced, it would require an extreme tyranny which would not be spiritually fruitful. I’m just denying the idea that the new-fangled relativism represents some great advancement.

From this essay: “Be that as it may, one of the noteworthy traits of the twentieth century is the confusion, now habitual, between evolution and decadence: there is no decadence, no impoverishment, no falsification that people do not try to excuse with the aid of the relativistic argument of “evolution”, reinforced as this is by the most inappropriate and erroneous associations. Thus relativism, cleverly instilled into public opinion, paves the way for all kinds of corruption while at the same time keeping watch lest any kind of healthy reaction might put the brakes on this slide toward the abyss.” YES! Pure truth! There we have it - a Conservative who grasps contemporary relativism to the point of understanding its absurdity!

http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/The_Contradiction_of_Relativism-by_Frithjof_Schuon.aspx

The end of what Guénon aptly called The Reign of Quantity would be a start. I don’t think that anything grand can take place until the enforcement of smallness is ended. The Last Men who surround us are deadly opposed to all greatness of character and nobility of soul! The Last Man is the absolute antithesis of grand plans and aspirations. For so long as he rules, aspiration must be a private affair.

Yeah! Rage WITH the machine!

Every aspect of this is just absurd. 1) You can study a theory without agreeing with it. 2) Even within the confines of the theory, merely studying it is unlikely to change your “stage”. 3) Spiral Dynamics is just a booster pack for progressive leftism. I could equally well say: it’s impossible to be a liberal after studying Plato’s Republic, Polybius’ Anacyclosis, Vico’s The New Science, Spengler’s Decline of the West, Guenon’s Perennial Traditionalism, and so on… You’re just putting this one stupid system on a pedestal. Maybe. I still see no reason why a metaphysical understanding of relativism has to translate to relativism in the political sense. What about the understanding of absolutism? Is there not an Absolute?

There is the important caveat to what I have said above: it is metaphysical, but only in so far as the culture which is dissolving was itself a vehicle for the realisation of metaphysical truth. For example, the dissolution of Christendom is simultaneously the death of Christ as a way to God. I’m just not interested in discussing this. I don’t understand how you could have no sense of what is censored today. I also see it as somewhat irrelevant. The main thing here was poking fun at the self-satisfied liberal’s view of conservatism.

I think you are conflating an abstract grasp of relativity with the idea that we should apply relativism on a societal level. When conservatives complain about something like “cultural relativism”, they generally aren’t talking about anything metaphysical. They just mean the failure of their culture to uphold the values which it once held dear. The failure of a culture to uphold its values is equivalent to the dissolution of that culture, in the same way that the failure of your body to maintain life is death. Of course, you are instead filtering all of this through a framework of progress, in which case this trend towards relativism is framed as an enlightened advancement.

Far-righters just want to boot minorities out of their countries. Mainstream conservatives go on about assimilation. The real question there is: assimilation to what? What is really left to assimilate to? “Here, minority, take your pick: which sports team do you want to support? which generic urban housing unit do you want to feel a vague sense of “community” within? are you woke or are you libertarian?” There is barely any culture left to assimilate to… Anyway, the supposed double standard that you are pointing out here seems extremely tenuous to me. Come on. You are not a little babe who has just opened their eyes on the world for the first time!

I have noticed that some conservatives have started trying to co-opt the claim of being “oppressed” recently. I think it is a really weak strategy. As if any progressive is going to shed a tear for the poor oppressed conservative… They’re just going to laugh at them because they hate them. I would prefer the word suppressed. I think people in general have a sense that, given a level playing field, ideas that are considered “conservative” today (which for any normal age are mere common sense) would triumph, hence the need for heavy censorship everywhere to maintain a liberal consensus.

No need to overdo it… Although, I do expect something like this.

Marvellous! If only all wars could happen this way. A lot of lives could have been saved in Ukraine if a similar strategy had been taken…

It is debate itself which goes round in circles; experto crede… As such, I am not really interested in debate. I’ve shared many of my views around here already.

Of course. Doesn’t mean that we ought to submit to nonsense. Yes, absolutely. In most cases, the liberal ideology is a pure expression of selfishness: whether it is a case of marginal communities who benefit from the weakening of the old order, or the majority who just want to enjoy a “cosmopolitan” lifestyle by tasting every cuisine, going on fancy holidays and enjoying a buffet of sexual partners from all around the globe… It is so grotesque that all of this masquerades as some grand expression of selfless compassion. I don’t understand how so few can notice that, in practice, “caring about everybody” looks identical to caring about nobody other than yourself. I don’t agree with the claim that the truth must lie in the middle. Of course there is the “golden mean” and the “middle way” and the “via media” and all of that… However, these are metaphysical notions referring to an “immutability in the middle” (the Taoist equivalent) of dualities which are fundamental to existence. The polarity between “Survival” and Leftism is not really innate to existence. It is only the more or less arbitrary product of a certain place and time. As such, the truth might lie anywhere between them… I, for one, clearly don’t think that it is to be found on the side of Leftism!

It must be the mystical power of prophecy you have developed from watching all that Byron Katie!

Exactly.