Katya here, digging out of a snowstorm in so many senses with Roscoe --
Amen and Amen.
From E.A. Burtt on Isaac Newton's Metaphysics: that the knower (meaning us trying to use God's gift of cognitive exercise) was alienated from what he knew. (This might be Lewis telling us that the Time-Mind asks us to see [and reduce] everything 'sub specie temporalis').
Burtt has much to say about what the metaphysics of scientism did to our concept of time. His thesis, if I may, is that from Newton onward man, the human being, was written out of the equation of knowledge -- certainly a hermetic feat that would have had Pico della Mirandola rejoicing in hell.
Why do I know this? Because I, the lifelong follower of Dostoevsky, was beyond appalled at how quickly the new cancer treatments of the 90's killed my mother and we couldn't question the medical holy man (it's still happening!), where neither the oncologist, nor the literature --I looked it all up--nor we who cared for and spoke to our beloved, could find expressions for the individual suffering human being in our language. Not even the priests could.
Here's an example of non-human speech: "she may bounce back." I'll bet a few of you have heard that.
This is all in Dostoevsky, especially in the dream of the man who went out of his head (the queer fellow), but also in The Double, whose hero, "little naked man" (Golyadkin) is captured by the hermetic mind-virus (sense of time completely altered) who ends up in the insane asylum where we all are now, so assaulted by the devilish half-truths of impossibly sped up lives, impossibly false-indoctrinated lives.
Everything two-tiered. The triumph of false history. The triumph of usury. The triumph of the racial ideology which must have war, and war not only with others, but with ourselves, our families. It's all there, in the New Testament, in the apostolic writings, in great Christian literature which might have taught us how to live, how to use our Christ-like, God given minds.
"This might be Lewis telling us that the Time-Mind asks us to see [and reduce] everything 'sub specie temporalis..."
"...what the metaphysics of scientism did to our concept of time..."
"...the new cancer treatments of the 90's killed my mother and we couldn't question the medical holy man (it's still happening!), where neither the oncologist, nor the literature --I looked it all up--nor we who cared for and spoke to our beloved, could find expressions for the individual suffering human being in our language..." (end quote)
Orwell's eschatology pointed to a future abridgment of perception and apprehension through the deliberate impoverishment of speech, rendering certain fructifing thoughts impossible to articulate.
His study of hypnotism broke new ground and remains relevant today.
It appears he denied the existence of spirits and any baleful effects emanating from them, tracking anomalous phenomenon exclusively to the subconscious, an assertion with which I cannot agree.
I have ordered Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" (published in 1951. Here are online excerpts:
"Mass movements aggressively promote the use of doctrines that elevate faith over reason and serve as "fact-proof screens between the faithful and the realities of the world... The doctrine of the mass movement must not be questioned under any circumstances." The second sentence describes the attitude of most Congressional Republicans vis a vis Trump's agendas.
"Hoffer does not take an exclusively negative view of "true believers" and the mass movements they begin. He gives examples of how the same forces that give rise to true believer mass movements can be channeled in more positive ways:..."
Incredibly, Hoffer regards Lincoln, Churchill and F.D.R. as champions of a "holy cause":
There are, of course, rare leaders such as Lincoln, Gandhi, even F.D.R., Churchill, and Nehru. They do not hesitate to harness man's hungers and fears to weld a following and make it zealous unto death in service of a holy cause; but unlike a Hitler, a Stalin, or even a Luther and a Calvin, they are not tempted to use the slime of frustrated souls as mortar in the building of a new world.... They know that no one can be honorable unless he honors mankind".
— p. 147
IMO-Arguably, Gandhi and Nehru may be considered as champions of a "holy cause" because of their non-violent tactics in defeating the British Empire.
With Eric Hoffer there are at last two dimensions: his liberal views as you have outlined them and his epistemology. I recommend him only for the latter. Personally, I don't refuse to use the services of an honest, expert dentist or car mechanic because he or she is a Democrat. By the same token, Hoffer's nuanced analysis of the psychology of the true believer has been useful to me, notwithstanding his hero worship of leaders I consider iniquitous.
Regarding J.D.Vance and his comments on abortion protest in the UK, the matter was referred to the UK Supreme Court who ruled that “freedom of speech does not include a right to a captive audience.”
In other words any protest outside of a building is now unlawful. The Scottish government will not allow protesters to gather outside the parliament building for ANY protest. The government took advantage of COVID emergency powers to introduce this legislation.
But it would also seem that silent prayer can be interpreted as “speech “ . A 74 year old lady was arrested 2 days ago in Glasgow (Scotland) for allegedly “breaching the 200 metre abortion buffer exclusion zone “.
As you correctly point out Vance did not point to the absurd redefinition of antisemitism that the US has brought in. However the Europeans have essentially bought into this redefinition whether they have legislated for it or not by supporting the massacre (and in the UK’s case being complicit in the supply of logistics and very probably weapons). So they cannot form the counter. In the UK journalists who defend the Palestinian cause are routinely harassed by police, with storm troopers knocking down the doors before arrest on spurious counter terrorism charges, their equipment and livelihood confiscated and put in solitary confinement for extended periods before being released. All to create a culture of fear.
Can I ask has this redefinition of antisemitism been challenged in a US court? It would obviously seem to impinge upon the US freedom of speech per the constitution
One can't challenge voluntary slavery in court. Harvard's cave-in to the definition was at their own discretion (even though it was transparently acceded to under moral and financial blackmail).
It is true that wayward Catholics, in particular, the Medici reintroduced usury to Europe. It came at the same time that they were introducing paganism. This was self-serving; the Greek and Roman gods didn't object to charging interest. However, it was the protestants, first the Dutch with the Wisselbank and then the English with the Bank of England who really unleashed the system. Rothschilds had a foot up when the protestant Wilhelm IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, entrusted his money to Mayer Amschel, who then used that money to create the Rothschild family fortune.
So while it was bad Catholics who did not follow the faith which started the usurious system, it was protestants developed it into the insane system that we have now. Protestantism is the villain of the piece.
1. Some ancient Greek and Roman philosophers strongly objected to usury but there was no "teeth" in their objection and it was defeated by situation ethics.
2. You claim that Catholic usury bankers did not "unleash" the usury banking system. You blame Protestants. In other words, the huge papalist Medici and Fugger banking operations sat around on the sidelines surrendering their institutional lead to Protestant banks that would not arise to any meaningful extent for decades. The documentary record says otherwise.
3. "Protestantism is the villain of the piece." This is your ipse dixit. It has no other foundation.
Read my book "Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not."
And my Substack column, "In Defense of the Indefensible: The Excruciating Convolutions of E. Michael Jones"
Having a spat with E. Michael Jones and moaning that certain popes possibly expanded the acceptability of charging interest, doesn't get around the fact the entire modern monetary system was founded in protestant countries - in particular England - to fund war and expand colonial trade. Like I said, Protestantism is the villain of the piece.
DO YOU HAVE ANY WORDS ON THOMPSON JAY HUDSON THANK YOU AMAZING MICHAEL THE HOFFMAN
Katya here, digging out of a snowstorm in so many senses with Roscoe --
Amen and Amen.
From E.A. Burtt on Isaac Newton's Metaphysics: that the knower (meaning us trying to use God's gift of cognitive exercise) was alienated from what he knew. (This might be Lewis telling us that the Time-Mind asks us to see [and reduce] everything 'sub specie temporalis').
Burtt has much to say about what the metaphysics of scientism did to our concept of time. His thesis, if I may, is that from Newton onward man, the human being, was written out of the equation of knowledge -- certainly a hermetic feat that would have had Pico della Mirandola rejoicing in hell.
Why do I know this? Because I, the lifelong follower of Dostoevsky, was beyond appalled at how quickly the new cancer treatments of the 90's killed my mother and we couldn't question the medical holy man (it's still happening!), where neither the oncologist, nor the literature --I looked it all up--nor we who cared for and spoke to our beloved, could find expressions for the individual suffering human being in our language. Not even the priests could.
Here's an example of non-human speech: "she may bounce back." I'll bet a few of you have heard that.
This is all in Dostoevsky, especially in the dream of the man who went out of his head (the queer fellow), but also in The Double, whose hero, "little naked man" (Golyadkin) is captured by the hermetic mind-virus (sense of time completely altered) who ends up in the insane asylum where we all are now, so assaulted by the devilish half-truths of impossibly sped up lives, impossibly false-indoctrinated lives.
Everything two-tiered. The triumph of false history. The triumph of usury. The triumph of the racial ideology which must have war, and war not only with others, but with ourselves, our families. It's all there, in the New Testament, in the apostolic writings, in great Christian literature which might have taught us how to live, how to use our Christ-like, God given minds.
I apologize for the length of this.
(Springtime is icumen in)
Katya wrote:
"This might be Lewis telling us that the Time-Mind asks us to see [and reduce] everything 'sub specie temporalis..."
"...what the metaphysics of scientism did to our concept of time..."
"...the new cancer treatments of the 90's killed my mother and we couldn't question the medical holy man (it's still happening!), where neither the oncologist, nor the literature --I looked it all up--nor we who cared for and spoke to our beloved, could find expressions for the individual suffering human being in our language..." (end quote)
Orwell's eschatology pointed to a future abridgment of perception and apprehension through the deliberate impoverishment of speech, rendering certain fructifing thoughts impossible to articulate.
("Springtime is icumen in")
Una corsa staffetta di coristi.
His study of hypnotism broke new ground and remains relevant today.
It appears he denied the existence of spirits and any baleful effects emanating from them, tracking anomalous phenomenon exclusively to the subconscious, an assertion with which I cannot agree.
I have ordered Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" (published in 1951. Here are online excerpts:
"Mass movements aggressively promote the use of doctrines that elevate faith over reason and serve as "fact-proof screens between the faithful and the realities of the world... The doctrine of the mass movement must not be questioned under any circumstances." The second sentence describes the attitude of most Congressional Republicans vis a vis Trump's agendas.
"Hoffer does not take an exclusively negative view of "true believers" and the mass movements they begin. He gives examples of how the same forces that give rise to true believer mass movements can be channeled in more positive ways:..."
Incredibly, Hoffer regards Lincoln, Churchill and F.D.R. as champions of a "holy cause":
There are, of course, rare leaders such as Lincoln, Gandhi, even F.D.R., Churchill, and Nehru. They do not hesitate to harness man's hungers and fears to weld a following and make it zealous unto death in service of a holy cause; but unlike a Hitler, a Stalin, or even a Luther and a Calvin, they are not tempted to use the slime of frustrated souls as mortar in the building of a new world.... They know that no one can be honorable unless he honors mankind".
— p. 147
IMO-Arguably, Gandhi and Nehru may be considered as champions of a "holy cause" because of their non-violent tactics in defeating the British Empire.
With Eric Hoffer there are at last two dimensions: his liberal views as you have outlined them and his epistemology. I recommend him only for the latter. Personally, I don't refuse to use the services of an honest, expert dentist or car mechanic because he or she is a Democrat. By the same token, Hoffer's nuanced analysis of the psychology of the true believer has been useful to me, notwithstanding his hero worship of leaders I consider iniquitous.
Regarding J.D.Vance and his comments on abortion protest in the UK, the matter was referred to the UK Supreme Court who ruled that “freedom of speech does not include a right to a captive audience.”
In other words any protest outside of a building is now unlawful. The Scottish government will not allow protesters to gather outside the parliament building for ANY protest. The government took advantage of COVID emergency powers to introduce this legislation.
But it would also seem that silent prayer can be interpreted as “speech “ . A 74 year old lady was arrested 2 days ago in Glasgow (Scotland) for allegedly “breaching the 200 metre abortion buffer exclusion zone “.
As you correctly point out Vance did not point to the absurd redefinition of antisemitism that the US has brought in. However the Europeans have essentially bought into this redefinition whether they have legislated for it or not by supporting the massacre (and in the UK’s case being complicit in the supply of logistics and very probably weapons). So they cannot form the counter. In the UK journalists who defend the Palestinian cause are routinely harassed by police, with storm troopers knocking down the doors before arrest on spurious counter terrorism charges, their equipment and livelihood confiscated and put in solitary confinement for extended periods before being released. All to create a culture of fear.
Can I ask has this redefinition of antisemitism been challenged in a US court? It would obviously seem to impinge upon the US freedom of speech per the constitution
Dear Mr. Pickering
One can't challenge voluntary slavery in court. Harvard's cave-in to the definition was at their own discretion (even though it was transparently acceded to under moral and financial blackmail).
There's no substitute for courageous defiance.
It is true that wayward Catholics, in particular, the Medici reintroduced usury to Europe. It came at the same time that they were introducing paganism. This was self-serving; the Greek and Roman gods didn't object to charging interest. However, it was the protestants, first the Dutch with the Wisselbank and then the English with the Bank of England who really unleashed the system. Rothschilds had a foot up when the protestant Wilhelm IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, entrusted his money to Mayer Amschel, who then used that money to create the Rothschild family fortune.
So while it was bad Catholics who did not follow the faith which started the usurious system, it was protestants developed it into the insane system that we have now. Protestantism is the villain of the piece.
1. Some ancient Greek and Roman philosophers strongly objected to usury but there was no "teeth" in their objection and it was defeated by situation ethics.
2. You claim that Catholic usury bankers did not "unleash" the usury banking system. You blame Protestants. In other words, the huge papalist Medici and Fugger banking operations sat around on the sidelines surrendering their institutional lead to Protestant banks that would not arise to any meaningful extent for decades. The documentary record says otherwise.
3. "Protestantism is the villain of the piece." This is your ipse dixit. It has no other foundation.
Read my book "Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not."
And my Substack column, "In Defense of the Indefensible: The Excruciating Convolutions of E. Michael Jones"
https://michaelhoffman.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-the-indefensible-the
Having a spat with E. Michael Jones and moaning that certain popes possibly expanded the acceptability of charging interest, doesn't get around the fact the entire modern monetary system was founded in protestant countries - in particular England - to fund war and expand colonial trade. Like I said, Protestantism is the villain of the piece.