Turnabout thoughts in and out of season

Environmentalism is truly a religion. Consider:

Hi Mr. Kalb,

I bought and recently read your book, and enjoyed it very much, depressing as the subject matter itself is. I found your ideas and general argument well-developed, and well-argued.

Here is a discussion transferred from Frank Turek's site. The issue is whether is Obama is the most extreme proponent of abortion:

Mr. Kalb,

Be sure to check into Frank Turek's website: http://www.crossexamined.org/

What bothers me is Frank does not nail down his arguments but gets distracted by obfuscators such as Crowell. I mean "I don't know" is a belief despite Crowell's arguments. End the discussion there. I expect you could expose Crowell as a nominalist. All the obscuration with semantics should be dealt with accordingly.

Paul

I got into an interesting discussion (if I do say so myself), over at 2 blowhards, with a cryonics enthusiast, on a post about ageing, here.

I was wondering what thoughts Mr. Kalb or any other Turnabout regulars (or occasionals like me) might have on the whole cryonics movement. What do you think the cryonics people are trying to do? (Beyond their stated aims of continued life.) Are they indeed trying to bring about their own version of the resurrection of the body? And why? And what are the implications?

Being unable to respond to the above topic digitably by Mr. Kalb is par for the digital course. So I am forced to create a "new topic," not.

Mr. Kalb has laid out, as a professor does, his theories in clear detail. You just are not going to get this kind of down-to-earth intellectualism anywhere on the Net (except at View From the Right, amnation.com/vfr/), unless you are reviewing a mathematics site. The theories deserve careful study and questioning. Notice how he gets no coherent arguments opposing his ideas. "They" know of Mr. Kalb and have no desire to dare oppose him.

We're all familiar with Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, and their staunchly anti-religious views.

How about Sam Harris, author of best-sellers "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation"? You may have heard of him from newspapers or cable TV coverage.

Dawkins says that Harris's book "The End of Faith" should replace Gideon's Bible in all hotel/motel rooms.

From an article by David Theroux:

Hello,

We would like to inform you about the birth of a new online community:

FORUM EUROPAE

::Indo-European Tradition::

| Forum-europae.com | Blazing.ws |

FORUM EUROPAE is an initiative of Blazing Productions and strives to
function as an online community dedicated to the preservation and
celebration of Indo-European spirituality and culture. It wishes to
serve as a medium for thought and cultural action connecting and
uniting those of Indo-European descent.

MENS ANIMA CORPUS !
-spirit- -mind- -body-

Feel free to take a look at:

-> WWW.FORUM-EUROPAE.COM <-

Mr. Kalb referred, in his post on Weaver, to nominalism and its impact on Western intellectual history and the Western worldview. In this connection, I ran across the transcription of a lecture by Tillich -- in a series of lectures on the history of Christian thought -- that included a layman's introduction to nominalism and its historic impact. Because of its length, I opened this forum rather than post it in comments.

"Let me say a little more about what nominalism means. We discussed it in the big survey of the Middle Ages, but we did not discuss it in a detailed way. This fight between nominalism and realism is the destiny of the Middle Ages and largely the destiny of our own time. In our own time it is repeated, partly at least, as a discussion or a fight between idealism and realism, whereby "realism" today is what "nominalism" is in the Middle Ages, and "idealism" today is what "realism" was in the Middle Ages. So here again you must be very cautious about the words. When I speak of medieval realism, I usually add the adjective "mystical" realism. Now if you hear this word, you are immediately terrified, of course, and don't think of the modern, sound realism of empiricists and other good people! – they all are based on nominalism in the Middle Ages. What is this nominalism? Ockham criticized the mystical realism of the Middle Ages which thinks the universals are real, in saying that the universals, if existing independently, are special things. If they exist otherwise, they simply reduplicate the things. If they exist in the mind only, they are not real things. Therefore realism is nonsense. Realism which thinks that the universals are real, has no meaning because realism cannot say what kind of reality the universals have. What kin d of reality has "treehood"? Ockham says it is only in the mind, therefore it has no reality at all, it is something which is meant, but it is not a reality. The realists of that time said: No, the universal, "treehood", which directs every tree in a special direction, is a power of being in itself. It is not a thing – no realist ever said that – but it is a power of being. The nominalists said there are only individual things and nothing else. It is against the principle of economy in thinking, not to augment the principles. If you can explain something like the universals in the simplest term, that they are meant by the mind, then you should not establish a heaven of ideas as Plato did.

Dear Mr. Kalb and Fellow Readers,

The parallels of Islam and National Socialism (NS) are intriguing.

“Its mainstays were the doctrines of racial inequality and of adherence to the leader, or Führer; its constant theme was nationalist expansion.” http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0859882.html Muslims believe non-Muslims are unequal and constantly rail against White “devils.” They adhere to a leader, Mohammed (Muhammad) and, by doctrinal delegation, local mullahs.

“Vague and mystical, [NS] was not a system of well-defined principles.” By some accounts, the Koran is an incoherent, rambling text.

Dear Mr. Kalb,

Moderate Islam means Islam is unable to threaten Western Civilization: Israel, Europe, Australia, and America. Assuming this is true, how does one solve the problem caused by immoderate behavior by some Muslim people? Kill or eject immoderate Muslims wherever they hide regardless of collateral damage after careful evaluation.

Muslims are people, and many if not most people do not want to die because of their behavior. One can therefore conclude most Muslims do not want to behave in such a way that they will die. An exhibition by the West probably will induce moderation, we hope, so that we do not kill nice people.

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Dear Group Members,

I want to share my article with you. This is about the link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues. The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.

Thank you,
Sushil Yadav

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.

Hi
My name is Jonathan Gress. I have some font issues here, really basic ones. The font is just too small for me to read, and I'd like some advice how to configure things so I can actually read the posts and stuff. Thanks.

Is anyone interested in reorganizing the Knights Templar (or a similar order) on a strictly Catholic Traditionalist basis? What else could counteract the general process of abysmal civilizational decline and cleanse the age of its excess filth? The Atlanteans of Plato lost their divine nature through repeated crossing with corrupt humanity and worship of the lightless flesh. The modern Western world is thus in the "Atlantean" phase of decadence, insofar as a once integral civilization is now consumed in demonolatrous flesh-worship and nihilistic pornocracy. The historical Templars probably succumbed to jewish banking and jewish-arabian pseudomysticism, but the theoretical ideal is still valid, especially for our lawless age: the creative synthesis of the monk and the warrior. Following Augustine, it is understood martial deeds springing from the right motives are not inherently sinful but even praiseworthy. Emphasis would be laid on Cistercian Eucharistic Grail mysticism--"Only the pure of character can attain the Grail". Galahad should become again the Western male role-model and archetype.

I take this excerpt from Hugh Hewitt's site, summarizing a thesis of James Caesar of the University of Virginia that the Left seeks to implement an ideology of "non-foundationalism." I think Caesar is superficially correct and substantively wrong.

"The left in this country has adopted "non-foundationalism," a belief that "a new kind of society, free of all foundations, can be constructed," and that this "is the only society deserving of the name of being truly democratic."

Ceasar's essay concludes:

The non-foundational position represents a utopian experiment that has yet no basis in real political science. Nothing in experience suggests it could ever work, at least for a nation that is tasked with performing an important role on the stage of world history. Without a foundational principle, even more without the moral energy that derives from a concern for foundational principle, a community cannot exist in a deep or meaninglful sense. And without this energy, a community would be unable to extract from its mmbers the added measure of devotion and resolve that are needed for its survival and for undertaking any important projects. What is involved, ultimately, inthe shift to non-foundationalism is an evacuation of what makes a nation, When the illusion of a genuine nation existing without foundations is finally acknowledged --if it is acknowledged-- political life will return to the real political question: which is not whether to have a foundation, but rather which one(s) to embrace and in which mixture. This conclusion only gets us back to where sensible political life begins, which is finding foundational remedies to the problem most incident to foundational thinking. On that ground, and that ground alone, let the polarization continue."

I've mentioned that IMHO, modernity, as a matter of principle, does not value human life.

"Human life," within modernity, is just another fact, and as such is treated like any other fact: with neutrality and devoid of any intrinsic value.

Then, I ran across this quote from Trotsky, a principled modernist if there ever was one:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."

William MacClain maintains an Eric Voegelin study page, and I found the following at his site, which summarizes Voegelin's comparisons of classical understanding of human nature and modern/liberal understandings. I quote from his page:

"A reflection on the purposes and prospects of classical studies.

The original definition as "the study of man's nature as it has become manifest in the Greeks" is no longer accepted because of:

-the fragmentation of science through specialization
-the deculturation of Western society

The loss is not seen as a catastrophe because in the current "climate of opinion" the nature of man is not of interest. It has even become an object of hatred because man's nature has proved resistant to change by those motivated by the will to power.

Dear Mr. Kalb and Fellow Readers,

I intend to research whether El Presidente, Bush, is guilty of treason or sedition. The result might be reflective of Bush's embracement of official Mexican policy to retake the Southwest and abrogate the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Paul Henri

I'm wondering if anyone has read or is reading Michael Burleigh's new book on the French Revolution and the modern political religions, entitled _Earthly Powers_. I've started reading it and it so far is pretty good, detailing the atrocities committed in the name of "reason" by the revolutionists. Burleigh builds upon the theories of Erik Voegelin who suspected that modern day political religions were revivals of Gnostic heresies. I find the parallels between revolutionary terror and modern day leftism particularly eery when one considers the leftist/secularist attempt to root out Christianity from the core of our most cherished notions. In any event, I thought I'd bring up this book as something people might be interested in because it seems to be in the spirit of this site. Thanks.

Dear Mr. Kalb and Fellow Readers,

The evil or foolish Condi Rice was "Shocked that top aide to Iran's nuclear Honcho had Green Card . . . Since 1993." We traditionalists are not at all shocked. Condi (a fellow New Orleanian/Kennerite) is foolish to believe in Bush’s ideas. She is so foolish she does understand Islam must be confronted.

Paul