Political compass for the21st century

[Hintergrund]

Many Traditionalists are Nationalists and vice versa. Why don't you lump them together?

[Bill the Piper]

(11-14-2018, 10:55 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Many Traditionalists are Nationalists and vice versa. Why don't you lump them together?

Not all, though.

Thomas Aquinas, the ultimate Catholic traditionalist, supported an universal Christendom. In general ethnic identity was suppressed in medieval Catholic culture. The same for the Islamists. They hate nationalism.

On the other hand, many nationalists are social Darwinists who oppose "outmoded religious superstitions". For example Satan Hussein wasn't exactly fond of shariah. His wives didn't wear any hair covering. What sort of traditionalism is that?

People who are both Black and Blue are on the cusp of both sectors, you can call them Identitarians.

[pbrower2a]

(11-14-2018, 12:55 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 10:55 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Many Traditionalists are Nationalists and vice versa. Why don't you lump them together?

Not all, though.

Thomas Aquinas, the ultimate Catholic traditionalist, supported an universal Christendom. In general ethnic identity was suppressed in medieval Catholic culture. The same for the Islamists. They hate nationalism.

On the other hand, many nationalists are social Darwinists who oppose "outmoded religious superstitions". For example Satan Hussein wasn't exactly fond of shariah. His wives didn't wear any hair covering. What sort of traditionalism is that?

People who are both Black and Blue are on the cusp of both sectors, you can call them Identitarians.

Yes. Osama bin Laden was clearly independent of any national entity. He was certainly opposed to non-Muslim Arabs as he was to non-Arab non-Muslims. One can be a nationalist and a communist.  Hitler was delighted to seize Jewish properties, something incompatible with true free-marketers. One Nazi offshoot, Strasserism, insists upon a socialist revolution as well as a national revolution. Red-blue syntheses are possible; Castro was an arch-conservative on family law.

It is impossible to have fusions along the edges except among adjacent tendencies.  What could an extreme counter-culture type ever have in common with a nationalist or a traditionalist? Nothing. A counter-culture (purple) can be markedly socialist (share the wealth, man!) or can believe that free enterprise is the sole possible economic vehicle to achievement of personhood (I would guess that many of our high-tech people are there). It is possible to fuse extreme values of capitalism (yellow) with either traditionalism (black) or a counter-culture tendency (purple); maybe the respect for free enterprise goes even to assignment of rights in people as serfs or slaves. The extreme-end yellow-black fusion would be a brutal slave-owning planter (a fictional character like Simon Legree fits there) or feudal lord. Such is largely discredited. Traditionalists can never be socialists or counter-culture people. Nationalists sacrifice the economic freedom of people not in 'their' national community and have no tolerance for any cultural dissidence.

On others -- someone like Falwell was close enough to establishment attitudes on economic organization (aside from pornography, prostitution, abortion, and probably liquor) and trusted the democratic process to go his way, believing that a devoutly-Christian America would accede to his world view. But we are approaching the center, where rule of law prevails and despotism is an abomination.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-14-2018, 01:22 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It is impossible to have fusions along the edges except among adjacent tendencies.  What could an extreme  counter-culture type ever have in common with a nationalist or a traditionalist? Nothing. A counter-culture (purple) can be markedly socialist (share the wealth, man!) or can believe that free enterprise is the sole possible economic vehicle to achievement of personhood (I would guess that many of our high-tech people are there). It is possible to fuse extreme values of capitalism (yellow) with either traditionalism (black) or a counter-culture tendency (purple); maybe the respect for free enterprise goes even to assignment of rights in people as serfs or slaves. The extreme-end yellow-black fusion would be a brutal slave-owning planter (a fictional character like Simon Legree fits there) or feudal lord. Such is largely discredited. Traditionalists can never be socialists or counter-culture people. Nationalists sacrifice the economic freedom of people not in 'their' national community and have no tolerance for any cultural dissidence.    

In the past I toyed with the idea that Christian Democracy is a purple-black or purple-blue fusion, but it's NOT the case. Such a fusion would indeed be impossible. Chr. Dem. is a centrist tendency, which has ideas from all sectors. Their views on war, migration and the environment are purple. Their concern for the working class is red. Their ideas about national unity and solidarity between classes are blue. Their concern for the family is black. Christian Democrats also have a pro-business wing (think Merkel), which is markedly yellow.

[pbrower2a]

Christian democracy is definitely toward the center That is no muddle; it is picking between the best of tendencies. That is not to say that there cannot be Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic democracy; indeed all that prevents a Zoroastrian democracy is the small number of Zoroastrians. (Zoroastrianism was a major world religion until the Islamic conquest of Persia. Neo-pagan democracy? The Vikings had a pagan democracy before they went Christian.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-14-2018, 03:54 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Christian democracy is definitely toward the center That is no muddle; it is picking between the best of tendencies. That is not to say that there cannot be Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic democracy; indeed all that prevents a Zoroastrian democracy is the small number of Zoroastrians. (Zoroastrianism was a major world religion until the Islamic conquest of Persia. Neo-pagan democracy? The Vikings had a pagan democracy before they went Christian.

Islamic democracy would have to abrogate hadith which proscribe the caliphate as the best regime for the Islamic community. There are several Muslim democracies, I think Iraqi Kurdistan looks best, but they have progressed so far because of neglecting their god's mandates.

As for Judaism, wasn't Ancient Israel a democracy before King David?

[pbrower2a]

(11-15-2018, 06:42 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 03:54 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Christian democracy is definitely toward the center That is no muddle; it is picking between the best of tendencies. That is not to say that there cannot be Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic democracy; indeed all that prevents a Zoroastrian democracy is the small number of Zoroastrians. (Zoroastrianism was a major world religion until the Islamic conquest of Persia. Neo-pagan democracy? The Vikings had a pagan democracy before they went Christian.

Islamic democracy would have to abrogate hadith which proscribe the caliphate as the best regime for the Islamic community. There are several Muslim democracies, I think Iraqi Kurdistan looks best, but they have progressed so far because of neglecting their god's mandates.

As for Judaism, wasn't Ancient Israel a democracy before King David?

Although the King James Bible calls the rulers of Israel "kings", those rulers of ancient Israel were elected in basically free elections for terms. The KJV could have called such leaders "Presidents", although the title would be invented for George Washington some centuries later.

A caliph as a constitutional, figurehead monarch could be the titular head of Islamic democracy. Elizabeth II may have a link to the tyrant Henry VIII as one of her predecessors, but that would not discredit her role.

The hadith themselves make Islam unattractive as a personal faith. Too bad. The Koran is arguably the most beautiful of all religious texts, which would itself be evidence of divinity. Contrast the Book of Mormon, which I find unreadable.

All in all, I think Muslims would be wise to heed the call of Mohamed to seek wisdom, no matter what its source (as he put it, "even China")... the more pathology that I see in Donald Trump and his political stooges, the greater admiration that I have for Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and our Founding Fathers.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-15-2018, 10:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Although the King James Bible calls the rulers of Israel "kings", those rulers of ancient Israel were elected in basically free elections for terms. The KJV could have called such leaders "Presidents", although the title would be invented for George Washington some centuries later.

THIS could be an evidence of divine (or alien   ) inspiration. Anyway, ancient Israel was among the most culturally developed societies of its time.

Quote:The Koran is arguably the most beautiful of all religious texts, which would itself be evidence of divinity.

Good style doesn't rule out being evil:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Qu.../long.html

[pbrower2a]

(11-15-2018, 10:42 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-15-2018, 10:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Although the King James Bible calls the rulers of Israel "kings", those rulers of ancient Israel were elected in basically free elections for terms. The KJV could have called such leaders "Presidents", although the title would be invented for George Washington some centuries later.

THIS could be an evidence of divine (or alien   ) inspiration. Anyway, ancient Israel was among the most culturally developed societies of its time.

Spain, Italy, Tunisia (Carthage), Greece, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq have richer antiquities. The Hebrews avoided depictions of the human form out of fear of idolatry in doing so, and generally did not build great monuments of any kind. Their treasure from antiquity consists of the Torah and the Talmud, and one need do little travel to get those. 

Quote:

Quote:The Koran is arguably the most beautiful of all religious texts, which would itself be evidence of divinity.

Good style doesn't rule out being evil:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Qu.../long.html

Change "Allah" to "God", and "disbelievers" to "sinners" to. and I have seen  much of the same said by self-professed Christians!

I happen to like the Jewish conception that the good and righteous will get fit rewards in Heaven, and the wicked and unjust will be out of sight and out of mind to those in Heaven. Obliterated once and forever or damned forever to some horrific but fitting torment, it will not matter to those in Heaven. Even stumbling about among fellow drunkards would be unpleasant.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-15-2018, 04:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Spain, Italy, Tunisia (Carthage), Greece, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq have richer antiquities. The Hebrews avoided depictions of the human form out of fear of idolatry in doing so, and generally did not build great monuments of any kind. Their treasure from antiquity consists of the Torah and the Talmud, and one need do little travel to get those. 

You're right about art and architecture, but I was thinking of morality. The Ten Commandments were morally ahead of the era when most nations practised human sacrifice. Athens gave us its art and philosophy, Rome its organisation, but our morality comes from Jerusalem.

Quote:Change "Allah" to "God", and "disbelievers" to "sinners" to. and I have seen  much of the same said by self-professed Christians!

What is unique about the Koran is that it commands the Muslim community to go war against Disbelievers. Jesus didn't issue such commandment. Even if some medieval popes did, their words are not considered infallible. Therefore I cannot accept Islam being on the same moral level with Christianity.

[pbrower2a]

The Koran was written in wartime, when most of the disbelievers that Mohamed faced were enemies intent on destroying him. Necessity forces moderation of the more bloodthirsty sayings in the Koran. Mainstream Muslims (which separates such fascists as the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Daesh, and Boko Haram, all generally recognized as heretics to most Muslims) are not at war with 'unbelievers'. There are parts of the Islamic world through which I would not now travel under any circumstances -- but there is also North Korea, which illustrates the principle.

I am not going to excuse subjection or compulsory conversion.

We have plenty of excellent movies from the early 1940s that portray Germans and Japanese in an unflattering light. Do most Americans accept that the unflattering light about America's wartime enemies is relevant today? Of course not. Muslims have had to cope with such powerful entities as the British Raj in India and in turn India.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-16-2018, 04:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We have plenty of excellent movies from the early 1940s that portray Germans and Japanese in an unflattering light. Do most Americans except that the unflattering light about America's wartime enemies is relevant today? Of course not.

There was a LOT of bad things about traditional German and Japanese culture. The reason it is not relevant today is that the Americans forced them to change after 1945.

Cultures can also change under the pressure of internal forces. Hopefully this will happen to the Muslim world. I suppose anybody who takes humanistic and democratic values seriously would find it hard to respect Mohammed. Do modern Germans respect the Teutonic Knights?

[Classic-Xer]

(11-17-2018, 07:16 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-16-2018, 04:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We have plenty of excellent movies from the early 1940s that portray Germans and Japanese in an unflattering light. Do most Americans except that the unflattering light about America's wartime enemies is relevant today? Of course not.

There was a LOT of bad things about traditional German and Japanese culture. The reason it is not relevant today is that the Americans forced them to change after 1945.

Cultures can also change under the pressure of internal forces. Hopefully this will happen to the Muslim world. I suppose anybody who takes humanistic and democratic values seriously would find it hard to respect Mohammed. Do modern Germans respect the Teutonic Knights?

How many Imperialist Japanese and Nazi Germans were alive after 1945?

[pbrower2a]

(11-17-2018, 07:16 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-16-2018, 04:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We have plenty of excellent movies from the early 1940s that portray Germans and Japanese in an unflattering light. Do most Americans except that the unflattering light about America's wartime enemies is relevant today? Of course not.

There was a LOT of bad things about traditional German and Japanese culture. The reason it is not relevant today is that the Americans forced them to change after 1945.

As national  pride  that thuggish leaders offered to get people to see that their sons going off to war as cannon fodder, that criticism of their results became treason, as the prospect of glorious victory turned into ignominious defeat,  as hunger arrived instead of plenty, as the casualty lists mounted, as buildings crumbled in bombings or became death traps in fires, as the currency became worthless, as refugees from what one thought was always part of one's nation, as living standards fell to those at the start of the industrial era, as returning soldiers returned from promises of a glorious future to doing the farm labor that slaves used to do, as the victors inundate you with tales of Bataan or Buchenwald, as the best hope for young women who lost their boyfriends or husbands in war see that the best thing that they can do for meeting basic needs like food is to throw themselves at the victors occupying their land... any nation wil change its ways.

Quote:Cultures can also change under the pressure of internal forces. Hopefully this will happen to the Muslim world. I suppose anybody who takes humanistic and democratic values seriously would find it hard to respect Mohammed. Do modern Germans respect the Teutonic Knights?

Casting off a religion that defines practically everything is exceedingly difficult. So how does one adapt such things as liberal democracy and objective science to Islam?

The Koran is a revelation in wartime, and it reflects the values of a warrior society that must remain a warrior society to be true to the religion.

[Bill the Piper]

(12-18-2018, 08:07 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Casting off a religion that defines practically everything is exceedingly difficult. So how does one adapt such things as liberal democracy and objective science to Islam?

The Koran is a revelation in wartime, and it reflects the values of a warrior society that must remain a warrior society to be true to the religion.

I've read that when Islamic clans become sedentary, they would abandon the austere way of life commanded by the prophet, and start more pleasure-oriented life. The sort of "Arabian nights" fantasy we are familiar with: feasts, hashish and belly dancers. Then another clans, who are still nomadic, would be appalled and invade them in name of jihad.

Most apostates are silent, because the Koran commands Muslims to execute them. But there are quite a few of them:

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Notable_Former_Muslims

[pbrower2a]

(12-22-2018, 09:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(12-18-2018, 08:07 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Casting off a religion that defines practically everything is exceedingly difficult. So how does one adapt such things as liberal democracy and objective science to Islam?

The Koran is a revelation in wartime, and it reflects the values of a warrior society that must remain a warrior society to be true to the religion.

I've read that when Islamic clans become sedentary, they would abandon the austere way of life commanded by the prophet, and start more pleasure-oriented life. The sort of "Arabian nights" fantasy we are familiar with: feasts, hashish and belly dancers. Then another clan, still nomadic, would be appalled and invade them in name of jihad.

An old, and oft-told tale: the disciplined herdsmen with their austere lives raid the effete and ill-guarded city and to their surprise oust its incompetent, self-indulgent elite that would rather wallow in wine, women and song than train as soldiers. Soon after the herdsmen overthrow the incompetent rulers they establish themselves as rulers. Human nature as it is, the people who were not the ruling elite of the newly-conquered city go back to their old ways of wine (or at least rich food), women, and song, and use those to tempt the new rulers. It usually works. The culture of the conquered wins against the ways of the austere herdsman.

Luxury appeals to all economic elites from those conquerors in that tale to lords of the feudal manor to priestly rulers to capitalists to executives... and even to bureaucrats of 'socialist' states. From gold plates from which to eat to Rolls Royce automobiles or private jets, such is the nature of elites.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2018, 04:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Koran was written in wartime, when most of the disbelievers that Mohamed faced were enemies intent on destroying him. Necessity forces moderation of the more bloodthirsty sayings in the Koran. Mainstream Muslims (which separates such fascists as the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Daesh, and Boko Haram, all generally recognized as heretics to most Muslims) are not at war with 'unbelievers'. There are parts of the Islamic world through which I would not now travel under any circumstances -- but there is also North Korea, which illustrates the principle.

I am not going to excuse subjection or compulsory conversion.  

We have plenty of excellent movies from the early 1940s that portray Germans and Japanese in an unflattering light. Do most Americans accept that the unflattering light about America's wartime enemies is relevant today? Of course not. Muslims have had to cope with such powerful entities as the British Raj in India and in turn India.

The Koran was written some decades before Mohammed's war from Medina to conquer Mecca. The notion of jihad is that of an internal, spiritual war against temptation. Thus in essence Islam is not a warrior religion. It is about surrender to God; that's what the word means. Islam is Judaism for Arabs. It is worship of the One God, the Judaic God.

All religions can be corrupted by fundamentalism. That certainly has often applied to Christianity, and more-recently to Islam.

[David Horn]

(12-23-2018, 12:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: All religions can be corrupted by fundamentalism. That certainly has often applied to Christianity, and more-recently to Islam.

That's true of all strongly held beliefs. Religion is more or less the ultimate in that category, but culture, politics and tribe are in there too. Of course, the fundamentalists miss that point.

[Bill the Piper]

(12-23-2018, 12:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Koran was written some decades before Mohammed's war from Medina to conquer Mecca. The notion of jihad is that of an internal, spiritual war against temptation. Thus in essence Islam is not a warrior religion. It is about surrender to God; that's what the word means. Islam is Judaism for Arabs. It is worship of the One God, the Judaic God.

Within the Koran there are Meccan surahs and Medinan surahs. The Meccan surahs indeed contain "Judaism for Arabs". They are an attempt to restore the pure religion of Abraham. And then Mahommed decided he wants to wage a war. Then he started "receiving" the Medinan surahs, which teach violent jihad. Because they are later, they are considered to abrogate the peaceful Meccan creed. It's not about "fundamentalism", it's classical Islamic theology:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Abrog..._verses.29

Mahommed always used the word "jihad" in the military sense. The idea of internal jihad arose only in the 11th century:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad

[Eric the Green]

(12-25-2018, 02:45 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(12-23-2018, 12:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Koran was written some decades before Mohammed's war from Medina to conquer Mecca. The notion of jihad is that of an internal, spiritual war against temptation. Thus in essence Islam is not a warrior religion. It is about surrender to God; that's what the word means. Islam is Judaism for Arabs. It is worship of the One God, the Judaic God.

Within the Koran there are Meccan surahs and Medinan surahs. The Meccan surahs indeed contain "Judaism for Arabs". They are an attempt to restore the pure religion of Abraham. And then Mahommed decided he wants to wage a war. Then he started "receiving" the Medinan surahs, which teach violent jihad. Because they are later, they are considered to abrogate the peaceful Meccan creed. It's not about "fundamentalism", it's classical Islamic theology:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Abrog..._verses.29

Mahommed always used the word "jihad" in the military sense. The idea of internal jihad arose only in the 11th century:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad

The article uses the word "abrogated" all the time without defining it. I suppose it means changing it?

The Muslims went to war and conquered territory starting in the 640s after the prophet's death. But once they had conquered, the Islamic rulers were tolerant and promoted science, culture and art. The art focused on design and Koran verses rather than imagery since it was considered to be idol worship. Since internal jihad is in the Koran, iirc, I don't think it's something that arose later. Wiki articles often discount the more spiritual aspects of religion and other pursuits.

Fundamentalism is what "it's about" today. Those who are making war and terror today are the fundamentalists, and that is a new perversion of Islam. An Islamic army is not new, but the interpretation of literal Islamic Law and Islamic Jihad waged to establish it is new and this fundamentalism has been promoted by the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia. Of course the Jews and Christians had just as many if not more warriors and wars than the Muslims have had (the Bible is full of the Jewish wars), and so have pagans, Hindus and the Chinese adherents of Confucius and Taoism. It is notable that in Mohammed's day women's rights were respected in Islam but in our day they are not. Religion is often perverted because the spiritual roots of it are adapted to worldly power.