Weaponizing Sex'n'Drugs'n'Rock&Roll????

Richard Stanley said:
In the 1920s(?), I believe, a Harvard study was undertaken to determine why Blacks and the Irish were so criminally oriented, in relative terms. The conclusion, apparently based upon Romantic Movement 'feelings' and little else, determined that the Irish could be successfully integrated into 'proper' (white) American society if certain programs were provided to them, but that these programs would not work for Blacks. So the programs were solely instituted for the Irish and today nobody thinks twice, other than the occasional ethnic joke, more often self-deprecating. While I have not studied what these programs consisted of, I believe they were cultural reframing programs.
Keeping the two ethnic groups at loggerheads. Reminds me of the American Civil War when Irish-led anti-war riots broke out in New York, helping to trigger the Gettysberg speech since northern Whites increasingly did not want to become soldiers!
Richard Stanley said:
So what you, Horkheimer, Adorno and the others are saying is that Culture, writ large and small, is what 'frames' peoples' POV's and social behaviors. Culture, of which Religion is a subset, is a Tool. A Tool which can be used for good or bad purposes, depending on the beholder of the Tool.
Too right! And the (big C) Cultural effect is overwhelmingly powerful since it acts on us even in our pre-lingual state and in subtle ways even when we are adults. In the "Dialectic of Enlightenment" A&H (my abbreviation for Adorno & Horkheimer, as opposed to AH - Adolf Hitler) attack the Enlightenment, but in general for the wrong reasons! My attack on the Enlightenment is based on a quite different approach, even though there are some parallels.

I only joined the website because I had guessed your next sentence from the postings, partly too from hearing Joe's diatribes with Jan Irvin.o_O
Richard Stanley said:
Jerry and I have been remiss in also not informing you earlier that we have issues with the use of the terms 'Right' and 'Left'. Especially if someone is advancing a still yet vague notion of an enlightened fascism. The terms are too freighted over time to allow a clear communication of meaning.

Yesterday's Liberal is today's Conservative, and this is important when considering that the OG Left was breaking away from Monarchism. So today, when discussing on a sliding scale, when one mentions the Right or a Conservative, is one talking about a Monarchist, a CryptoMonarchist, a Fascist, or an OG Liberal?
This is exactly the fundamental issue - in that the fundamental principles for an effective and just philosophy for running the world simply do not exist.

I might bring in Martin Heidegger (the supposed evil crypto-Nazi) at this point, since when in April, just before signing up for your website, I finally finished reading the translation of his work (Heraclitus: The Inception of Occidental Thinking and Heraclitus' Doctrine of the Logos, Bloomsbury Academic, London 2018). There I at last understood his philosophy when I realized what he meant by "presumptuous mismeasurement" in place of "insolence" as the translation for hubris in Diels Fragment 43 of Heraclitus; conversely I also could now understand where he had gone wrong as well. In an interview decades after he wrote this work Heidegger stated that "only a god could save us now"; but today however armed with his original insights - since he could not see how to apply his discovery - I can readily solve his conundrum and solve the question of postmodernity.

See also:

https://solidarity-us.org/atc/45/p4883/

a massively convoluted article by Marxist Loren Goldner (and Tony Smith's adjacent similar article) attacking postmodern concerns (the original text had cartoons, found in my photocopy issued by said Marxist party, the funniest being of Levi-Strauss, Barthes and Lacan dressed as natives sitting in the jungle listening to a native-dressed Foucault). Goldner mentioned Heidegger negatively, but his work finally convinced me to be his opponent, to ditch popular Marxist thought by 1994, leading to my expulsion from a Marxist Party for opposing their actions against now obsolete Fascist grouplets as counterproductive. Only after this did I gradually come to understand Nietzsche and, only this year, Heidegger.
Richard Stanley said:
Some on the contemporary American Right may indeed be correct that certain programs of the latter decades, tailored to the poor (of all groups), have had a deleterious effect on such as Blacks and others. And maybe this was by design. That said, it was government spending for WWII and later, that created the wider American middle class, including many Blacks. Prior to this time was the massive financial inequities across all groups as remnants of the Robber Baron period.

Today, the contemporary Right (whoever they all are) complain about too many burdens upon the taxpayers, almost always forgetting that their legal heroes created the ability of those who CAN, to squirrel their financial nuts away in various hiding places. It use to be tax havens, and now it is almost exclusively via the use of shell corporations.
How true, shell corporations that survive by the support of hollow philosophical shells and the shills that promote them.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
I need to expand on what I meant by
(Gabriel Jackson's statement on the Spanish Revolution)
These are two statements by Jackson (The Spanish Republic and the Civil War 1931-1939, Princeton University Press, 1965) on the Spanish Revolution on pages 313-314 and 368 concerning the Spanish Revolution's degeneration by July 1937, a year into the revolution.
Gabriel Jackson said:
During these same months the revolutionary tide began to ebb in Catalonia... accumulating food and supply problems, and the experience of administrating villages, frontier posts and public utilities, had rapidly shown the anarchists the unsuspected complexity of modern society. ... Among the proletariat, the naïve optimism of the previous August [1936] had given way to feelings of resentment and of somehow having been cheated.
Infuriated at Jackson's observations, Noam Chomsky (The Chomsky Reader p. 94) claimed the exact opposite to explain the anger and resentment of the Anarchists. Note that the Communist Party was playing the middle class role in Spain, as opposed to the Leftist Anarchists!
Chomsky said:
In fact, the revolutionary tide began to ebb in Catalonia under a middle-class attack led by the Communist party, not because of a recognition of the "complexity of modern society". And it was moreover quite true that the Communist-dominated central government attempted, with much success, to hamper collectivized industry and agriculture and to disrupt the collectivization of commerce.
Given the failure of Lenin's War Communism to feed the cities, it had to be abandoned and replaced with the NEP as described in the initial posting on the thread, hence the activity of the middle-class Spanish Communist Party is readily understandable - to anyone who isn't a consummate Anarchist actor like Chomsky!

What Chomsky refuses to admit is the unsuspected complexity of modern society - the need for experts, e.g. in medicine, engineering, science etc. especially given new research. In fact as the context of his work reveals, Chomsky has to covertly agree with Jackson, in that the Spanish Communists, unlike the Anarchists, realized the complexity of modern society and had to try to satisfy the Republican businessmen so as to create economic order by setting up capitalistic trade patterns once more - alienating the anarchists as they did so! Hence Franco's path to victory was smoothed by the Communists who were caught in the middle - the anarchists ironically having followed the line blessed by Lenin 20 years earlier in the Bolshevik Revolution, the guaranteed road to egalitarian democratic failure!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Hence Franco's path to victory was smoothed by the Communists who were caught in the middle - the anarchists ironically having followed the line blessed by Lenin 20 years earlier in the Bolshevik Revolution, the guaranteed road to egalitarian democratic failure!
Interesting then that the most extreme version of libertarianism is anarchism, and once you buy in at the beginning the inevitable logic and rhetoric of the formers' thinking this leads you to the anarchist position.

I think that it is clear that any unified political force which has either the overt or covert support of powerful 'agency' (I'm talking human) has a clear advantage over a disorganized coalition of otherwise disparate interests. Again, I don't see the connection between the revolutionary process dynamics and the issue of relative political merits in a stable and peaceful environment. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Of course, as a former libertarian anarchist, I have actually sat at a Spanish hotel bar talking (nervously) to a former Francoist Guardia Civil commander. BTW, I am no longer a libertarian anarchist, as these people are indeed much worse than herds of cats.

As a former engineer, I believe that humans should seek to find an ideal form of governance, that works for everybody, beginning with dignity. No more socialism for the rich only. And no more squirrely shell corporations period.

So I'm waiting for you to explain what exactly the Frankfort School was degrading in Western Civilization, which was built by Guns, Germs, and Steel according to Diamond. And I say it was built with that and the globalist Cultural Monarchism (Jesus is the King of Kings) of the Bible and their useful idiot readers. Now these idiots think that they should be nationalists and want to blame Globalism on ... whom?

As such, why would the Hanoverian Crown of England knight such as the Beatles? (Note how I have brought this thread back on topic. :))
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Western Civilization, which was built by Guns, Germs, and Steel according to Diamond.
I did read Guns, Germs, and Steel, many years ago, and not long after it came out. As I recall, it was not about the foundations or establishment of Western Civilization. Instead, it was addressing the reasons why European nations were successful in conquering and colonizing the rest of the planet. He argued that it was not due to superior genetics or cultural aspects. Instead, he said that geographical accidents led to European cultures being the first to develop firearms and industry, and also that their living conditions caused them to accidentally develop endemic diseases to which indigenous cultures had no immunity.

Claude recently claimed that Diamond made some sort of racist comment about Neanderthals in Guns, Germs, and Steel. I don't recall for sure whether Diamond mentioned Neanderthals in the book, but it would be consistent with the theme. And I think one can discuss the possibility of modern human superiority over Neanderthals, without being judged racist in a modern sociological sense. GGS was, on the contrary, a powerful argument against the idea that White European Judeo-Christian success was based on racial superiority.

In an interview decades after he wrote this work Heidegger stated that "only a god could save us now"; but today however armed with his original insights - since he could not see how to apply his discovery - I can readily solve his conundrum and solve the question of postmodernity.
Heidegger's collected works span an incredible 102 volumes, of which I haven't read, much less understood, a single word. And it looks like Wikipedia isn't going to help. Some editor attached a maintenance tag complaining that the existing article section on his philosophy " is obfuscatory and the logical sequence between one sentence and the next is obscure throughout."

So, Claude, perhaps you could do us the favor of writing, or referring us to, an "idiot's guide to Heidegger" for those of us who aren't in a position to deal directly with 102 volumes of work? It can't be easy, boiling 102 volumes down into a few paragraphs, but somebody's got to do it.

And FWIW it looks like Wikipedia is practically begging for someone to contribute a better summary than they've currently got.

Since your solution to "the question of postmodernity" goes beyond Heidegger, perhaps we should call it "Badley's Prescription"?

Getting back for a moment to Jared Diamond, who is now predicting a 49% chance that the world as we know it will end by 2050: I was intrigued by this Q & A --

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/jared-diamond-on-his-new-book-upheaval.html

In the book, when you write about the present day — you talk about climate, you talk about resources, but you also talk about the threat of nuclear war and nuclear weapons. It may be kind of a foolish question to ask, but … how do you rank those threats?
I’m repressing a chuckle because I know how people react when I answer that. Whenever somebody tells me, “How should we prioritize our efforts?” My answer is, “We should not be prioritizing our efforts.” It’s like someone asking me, “Jared, I’m about to get married. What is the most important factor for a happy marriage?” And my response is, “If you’re asking me what is the most important factor for a happy marriage, I’d predict that you’re going to get divorced within a few years.” Because in order to have a happy marriage you’ve got to get 37 things right. And if you get 36 right but you don’t get sex right, or you don’t get money right, or you don’t get your in-laws right, you will get divorced. You got to get lots of things right.
So for the state of the world today, how do we prioritize what’s going on in the world? We have to avoid a nuclear holocaust. If we have a nuclear holocaust, we’re finished, even if we solve climate change. We have to solve climate change because if we don’t solve climate change but we deal with a nuclear holocaust, we’re finished. If we solve climate change and don’t have a nuclear holocaust but we continue with unsustainable resource use, we’re finished. And if we deal with the nuclear problem and climate change and sustainable use, but we maintain or increase inequality around the world, we’re finished. So, we can’t prioritize. Just as a couple in a marriage have to agree about sex and children and in-laws and money and religion and politics. We got to solve all four of those problems.
I couldn't agree more. And I don't have any answers, other than to call attention to the problems, and obstacles to solving them.

Also, I'm not sure what the topic of this thread is, other than that so far it has nothing to do with sex, drugs, and/or rock'n'roll. But does "Badley's (NeoFascist?) Prescription" address Diamond's list of concerns somehow?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Since your solution to "the question of postmodernity" goes beyond Heidegger, perhaps we should call it "Badley's Prescription"?
It could be at least two volumes: 1) Dr. Badley's Prescription, and 2) Dr. Badley's Proscription.

I did read Guns, Germs, and Steel, many years ago, and not long after it came out. As I recall, it was not about the foundations or establishment of Western Civilization. Instead, it was addressing the reasons why European nations were successful in conquering and colonizing the rest of the planet. He argued that it was not due to superior genetics or cultural aspects. Instead, he said that geographical accidents led to European cultures being the first to develop firearms and industry, and also that their living conditions caused them to accidentally develop endemic diseases to which indigenous cultures had no immunity.
You're correct, of course, but as the excerpt I posted on my The Futurist Apocalypse is Now thread discussed, GGS was interpreted by some as Western Triumphalism. Of which Triumphalism is baked into the cultural cake of Christianity and its Abrahamic siblings.

Joe and friends premise on Cultural Degradation is that their miraculous transformation of the cynical JudeoRoman imperial creation of Christianity into a moral paragon of an Ozzie and Harriet (Triumphal) dreamworld was thus under attack by these various Judaic / Masonic evildoers. In some narrow respects I think this may be true, however, as we discussed in our blog post on Cultural Degradation, we must also consider exactly what it was that is/was being rebelled against and from exactly whose perspective (i.e whose oxen are getting gored).

As with the Nazi millennial apocalyptic cult there must be a foil to lash out against, and not just having Jews living and breathing amongst the volk. Therefore, the conditions were created via the idiotic WWI and the subsequent tribulations of the Wiemar Republic. A new (global) synthesis was achieved, but not what the Nazi rank and file had desired, because they weren't driving the bus.

In dialectic memory of Ozzie and Harriet, via their son Rick(y):

I went to a garden party to reminisce with my old friends
A chance to share old memories and play our songs again
When I got to the garden party, they all knew my name
No one recognized me, I didn't look the same
But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself
And people came from miles around, everyone was there
Yoko brought her walrus, there was magic in the air
An' over in the corner, much to my surprise
Mr. Hughes hid in Dylan's shoes wearing his disguise
 
Dear Jerry,

What you have uncovered here is the vexation of academia - though this posting can serve as an idiot's introduction to Heidegger, since he is vitally important in only two ways, which he never himself resolved.
  1. His interpretation of Heraclitus.
  2. His invocation of Nietzsche's incomplete work "On Truth and Falsehood Outside the Moral Sense" as vitally important and which I hope later to reveal here.
    To answer my own question: this looks pretty good... Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, written by Michael Wheeler:
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/
Heidegger wrote a lot and the tendency of Wheeler is to focus on Heidegger's early work Being and Time rather than on his original insights put forward in lectures during WW2!

Heidegger is also labelled an 'Existentialist', which automatically links him with the popular French scribbler whom the media turned into the embodiment of modern existentialism - Jean Paul Sartre, who wrote a book appropriately called 'Being and Nothingness', clearly a parody on Heidegger.

Heidegger spawned many famous students, including his Jewish lover, Hannah Arendt, but more importantly Hans Jonas who was the first to realize that Gnosticism was not a 2nd century Christian heresy - which would make it subordinate to CM - but originally a Jewish heresy, since the villains of Jewish scripture become the good guys of Gnosticism.

No one (among the academics) wants to investigate what Heidegger means by "presumptuous mismeasurement". As Diels Fragment 43 now reads (Heraclitus p. 244): "It is necessary to extinguish presumptuous mismeasurement, even before a conflagration." I have already been demonstrating on another thread the effects of presumptuous mismeasurement, but, as a philosopher, Heidegger lacked enough scientific knowledge to deal with the issue.

Heidegger was obsessed with the nature of Being, of everything that is, physically especially but other philosophers would also include gods so as to confuse the issues. He understood that Pantheism - the idea that the universe itself was divine and an integral whole - was nonsense, but was struggling to find the correct refutation of that doctrine. In Diels fragment #50 Heraclitus wrote:
Heraclitus said:
Listening not to me but to the Logos, it is wise to agree that all things are one.
I.e. the question of how the One is also the many, how the universe comprising Being is to be divided up at the most basic level. It is this that is in severe dispute. By 'Logos' conventional philosophical thinking means the decree of a god or gods (e.g. Jesus himself as Logos 'the Word' in John's Gospel). However Heidegger treats Logos as the inherent changing of the universe itself, whether working in nature or through human, animal and extraterrestrial alien minds. The Logos also contains fixed unchangeable principles - those directed against 'presumptuous mismeasurement' (Heraclitus pp. 201-202).

Other statements in his Heraclitus also tell us where we should be looking, however! Needless to say, he and Marcuse did not get on either!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
Thank you Richard for refocusing on the topic - and wow, what an experience.
I think that it is clear that any unified political force which has either the overt or covert support of powerful 'agency' (I'm talking human) has a clear advantage over a disorganized coalition of otherwise disparate interests. Again, I don't see the connection between the revolutionary process dynamics and the issue of relative political merits in a stable and peaceful environment. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Of course, as a former libertarian anarchist, I have actually sat at a Spanish hotel bar talking (nervously) to a former Francoist Guardia Civil commander. BTW, I am no longer a libertarian anarchist, as these people are indeed much worse than herds of cats.

As a former engineer, I believe that humans should seek to find an ideal form of governance, that works for everybody, beginning with dignity. No more socialism for the rich only. And no more squirrely shell corporations period.
Your highlighted words identify the principal issue - that what works in crisis situations such as "revolutionary process dynamics" does not work in a stable peaceful environment. You need people of different characters in each! Perhaps the best example of this is the so-called 'worst' prison population consisting of murderers, rapists and child molesters. The latter often don't survive prison because of the disgust and hatred of the others - but if not in prison these people can certainly find employment by Freemason-type elites within a "stable and peaceful environment" as hit men and an intimidating force.

Conversely, during crisis times of war and civil war, even the most hardened criminals can find a new life - given a gun, given the practice and told to shoot and promised freedom if their employer wins the war!

Hence a unified political force has to find employment for people of vastly opposed characters (=personalities). Under our financial elites however the superabundance of choice is only for the few - like a pregnant blowfly in a badly run zoo!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Top