Well, that's why I changed it to "priorities", but I think we have vastly different worldviews too. I'm an idealist. I think this is all a dream. I'm guessing you're a materialist.

I'm an idealist. I think this is all a dream. I'm guessing you're a materialist. — RogueAI

I am rather a traditionalist.

There are good reasons why European nobility behave in the way they did, and still do. For example, they value honor highly. The peasants don't. I prefer to identify with the nobles than with the peasants. There are worthwhile ideals. They truly exist, but they are not the ones of the peasantry.

Traditionalist in the sense of Guénon, Evola, Schuon etcetera?

Guénon — Heracloitus

This looks a bit like myself:

According to P. Chacornac, Guénon thought that Islam was one of the only real traditions accessible to Westerners, while retaining authentic possibilities in the initiative domain.

I also believe that Islam is not so far away from European Christianity as some Europeans may think.

In 1930, Guénon left Paris for Cairo, where he met with Abdalhaqq-Léon Champrenaud, and Abdalhadi Alaqhili, formerly known as John-Gustaf Aguéli, to be initiated into a Sufi order of Islam. When he arrived, his outward behavior had changed and he had completely immersed himself in the popular Islamic milieu of the city.

I certainly also recognize this very much. Muslims are generally very accepting of people who sympathize or even convert to Islam. They will certainly seek to befriend you. It is almost as if I would be worth more as a former Catholic than otherwise native Muslims. That is probably why western negativity towards Islam disturbs me so much. I know Muslims in a completely different way. They are absolutely not like their western detractors depict them.

Besides that, Guénon is a little bit esoteric to my taste:

Although the exposition of Hindu doctrines to European audiences had already been attempted in piecemeal fashion at that time by some orientalists, Guénon's Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines advanced its subject in a uniquely insightful manner,[12] by referring to the concepts of metaphysics and Tradition in their most general sense, which Guénon precisely defined.

There may be merit to studying Hinduism, but I have never done it. I have the impression that, unlike Islam, it is too far away from my frame of reference. I guess that I simply don't get it.

While Islam is another version of the same thing, Hinduism is something else altogether. Islam is the continuation of the tradition of the Jewish prophets, very much similar to Moses et alii. There are a few subtle and unique differences but it is very recognizable. You can actually read about Moses and think that he was actually a Muslim, because a Muslim would most likely have said and done the same things.

Hinduism? That is a lot of work. I leave it up to people like Guénon to figure it out from the outside.

This term is quite loaded and can have multiple meanings.

In the modern-day context, I would suggest that 'multiculturalism' is essentially a doctrine adopted by states with which they try to encourage migration to their country, thus increasing the amount of souls under their yoke, and thus increasing their power. (and also sucking power away from other, potentially rival, states - the so-called "brain drain")

The historical United States is an example of a state that rose to prominence through migration, and various modern-day European states are trying to replicate that feat in order to keep their social security systems afloat.

The question: "Can people of different cultures coexist?" is easy enough to answer - obviously, yes, under the right conditions. But this is fundamentally not the question at hand whenever politicians rant about multiculturalism. They use this implied context in order to make disagreement more thorny (if you disagree "you're a racist!"), when in fact the real context is what I described in the first paragraph.

Questions like: "Should migration be used to jury rig unsustainable social security structures?", while much closer to the real context, are for some reason a lot less popular among politicians.

Then again, socialism without open borders is, well, national socialism. Also quite unpopular.


With that out of the way, I think it's clear that mass migration is doomed to fail for countries with elaborate social security (like European countries).

What made the historical United States successful is the fact that no one was getting a handout. So people went to the United States with a plan and an intention to build something. If they failed, they would likely become homeless or worse. Harsh, but ultimately a formula by which mass migration could succeed.

In modern-day Europe, the opposite is true. While the US accepted mass migration on the condition of "succeed or starve", the EU is giving a handout to literally everyone. That's why Europe is flooded with migrants who have basically no prospect of successfully integrating into European societies, which has lead to no end of trouble.

The end result will be predictably tragic.

Then again, socialism without open borders is, well, national socialism. — Tzeentch

Ha! I like it when someone else sees it too. National socialism is actually the most fundamental doctrine of European so-called democracy. I've actually got nothing against it, as long as they admit it. The only saving grace of the erstwhile marxism was its internationalism.

That's why Europe is flooded with migrants who have basically no prospect of successfully integrating into European societies, which has lead to no end of trouble. The end result will be predictably tragic. — Tzeentch

All roads lead to Rome. Regardless of how they do it, failure is the inevitable attraction point of European civilization. Not taking in migrants won't work either. Without spirituality, there is no hope for the future and no incentive to make children. Migrants are not the solution but they are also not the true underlying problem either:

If only pure reason is allowed to provide the meaning of life, then there simply is no such meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless.

The three responses discussed in the traditional absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd.

Voting for far-right politicians, i.e. the modern national-socialists, is the national European rebellion against the absurd, of a society that will ultimately commit suicide. Anti-natalists are tragically doomed. They think that they are smart but in reality they are the most stupid people on the planet. That is even a fantastic match with the Dunning-Kruger definition for stupidity: Thinking that you are smart when in fact you are not.

You're a highly entertaining and eccentric poster.

I'm curious about your various arguments and pronouncements.

National socialism is actually the most fundamental doctrine of European so-called democracy. — Tarskian

What made you think this?

The only saving grace of the erstwhile marxism was its internationalism. — Tarskian

How did you arrive at this?

Regardless of how they do it, failure is the inevitable attraction point of European civilization. — Tarskian

Why?

If only pure reason is allowed to provide the meaning of life, then there simply is no such meaning. — Tarskian

You're saying that if we rely solely on pure reason to determine the meaning of life, we will conclude that life has no inherent meaning? I wonder if that's the case. I'm not big on pure reason and I came to the conclusion that life has no inherent meaning simply by how it feels and looks to me.

Voting for far-right politicians, i.e. the modern national-socialists, is the national European rebellion against the absurd, of a society that will ultimately commit suicide. — Tarskian

Seems to me you could make this same argument and simply replace 'national-socialists' with 'socialism' or 'identity politics' etc.

If you ever meet European nobility, you will quickly understand that they think exactly the same. — Tarskian

You mean we left some with their heads still on? A serious oversight, that.
Everyone should be a well-off foreign man in a non-democratic, patriarchal country with a corrupt government, and then the world would be a happy place.

What made you think this? — Tom Storm

Because the heartland of Europe has been staunchly socialist for over a century now.

Before WWI, the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) was the largest party in Germany. The PRS (Republican-Socialist Party) in France was also in power. Labour was already the second largest party in Britain.

They hadn't decided yet on whether they were going to be nationalist or internationalist. It is the outbreak of WWI that forced their hands and made them opt for nationalism. In Italy, Mussolini left the socialist party after their refusal to join the war and created the Nationalist Fascist party (PNF), which was socialist but which rejected internationalism and chose to be staunchly Italian nationalist.

How did you arrive at this? — Tom Storm

One difference, of course, is that socialists mostly opt for indirect control of the economy -- what the Germans called "Gleichschaltung" (coordination) -- over the generalized direct state control that the communists prefer, but the most important difference is that when push comes to shove, the socialists will rally behind nationalism, while the marxists will stay loyal to internationalism. This is why they hate each other. The Soviets hated the nationalism of socialists such as Mussolini. Because it was such an attractive and popular alternative in Europe, the Soviets saw it as the epitome of evil.

You're saying that if we rely solely on pure reason to determine the meaning of life, we will conclude that life has no inherent meaning? I wonder if that's the case. I'm not big on pure reason and I came to the conclusion that life has no inherent meaning simply by how it feels and looks to me. — Tom Storm

Unless you explicitly allow for spirituality, this conclusion is simply inevitable. The march towards the absurd is relentless. There is no stopping it. It does not have to be the result of a conscious choice. The absurdist conclusion will be reached even entirely subconsciously: life has no inherent meaning.

Seems to me you could make this same argument and simply replace 'national-socialists' with 'socialism' or 'identity politics' etc. — Tom Storm

Agreed.

Socialism is either nationalist or internationalist.

When the shit hits the fan, every socialist will have to make a choice.

The extreme left knows this -- They are internationalist -- That is why they will not hesitate to violently attack and destroy the socialists who turn out to be nationalist. The extreme left in Europe is currently very nervous because they know that they failed last time to stop the socialists who swore by nationalism. That is why I expect Antifa to spectacularly grow in the nearby future.

The armed militia of Ernst Thälmann's KPD (Communist Party of Germany) were simply too late. They were also not decisive enough. In 1933, Germany was going to be either internationalist or nationalist. It were the nationalists who managed to successfully eradicate the internationalists, just in time, before the internationalists would otherwise have managed to do the reverse.

You mean we left some with their heads still on? A serious oversight, that. — Vera Mont

European nobility got largely wiped out during WWI, at the western and eastern fronts, and not so much during the French Revolution. The Russian Empire is a bit special in that regard. I don't know what percentage of Russian nobility got executed after the communist takeover.

The Russian Empire is a bit special in that regard. I don't know what percentage of Russian nobility got executed after the communist takeover. — Tarskian

85%. The rest went west and became paid companions to rich old men and women in Paris or taxi drivers in New York.

Modern liberal democracy sublated and incorporated into itself core elements of socialism and nationalism. All modern democracies have incorporated core elements of the socialist platform: the right to unionize, universal education, restrictions on child labor, pensions for old age, some form of socialized medicine, progressive taxation, etc.

Nationalism is also universally recognized as key to legitimacy. No one today would claim that Algerians should have been satisfied if the French simply gave them the right to vote and social benefits. Both liberals and conservatives talk in terms of "an Iraqi state for the Iraqi people," etc. The internationalist democracy of the French Revolution is long gone and internationalist socialism is pretty much dead too. National determination is sacrosanct, even as it continues to be problematic in a few cases (Kurdistan, East Turkestan, Palestine, etc.).

So what you have going on in developed countries is that globalization and large scale migration are undermining these two pillars of the modern liberal state. Acceptance of socialism is predicated on the idea that states make up a single organic whole—a people or nation. People are willing to pay in because they see themselves as sort of an extended family of sorts.

In the American case, we can think about World War II and how it serves as sort of the origin mythos for the modern American state. Consider movies about that conflict made from 1945-1990. They almost invariably feature a motley crew of soldiers or mixed ethnicities: Italians, Irish, German-Lutheran, WASPs, etc. And very often a subplot in the story will be about how the group overcomes these divisions and recognizes that they are part of a greater unity.*

Migration on scales where a number of major European states will likely be minority European by the end of this century challenges the "nationalism" pillar of the modern state, which in turn undermines support for the "socialism" part. You might say: "well, even in the US the foreign born population is only about 1 in 7," but this misses a few things. It misses how immigrants are loaded towards the younger rungs of the population pyramid and that they make up a much larger share there, as well as their geographic concentration, particularly in major cities. It misses how second generation immigrants are not always fully assimilated, and there numbers are much higher (e.g. in the US 1 in 4 people are foreign born or have at least one foreign born parent). And it misses how the effects of migration are cumulative (e.g. Pew, hardly an alarmist organization on this issue, has the US at around 25% foreign born and 50+% foreign born or with a foreign born parent by mid-way through the century at current levels).

The age difference is particularly salient. Spending on education and programs for the young is taken as spending "for outsiders." Whereas pensions and benefits for the old are taken as legitimate. This, combined with rich nation's demographics leads to a situation where the next several decades will see investment squeezed out to boost the consumption or the elderly, even as the elderly and the working aged demographic begin to drift apart dramatically in demographic make-up.

The attitudes of new comers is probably less important here than the problems with the current system. People of all sorts assimilated to the American system. The peoples who made up the early Israeli population had little exposure to democracy in Eastern Europe of the Middle East, where most came from. The same is true of South Korea. I'd say the problem comes when there is a lack of assimilation, leading to isolated enclaves that are cut off from the wider culture. The driving issue here is a global inequality in a world that has suddenly become very small. It's not unlike the intracountry wealth disparities that motivated socialism in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Anyhow, this is just one of the problems with modern liberalism. It is also extremely poorly equipped to deal with other "global" problems like climate change, ocean acidification, or the power of transnational corporations. The Post-Westphalian model of the state is insufficient to deal with globalization and the current apparatuses of global governance, e.g. the UN, are incredibly weak. It's hard to see how they will be strengthened without some sort of crisis.

I prefer to identify with the nobles than with the peasants. — Tarskian

All things considered, it's better to have money than not, but do you think being rich will make you happy? Or is a necessary condition for happiness?

All things considered, it's better to have money than not, but do you think being rich will make you happy? Or is a necessary condition for happiness? — RogueAI

It is if you're entirely devoid of sensibility and scruples. You can 'believe in' honour simply by throwing a few pennies at a minstrel to sing about it. You can have all the peasant girls you want, because they don't have honour and you're immune from the law.

All things considered, it's better to have money than not, but do you think being rich will make you happy? Or is a necessary condition for happiness? — RogueAI

It is if you're entirely devoid of sensibility and scruples. You can 'believe in' honour simply by throwing a few pennies at a minstrel to sing about it. You can have all the peasant girls you want, because they don't have honour and you're immune from the law. — Vera Mont

Well, since @Vera Mont desperately wants to "prove" things about me, it is undoubtedly preferable that I do not answer the question. By the way, I am not a member of the local Estates-General. So, I don't see why I would be immune from the law.

What is this??? You're going to roll in with all this Chad swagger about nobility and sex and marriage and then fold when someone asks you about what is good in life? Come on. You have interesting things to say. I don't agree with any of them, but it's interesting.

desperately wants to "prove" things about me, — Tarskian

I have no need or desire to prove anything, nor do I give a flying fig about 'you' - who or whatever that is. Your own words speak clearly enough.

all this Chad swagger — RogueAI

I am technically not a Chad. My looks are average (or even below). Not that it matters, because I am not a fan of casual sex.

then fold when someone asks you about what is good in life? — RogueAI

The place is already sufficiently infested with personal attacks without even mentioning anything really personal. Why not talk about ideas and criticize those, instead of talking about oneself and invite a flurry of ad hominems?

That is probably why western negativity towards Islam disturbs me so much. — Tarskian

The reason is probably because you have not read European history and don't keep up with modern European politics.

Why not talk about ideas and criticize those, instead of talking about oneself and invite a flurry of ad hominems? — Tarskian

OK, what is your idea about what is good in life? How does money, power, and status factor in?

Thanks for elaborating.

Voting for far-right politicians, i.e. the modern national-socialists, is the national European rebellion against the absurd, of a society that will ultimately commit suicide. — Tarskian

Wrong. Everybody who lives in Europe knows why the far-right is rising. Funnily enough, it has nothing to do with the lack of religion, it has to do with the presence of (a certain) religion.

Keep European politics for people who have skin in the game. If someone is backpacking in Siberia or being a sexpat in Thailand they typically wouldn't have a lot of investment in what is going on across the globe.

Wrong. Everybody who lives in Europe knows why the far-right is rising. Funnily enough, it has nothing to do with the lack of religion, it has to do with the presence of (a certain) religion.

Keep European politics for people who have skin in the game. If someone is backpacking in Siberia or being a sexpat in Thailand they typically wouldn't have a lot of investment in what is going on across the glope. — Lionino

I avoid responding to you because your comments are replete with ad hominems.

As I have already asked you in a previous remark, why don't you talk with someone else instead? Why don't you discuss with someone who actually wants to speak with you? I don't. I really don't see the need to converse with someone like you.

You made some good points, like that one about a new "global" culture.

However, as a person who in the US has discovered his love for European Cinema (when I lived in Europe as a teenager I detested French movies, but after living in the US for many years I came to love French movies and to detest contemporary American movies... with the exception of some comedies, where beforehand I tell myself I'll have some fun with American bullshit).

This experience of detesting contemporary American movies makes me ask the same question all the time: why in the hell people in other countries spend so much money and energies in order to see, advertise and idolize (contemporary) American cinema?

The only logical answer I come up with is "mass control". For some reasons, US culture industry has a big leverage on the rest of the world. Remove that leverage and you might see "global culture" trashed for good or becoming very limited in scope. This 'control factor' explains also why music and cinema in Europe nowadays are much more pluralistic/diverse than in the US. Here you see actors of various skin colors, but you "know" beforehand who are the great guys. In Europe you get surprised every day with actors and musicians of all kinds of genres, from all kinds of languages.

In conclusion, I tend to believe that materialism and policing may have a greater saying in our modern western world than "the global culture" which I see it as being imposed on us (and easily replaceable). We could happily live in a western world where Rammstein are more famous than Swift and Beyonce, in a world where Italian curses are more widespread than the English ones, or in a world without Microsoft Office Suite and Chat GPT. But I fail to see how the western world would look if well-being shrinks and if the policing/surveillance agencies fail to do their work.

I can't imagine a scenario with economies and surveillance performing very poorly and with people in USA or France being in "peace" due to their "democratic/egalitarian/cosmopolitan" values and "compassion". Till, I can imagine that scenario as plausible for some smaller nations which have been lucky enough to not look like France or USA today (though I guess there must be only a handful of such nations in the western world).

I really don't see the need to converse with someone like you. — Tarskian

Of course you don't, because I expose you all the time. I am not trying to "converse", and I will keep doing it every time you spill idiotic bullshit.

The same person who wrote a comment containing nothing but this:

I thought that you wanted me to help you find a new job?

I am quite good at networking but not that good. So, give me some more time to pull off the impossible.

By the way, does anybody want to hire him?

He's been looking for a new job for ages now but he keeps failing at the first interview. — Tarskian

is complaining about "ad hominem". Sprinkling a bit of hypocrisy in the sophistry, aren't we?

By the way, "ad hominem" and personal attacks are not the same thing.

complaining about "ad hominem". Sprinkling a bit of hypocrisy in the sophistry, aren't we? — Lionino

That was just my weird sense of humor. In fact, I was trying to be helpful. Now you are even complaining about that!

This experience of detesting contemporary American movies makes me ask the same question all the time: why in the hell people in other countries spend so much money and energies in order to see, advertise and idolize (contemporary) American cinema?

The only logical answer I come up with is "mass control". — Eros1982

Well, another reason is that making movies is actually very expensive. If you make a movie in Finnish, basically there's only +5 million people who understand Finnish. If it's a very good movie, some foreigners will see it, but not many. Think about it like Minnesotan's making movies for only Minnesotans to watch, with Minnesotans speaking a totally different language from other Americans. This is the reason why English dominates and why even the Hollywood studios themselves have centered on making "Blockbusters" and only make few "Art Films" that require a bit more to follow than just eat your popcorn.

US culture industry has a big leverage on the rest of the world. — Eros1982

Let's start from some facts: There are so goddam many of Americans compared to any other Western people. And not only that, but your are very wealthy consumers. Thus you are the biggest domestic market there is. And this means that many talented foreign directors and actors are very welcome to work in Hollywood, just as many scientists and successful entrepreneurs (like Elon Musk etc) come to the US, because the US has the resources.

Then you speak English, which was spoken thanks to the British Empire in a lot of other places. (Now if people in the US would talk not English, but French or Spanish, then either of those two be easily the lingua universalis of the World.)

In conclusion, I tend to believe that materialism and policing may have a greater saying in our modern western world than "the global culture" which I see it as being imposed on us (and easily replaceable). — Eros1982

The US surely polices competition when it comes to it's strategic interests. And my father in his time joked about the American legal battle against NIH-products (NIH meaning "Not Invented Here"). Yet all of this is actually quite limited, when tariff barriers don't exist. Especially in Latin America there is this idea of this nearly omnipotent US guarding everything in it's interests, but it isn't so. Not all largest companies in the World are American in every sector. Just take for example forestry and paper companies. You would assume just by thinking where the large forests are and think about the sizes of the countries, it would be that American, Canadian and Russian companies would be the largest. Close, but that isn't the picture, in 2022 by revenue the list was as follows.

1. Oji Paper Company (Japanese)
2. Stora Enso (Finnish)
3. West Fraser Timber Co (Canada)
4. Weyerhauser Company (United States)
5. Universal Forest Products (United States)
6. Masco (United States)

The largest US company is only on 4th place and for many it would be surprising that the largest are a Japanese and a Finnish company, which are very small in size compared to Canada and the US. But this is how globalization works. You'll find that in many sectors there are large companies that aren't American.

I can't imagine a scenario with economies and surveillance performing very poorly and with people in USA or France being in "peace" due to their "democratic/egalitarian/cosmopolitan" values and "compassion". Till, I can imagine that scenario as plausible for some smaller nations which have been lucky enough to not look like France or USA today (though I guess there must be only a handful of such nations in the western world). — Eros1982

Not quite sure what you mean here. Well, many countries don't look like the US. But what is surprising is just how similar to the US the whole of Latin America is. You have these interesting subtle differences between American countries and European countries.

I was trying to be helpful — Tarskian

Of course you were, rambling about the economic status of someone you know nothing about. Disingenuous and malicious, pretending his sour character attacks were his "haha humour".

Of course you were, rambling about the economic status of someone you know nothing about. Disingenuous and malicious, pretending his sour character attacks were his "haha humour". — Lionino

At least, I pretend that I am trying to be helpful. You don't.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Well, many countries don't look like the US. But what is surprising is just how similar to the US the whole of Latin America is. You have these interesting subtle differences between American countries and European countries. — ssu

I meant that I have come to believe that apart from the oppressed nations (i.e. dictatorships and theocracies where everything can be fabricated, and you may know a couple of identities/ethnicities/religions in these countries, but you never can be sure about the degree of social disintegration in dictatorships till the day that a war happens and you may find out that your spouse or your neighbor is not the person you previously thought to be), there are two kind of countries: 1) those countries which grand personal freedoms, but are multicultural or cosmopolitan (like the USA, France, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, etc.), and 2) countries that are free also, but due to their size, geography, history, etc., have not reached the diversity or multiculturalism of the first group (of USA, UK, Australia, etc.).

It is my belief, also, that although both groups are called democracies, group 2 may behave much better in cases of hardship (like natural disaster, poverty, war or some other crisis). Culture, identity and compassion may really play a role in these small democratic nations when they will face hardships.

With regard now group 1, I think if the countries of this group face some kind of hardship, their people will show all kinds of negative behavior just because they were taught that civilization means living well and calling the police every time you have issues with your neighbor. From the moment you don't live well in group 1 and you cannot rely on the police, you either run away or you should watch your neighbor 24 hours a day.

It is a paradox, in my view, to include group 1 and group 2, in the same club, the "democracy club".