User blogs

What is religion?

The answer, after some deliberation, is that religion is an attempt to put together several philosophical positions in a package (existential question, ethical questions, political philosophy questions, spiritual questions). The contents of the package and needs they address specifically vary from religion to religion.

Until the package is officially concocted, the ideas which will form the religion in the future are simply a set of ideas which have an individual basis. However, when a religion is formed, the package itself becomes more important than the positions inside of it and breaking the package becomes sacrilege. It is precisely this that differentiates a religion from a collection of viewpoints  - the point regarding the whole representing doctrinal importance separate from the sum of the parts.

A religion becomes a prepackaged set of answers that combine different schools of philosophy with a belief that the answer is right and permanently right.  Usually the ruling group of a Government invents a religion (which shows its contradictions later as technology progresses and society changes), but sometimes religion can be invented by other classes.

god123123 Apr 6 '15 · Tags: religion

The basic of marxism is that if the plight of the worker class is getting worse enough. The workers will overthrow marxism and establish socialism.

The now so-called marxist / socialist parties do nothing but give workers a more bareable life under capitalism. Therefore they go against marxism. 

Those parties pamper the workers and encourage their "victim mentality". If the working class isn't working towards revolution, it deserves to starve and be oppressed as a class. 

You could say that individual working class people may not deserve to starve. But I bet certain Kulaks were pretty nice people in person. 

Look at it from a class basis not a individual basis.

My view increasingly is that at the very least, the biggest proponents of morality tend to be the biggest hypocrites.  One could easily take the position that what we know as morality is more a set of commands from a class designed to promote behavior which it opposes in its subjects and still gain continued support from the subjects.

-the same class that condemns the mafia has its own rackets.
-the same class that condemns counterfeiting prints money.
-the same class that condemns drugs supports prescription drugs for 'misbehavior.' 
-the same class the condemns stealing collects taxes.
-the same ruling class that says 'don't kill' starts wars.
-the same ruling class that condemns rapes commands its soldiers to join with Russians in the attack on Germans (which was recently unveiled, it wasn't just USSR that committed the mass rapes).
-the same class that hugely promotes ethnopluralism violates the principle in the stolen state on Palestinian land
-The same Abraham Lincoln who wanted to 'free the slaves' still wanted Blacks to go to Africa.  It was military strategy, not morality.
-The same Richard Nixon who condemned Jewish influence in the media wouldn't say it openly.

The ruling class does not live up to its 'morality.'  In my opinion if there ever was morality, the current state of the world is such that it no longer applies and now there are only ethics.  The 'game' is already on and pretending otherwise does not shut it off any more than as Marx said, not thinking of gravity stops one from drowning.

 

In today's world of conflict, there is only a decision to build a society and do what is good to keep it going, but idealism has given way.  The ten commandments for example are not the extent of ethics and in fact are just power dynamics which grant some people the right to rape, kill and steal and not others, while telling others to follow the leader.  For example, these commandments only applied to Jews (you could kill Gentiles) and there were still executions and taxes.

Here is why I agree with Ba'ath party ideology.

I believe the prominent role of the working class and the focus on religion as a tool of the state was largely a European and Russian phenomenon - but in the middle east Arabs are profoundly spiritual and Islam in the middle east plays a different role than 'state' Christianity in the West. Islam may be at times inegalitarian, but it is progressive in that it motivates a vigilante struggle, whereas state Christianity preaches weakness. Since finance capitalism as we know it is primarily a western creation (though it has influence over Japan as well), the same class structure does not apply to the middle east and there the working class is still important but the movement is more of an inclusive movement against western capitalism, viewing it as foreign, than an attempt to create struggle based on the excesses of finance capitalism as a local problem (international, but not foreign).

Essentially what I'm saying is that the conditions, economy and culture are different - so the political line should be based around those conditions.

Ba'athism takes the revolutionary qualities of Islam (and other Arab movements) and funnels them into a progressive nationalism and socialism. If you take it away Islam can turn into something that sets itself to be mutually exclusive regarding those things.  Ba'athism also does not take Marxist dialectics beyond socialism and the truth is that I am more interested in socialism than anarcho-communism.

god123123 Mar 7 '15 · Tags: ba'athism

The biggest change in my thinking I think was a switch away from the strategy of infiltration and a switch towards the strategy of ‘unmasking the conspiracies,’ suggesting resolutions and posting heavily philosophical views. My initial ‘life plan’ was to climb the corporate ladder and make mild statements that suggest a gradualist approach to reform (Ted Kazynski wrote about this) while using funds to promote my cause in somewhat closeted ways. But the door was shut on me, largely due to the great recession although there were other factors too (personality).

My strategy is now to openly confront the power rather than to rise in the power and try to wrench concessions from it in a more stealthy way. In hindsight it seems obvious that this was the way to go, but at first a corporate rise seemed possible and I didn’t realize how weak and ineffective the gradualist reformist path is.

The gradualist approach cannot work unless it is consensual. You aren’t going to motivate and strategize with a gradualist approach. I think populism by the way is a misguided gradualist approach that thinks the people ‘will come around.’ Populists fail to realize that Zionists have a religion indoctrinating them with hiveminded beliefs, whereas Gentiles don’t have an equivalently indoctrinated conspiracy at a young enough age, but are instead indoctrinated with Christianity. The speed at which people wake up is slower than the speed at which children are indoctrinated.

My main motivation for writing this post is that some people recognize the class division and then give respect to reactionary elements in the working class simply due to their status and disrespect to true political dissidents who are higher in the hierarchy.  This flaw leads to a misalignment of who is an ally and who is not.  At the same time, one must not forget that the class structure is a necessary tool of class antagonisms and imperialism, even if many reactionaries do not realize they are being exploited and some people of influence rebel.

 

Once one understands the content discussed in my previous post, it is easy to reason that faith in 'the majority' against 'the elites' (populism) is incorrect because both the majority and the elites are simply acting based on their own material conditions and neither deserve any faith on that alone.  The point is not that they are acting, but HOW they are acting - and in the case of workers, HOW they are acting may go against the ideal.  To praise individuals simply for their place and position would be assuming that these individuals got to where they are simply based on ideals (workers are good, elites are bad) and ignores the material factors in their day to day life that caused them to get to where they are.  The consequence would be to allow the lowest and least useful workers to have influence and to not appreciate people like Bernie Madoff who act in a progressive manner.

 

Respect is granted not based on someone's class position, but how they respond to their class position. An 'elite' who opposed the war has done a respectable thing. A poor person who does not listen to the elite who opposed the war has done a negative thing. This is in spite of their respective class positions.  A solid analysis of class struggle is not a call to physically murder each and every member of the bourgeoisie but a sense of relativism in one's judgement and realization that one's respectability is based on their reaction to their conditions.  That said, in order to be a 'good' member of the ruling class, one would have to essentially be a maverick against the rest of the class.  In order to be a 'good' member of the working class, one would have to refuse to fall for the propaganda of the ruling class.   Thus, the definition of 'good' is based on different behavior.

god123123 Feb 19 '15 · Tags: class struggle, populism

When material conditions are discussed, it must be clarified that humans are themselves viewed as part of 'matter' and not as separate entities.  Material conditions here do not refer simply to food and shelter.

 

Bearing the above in mind:

Material Conditions (as described above) are to human groups what genes are to individuals. Ideologies are to human groups what consciousness is to individuals.

 

The senses are not always accurate and there is room for imagination.  In the same way, genes do not totally determine a person's 'will,' but give a framework and design for the material basis of a human being.  Two people with the same genes, identical twins, can still make different choices and develop differently of course.  Despite this, the roles of genes are known and likewise the roles of material conditions (including oneself and his/her peers) are analogous in groups to the roles of genes in individuals.  The actual ideology can vary and senses and imagination are a factor, but the ideology is forced to be totally imaginary or conform to a rationalist view.   No amount of dreaming of wearing a crown will make someone a Prince (although a machine gun might).

god123123 Feb 19 '15 · Comments: 2 · Tags: material conditions, ideology

I define a reactionary as someone who responds to details without understanding the greater picture.

For instance someone who hates Mexicans because of illegal immigration is a reactionary. They don't understand the global economy, the perceived differences in opportunity etc.

It's reactionaries that prevented the working class from opposing certain policies, as their 'reaction' was to 9/11. 9/11 of course had events of context tied to US foreign policy which the reactionaries overlooked.  This happened in the George W Bush Era.

 

 

Continuing into the Obama era, the media continues to often take advantage of the reactionary population by raising issues that play to their simple understanding, without revealing context. Good examples include potraying Gaddafi and Assad as manufacturing conflicts by 'suppressing human rights' when in fact the conflicts are a result of harsh realities which Assad and Gaddafi tried to deal with (sunni / shia infighting, religious extremism, Israeli colonialism, Iranian/Iraqi politics, western capitalist adventurism).

 

The result - 'we have to intervene to protect freedom' (this should raise alarm bells but to the reactionary the logical part of the brain is impaired).  The plans of Imperialist elites and their reactionary followers often do not go as planned and end up with anarchist / terrorist movements.   This unintended consequence of Syria, Libya and Iraq was this consequence.  However even a succesful controlling of these countries would be a move done in support of Israel and secondarily of corporate interests, but to the reactionary, it is about 'freedom' and 'safety.'

 

Other times the facts themselves are enough to cause a reactionary to react - without any intentional bias. Often times reactionaries can't see the message behind a fiction movie as well. American Sniper was basically fiction and anti-war (though misguided), but pro-war scumbags celebrated until Clint Eastwood finally officially unveiled his motivations.

 

(Despite this, Amerian Sniper did not show the political arguments against the war and was far from a factual account.  It was anti-war without getting into the necessary issues.)

god123123 Feb 17 '15 · Tags: media, reactionaries

After you read a large number of articles, you start to notice patterns. Each deception is no longer an isolated incident, but a result of systemic factors.  This is how my mind has changed.

Before I would read something and basically trust it until I had glaring evidence not to trust it.

Now I read something and immediately look for red flags that I have noticed in journalism over the years.

god123123 Jan 12 '15 · Tags: media, journalism

I admit that I struggled for most of my life trying to determine whether anti-zionism was right or not, wavering back and forth.

But I think I've settled the matter in the past few years. Anti-zionism is right, but not as a 'single cause.' If someone has a disease, it's still not the single cause of every ache in their body.

god123123 Jan 11 '15
Pages: 1 2 »