The spiritualisation of politics

[Ixtab]

Probably one of the greatest merits of the so-called totalitarian system is the calling-forth of people's ecstatic-orgiastic energies in the service of some higher end: what I call the spiritualisation of politics. It is something the world is in great need of; the de-spiritualisation of things, politics in particular, is reducing the masses to a sheep-like docility and cultural anemia that is in its scale without parallel in the history of the humanity. Men are becoming too cosmopolitan in outlook: they are members of all nations and no nation, all races and no races, and men are indoctrinated with a value-distorting egalitarianism and pan-humanism; their allegience to anything greater than themselves, their ideopraxism, is rendered feebler and feebler by this mindless extension of their "identification horizons" to borrow a term used in another post. Capitalism is the root cause of this madness: national, ethnic, racial, cultural and religious differences are all barriers to maximum profit. It is now only the citizens of the most 'backwards', the most uncapitalistic, of nations who are still capable of being roused into an ecstatic-orgiastic fervour, whether it is in the name of subjugating the world to Allah, establishing a 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' or through some ethnic affiliation. What the world needs is more of this spiritualisation of politics.

[humanist]

The essential problem, as I compute, is individualism, not some greater Whole, stemming from the lack of any established Truth which unites people with a common Worldview and mission.

I have nothing against a united world, with no national or racial identification. It would be a more stable world and a more efficient one, for there are no inherently inferior or evil races or nationalities. Everyone should be united and be able to contribute to a better world. The great common cause of the future should be rectifying the environmental problems of Earth and building a great spacefaring civilization. The prevailing Worldview should be the grand overview of progressive, Cosmic Evolution, Pan-Humanism, based on all of science, not obsolete precursors or antithetical religions.

[jcs]

I have nothing against a united world, with no national or racial identification. It would be a more stable world and a more efficient one, for there are no inherently inferior or evil races or nationalities. Everyone should be united and be able to contribute to a better world. The great common cause of the future should be rectifying the environmental problems of Earth and building a great spacefaring civilization. The prevailing Worldview should be the grand overview of progressive, Cosmic Evolution, Pan-Humanism, based on all of science, not obsolete precursors or antithetical religions.
Being so progressive, you might want to look into Darwinism and find out what speciation means, and how races fit into speciation, and thus evolutionary 'progress.'

[Fade the Butcher]

The essential problem, as I compute, is individualism, not some greater Whole, stemming from the lack of any established Truth which unites people with a common Worldview and mission.

Individualism is a problem, but it is inseparable from capitalism. The two come hand in hand.

I have nothing against a united world, with no national or racial identification.

This would necessarily be a world of universal friendship in which no humans would array themselves against each other as enemies. I don't believe that is feasible.

It would be a more stable world and a more efficient one, for there are no inherently inferior or evil races or nationalities.

Are Australian aboriginies and African pygmies the equals of Mongoloids and Caucasians?

Everyone should be united and be able to contribute to a better world.

A better world would be a world in which excellence is the goal, not mediocrity.

The prevailing Worldview should be the grand overview of progressive, Cosmic Evolution, Pan-Humanism, based on all of science, not obsolete precursors or antithetical religions.

I think you should go live in the Congo and preach pan-humanism to the natives.

[Ixtab]

That would be a more stable world and a more efficient one, ...1.)A united world might be more "efficient"; but to abolish racial and national distinctions would be counter-productive. Social and cultural variation is needed to produce social mutations, which in turn are necessary for social evolution.
2.)Recessive European genes are negated by non-European dominant genes when Europeans interbreed, thereby facilitating the discontinuation of European identity.
3.)Some people also have an æsthetic preference for the physical features of particular races.
4.)Finally, one has to consider the possibility of racial homogenisation having deleterious psychometric effects upon Asians and Europeans.

since there are no inherently inferior or evil races or nationalities.I agree. There are no inherently inferior or evil races or nationalities. There are, however, inborn racial differences in the distribution of fat, melanin levels, cranial capacity, intelligence, hormonal levels, body height, bone structure, hair texture, and many other things.

Everyone should be united and be able to contribute to a better world.Coöperation does not necessitate the existence of a rootless omniculture.

[Kodos]

I have nothing against a united world, with no national or racial identification. It would be a more stable world and a more efficient one, for there are no inherently inferior or evil races or nationalities. Everyone should be united and be able to contribute to a better world. The great common cause of the future should be rectifying the environmental problems of Earth and building a great spacefaring civilization. The prevailing Worldview should be the grand overview of progressive, Cosmic Evolution, Pan-Humanism, based on all of science, not obsolete precursors or antithetical religions.

What is your scientific or technological backround?

[humanist]

to abolish racial and national distinctions would be counter-productive
Not from the point of view of global unity, stability and peace. Of course such distinctions, and cultural ones, are disappearing anyway, even without any government policy, due to migration and mass communications.

Social and cultural variation is needed to produce social mutations, which in turn are necessary for social evolution

Advancing technology and science will do that. But I doubt a future Pan-human political system would worry about social evolution. A future regime will undoutedly be based on a secular ideology, considered the great Truth and meant to apply universally. The result, in theory, would be ideological and cultural monism; a kind of perfected stasis.

Individualism is a problem, but it is inseparable from capitalism. The two come hand in hand.
If by individualism you mean selfishness, no, that is not the only problem. Even collectivist states can impose barriers between humanity. The problem, as I understand it, are national, racial, and class divisions - barriers to reaching our full potential, for a divided race is a warring race, or at least an antagonistic race, and an antagonistic race must devote resources and energies to self-nullifying activities, energies could otherwise be devoted to scientific, technological and economic progress.

This would necessarily be a world of universal friendship in which no humans would array themselves against each other as enemies. Realise that our 'identification horizons,' to borrow a Saganian term, are always growing. Arthur C. Clark once remarked that it is hard to imagine even the most extreme nationalist not reconsidering his views as he "sees the Earth fade from a faint crescent to a tiny point of light lost among millions of stars."

Are Australian aboriginies and African pygmies the equals of Mongoloids and Caucasians?
Yes.

A better world would be a world in which excellence is the goal, not mediocrity.
How is human division conducive to excellence?

[Starr]

The problem, as I understand it, are national, racial, and class divisions - barriers to reaching our full potential, for a divided race is a warring race, or at least an antagonistic race, and an antagonistic race must devote resources and energies to self-nullifying activities, energies could otherwise be devoted to scientific, technological and economic progress.

Those barriers are always going to exist to some extent if not by force then by choice. What do you, humanist, mean by reaching "our"(the human race? puke) full potential? If that is something you can really explain.



Yes.

Races are not equal. No one is "equal to anyone else. Is a retarded child "equal" to a genious child? Are those Australian aboriginies(by past evidences of their "worth" ) likely to do or contribute anything to reaching that "full potential" Or are they just taking up space and valuable resources?

But I doubt a future Pan-human political system would worry about social evolution. A future regime will undoutedly be based on a secular ideology, considered the great Truth and meant to apply universally. The result, in theory, would be ideological and cultural monism; a kind of perfected stasis.

Great truth?:rofl: and how do you propose to get different people with completely different cultures, traits and ways of viewing the world to accept this universal "great truth" in the way you want them to? Will there be punishments for those who do not? You are almost creepy.:222: