Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Materialism or individual freedom
3 views
Skip to first unread message
M Winther
Nov 7, 2012, 5:42:38 AM11/7/12
to
It is high time that Western man changes his consciousness of moral
matters. As a consequence people will change their ways. It is actually
as if we worship human life as the supreme good. It wasn't like this
earlier in history. I am not advocating a return to olden ways, but
perhaps we could learn something from history. Charitable deeds toward
the needy humans has become an obsession, but this has as a consequence
that nature is overtaxed. It is a double standard of morality. We ought
to leave something behind for future generations, too, and not only
think of the generations that are alive today. The other day I saw a
documentary about the Bakhtiari nomads. It was time for an old man to
die. He had lost his zest so he chose not to follow the others who waded
over the river during their yearly wandering. He just sat down on the
hillside and awaited death. This was played out before the camera in
Bronowski's series from the seventies (The Ascent of Man). I am not
saying that this is worthy of imitation. I am only saying that mankind
has viewed these matters differently in earlier times.
It is not self-evident to always give our support to all forms of human
life. Earlier in history it was not obligatory to subsidize the
expansion of the human population in the Third World. The problem is
that we subsidize passive human life, whereas we should really give our
support to a self-supporting human culture that can fend for itself
without devastating the environment. But people don't seem to care. The
greater the population, the better it is. In fact, what really counts is
the human spirit, and not the passive and vegetating human flesh. My
country is invaded with people from Third World countries, who have for
the most part a primitive psychology. To subsidize these people is
reckoned as the highest good, by most of my countrymen. They will eat,
defecate, and copulate, and lead completely meaningless lives in a
civilization which is only capable of fending for their material needs,
and nothing more. It has only destructive consequences.
The materialist obsession with sustaining the growth of human flesh must
come to an end. It builds on a Marxist doctrine: "From each according to
his ability, to each according to his needs." The Communist persecutions
in the USA during the fifties builds on a misconception. McCarthy
thought that it was Communist individuals who represented a threat. In
fact, it was the Communist way of thought, the obsession with a
materialist interpretation of the world, which was infiltrating the
human soul. The spirit isn't the center of attention anymore. It is the
growth and well-being of human flesh that counts. Thusly, we need to be
nourished and passively fed, according to the dictum: "to each according
to his needs".
If instead the human spirit and the divine spirit become the center of
attention in human life, the survival and well-being of every individual
isn't that essential, anymore. Charity is good, provided that it comes
from the heart. But if charity derives from a doctrine that has been
programmed into the head, it will lead to evil consequences. What ought
to be first priority is individual life with a spiritual connection. If
we could achieve a better balance between spirit and matter then we
needn't experience those setbacks in Fascism, Communism and Nazism, and
global wars, in which individual life suddenly counts for nothing. The
only thing that counts are the State and the Dogmas. Today, this
standpoint is represented by radical Islamists, who want to achieve the
Caliphate, the Muslim state, in which religious law rules.
Thus, as Communists and Socialists subscribe to a dogmatic form of
charity (to each according to his needs), they will turn to the other
extreme and worship the Communist state as the only valuable thing,
whereas the individual counts for nothing. Behind this materialist
obsession with the sustainment of human flesh hides a collectivistic
spirit that accords life with no value at all, and which aims to
eradicate individuality. I have written about it in my Thanatos article:
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/thanatos.htm
There is a pendulum movement between the obsession with keeping each
individual alive and wholly sustained, and the opposite standpoint of
collectivism where the individual counts for nothing, who can easily be
sacrificed in war effort, or as a slave to the state. These are the
opposite sides of the same coin, materialism and its flip side,
Thanatos - the spirit of death.
A *conscious* obsession with keeping human flesh alive is also an
*unconscious* obsession with the spirit of death, that is, an
unconscious worship of the slave state and the regulated and perfectly
controlled society where individuality will perish. Thus, the spirit of
collectivism is the enemy of the spirit of the individual. Americans
always talk about "individual freedom". They should know that the
spirit of Communism and Thanatos does not manifest in individuals, such
as Obama. It works differently. It slowly takes over their own soul. It
comes to expression in the obsession with keeping human flesh alive at
all cost, and providing for the material needs of the global population,
the striving for opulence, and making one's own life as materially
comfortable as possible. Americans should know that there is a monster
hiding in materialism, which threatens individual freedom. A simpler
lifestyle, more in tune with nature, can ward off this threat.
Mats Winther
matters. As a consequence people will change their ways. It is actually
as if we worship human life as the supreme good. It wasn't like this
earlier in history. I am not advocating a return to olden ways, but
perhaps we could learn something from history. Charitable deeds toward
the needy humans has become an obsession, but this has as a consequence
that nature is overtaxed. It is a double standard of morality. We ought
to leave something behind for future generations, too, and not only
think of the generations that are alive today. The other day I saw a
documentary about the Bakhtiari nomads. It was time for an old man to
die. He had lost his zest so he chose not to follow the others who waded
over the river during their yearly wandering. He just sat down on the
hillside and awaited death. This was played out before the camera in
Bronowski's series from the seventies (The Ascent of Man). I am not
saying that this is worthy of imitation. I am only saying that mankind
has viewed these matters differently in earlier times.
It is not self-evident to always give our support to all forms of human
life. Earlier in history it was not obligatory to subsidize the
expansion of the human population in the Third World. The problem is
that we subsidize passive human life, whereas we should really give our
support to a self-supporting human culture that can fend for itself
without devastating the environment. But people don't seem to care. The
greater the population, the better it is. In fact, what really counts is
the human spirit, and not the passive and vegetating human flesh. My
country is invaded with people from Third World countries, who have for
the most part a primitive psychology. To subsidize these people is
reckoned as the highest good, by most of my countrymen. They will eat,
defecate, and copulate, and lead completely meaningless lives in a
civilization which is only capable of fending for their material needs,
and nothing more. It has only destructive consequences.
The materialist obsession with sustaining the growth of human flesh must
come to an end. It builds on a Marxist doctrine: "From each according to
his ability, to each according to his needs." The Communist persecutions
in the USA during the fifties builds on a misconception. McCarthy
thought that it was Communist individuals who represented a threat. In
fact, it was the Communist way of thought, the obsession with a
materialist interpretation of the world, which was infiltrating the
human soul. The spirit isn't the center of attention anymore. It is the
growth and well-being of human flesh that counts. Thusly, we need to be
nourished and passively fed, according to the dictum: "to each according
to his needs".
If instead the human spirit and the divine spirit become the center of
attention in human life, the survival and well-being of every individual
isn't that essential, anymore. Charity is good, provided that it comes
from the heart. But if charity derives from a doctrine that has been
programmed into the head, it will lead to evil consequences. What ought
to be first priority is individual life with a spiritual connection. If
we could achieve a better balance between spirit and matter then we
needn't experience those setbacks in Fascism, Communism and Nazism, and
global wars, in which individual life suddenly counts for nothing. The
only thing that counts are the State and the Dogmas. Today, this
standpoint is represented by radical Islamists, who want to achieve the
Caliphate, the Muslim state, in which religious law rules.
Thus, as Communists and Socialists subscribe to a dogmatic form of
charity (to each according to his needs), they will turn to the other
extreme and worship the Communist state as the only valuable thing,
whereas the individual counts for nothing. Behind this materialist
obsession with the sustainment of human flesh hides a collectivistic
spirit that accords life with no value at all, and which aims to
eradicate individuality. I have written about it in my Thanatos article:
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/thanatos.htm
There is a pendulum movement between the obsession with keeping each
individual alive and wholly sustained, and the opposite standpoint of
collectivism where the individual counts for nothing, who can easily be
sacrificed in war effort, or as a slave to the state. These are the
opposite sides of the same coin, materialism and its flip side,
Thanatos - the spirit of death.
A *conscious* obsession with keeping human flesh alive is also an
*unconscious* obsession with the spirit of death, that is, an
unconscious worship of the slave state and the regulated and perfectly
controlled society where individuality will perish. Thus, the spirit of
collectivism is the enemy of the spirit of the individual. Americans
always talk about "individual freedom". They should know that the
spirit of Communism and Thanatos does not manifest in individuals, such
as Obama. It works differently. It slowly takes over their own soul. It
comes to expression in the obsession with keeping human flesh alive at
all cost, and providing for the material needs of the global population,
the striving for opulence, and making one's own life as materially
comfortable as possible. Americans should know that there is a monster
hiding in materialism, which threatens individual freedom. A simpler
lifestyle, more in tune with nature, can ward off this threat.
Mats Winther
Andy Wainwright
Nov 7, 2012, 10:24:08 AM11/7/12
to
Materialistic? And you claim people should be treated differently
according to how they look?
That's about as bloody materialistic is it's possible to get.
>
according to how they look?
That's about as bloody materialistic is it's possible to get.
>
M Winther
Nov 7, 2012, 11:17:07 AM11/7/12
to
"Andy Wainwright" wrote in message news:k7duev$78a$1...@dont-email.me...
>Materialistic? And you claim people should be treated differently according
>to how they look?
>That's about as bloody materialistic is it's possible to get.
I don't discuss looks. I discuss a general change in consciousness. I think
that the Somalis and the Bengalese ought to take care of themselves,
regardless of looks, and regardless if they are black or white. It is
materialistic to bother about of these peoples' material welfare. Earlier in
history, we were more concerned with the welfare of the soul, whether or not
people would be allowed entry to heaven. Today, the materialistic,
paradisical, welfare state is regarded the new heaven. But it is an
illusion.
M. Winther
>Materialistic? And you claim people should be treated differently according
>to how they look?
>That's about as bloody materialistic is it's possible to get.
that the Somalis and the Bengalese ought to take care of themselves,
regardless of looks, and regardless if they are black or white. It is
materialistic to bother about of these peoples' material welfare. Earlier in
history, we were more concerned with the welfare of the soul, whether or not
people would be allowed entry to heaven. Today, the materialistic,
paradisical, welfare state is regarded the new heaven. But it is an
illusion.
M. Winther
Andy Wainwright
Nov 8, 2012, 4:51:11 AM11/8/12
to
person. Machines can do a lot of things, but nothing man made can live
in the true sense of the word. We can make cars, we can even make
diamonds and gold, we can't make a soul. This suggests that nothing man
made is worth as much as a human life.
It starts getting interesting when you consider that animals presumably
have souls, and humans have certain biological features suggesting
meat-eating is natural, ie. canine teeth etc, although a human can
survive on a vegitarian diet.
As for third world immigrants, you invade other countries, and other
countries people will come you your country. Europeans didn't have to
inade Africa, Asia and America, but they did- and unlike the folks
who've come to Britain, they just didn't push old ladies around in
wheelchairs, drive underground trains, treat cancer patients or staff
24-hour shops- working their way up in society honestly. There's been a
few terrorists and criminals, although work ethic is generally higher
and unemployment usually due to prejudice as opposed to not wanting to
work. Go to the typical McDonalds in England and you'll find a lot of
ethnic minority staff even though pay is often very little more than
welfare- that proves my point. So we should call ourselves lucky.
M Winther
Nov 8, 2012, 10:17:09 AM11/8/12
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i
meddelandet news:k7fvao$k3d$1...@dont-email.me...
trivial matters. I am discussing the consequences for our civilization,
regardless if immigrants work in McDonalds. It is depressing that you
can't see farther than your nose.
M. Winther
M Winther
Nov 9, 2012, 2:18:18 AM11/9/12
to
The soul of modern man is being invaded with the mechanistic,
materialistic spirit, which also comes to expression as Marxist ways of
thought, i.e., that human flesh all over the world must be fended for
and humanity must be cultivated to grow out of bounds. Also Catholics
have been indoctrinated with this materialistic, mechanistic morality.
In the 19th century, Catholics did not think that humanity is the
supreme good. Nor did they think that the physical welfare of people
over the world is of central importance. Something has happened. An
obsession with matter and human flesh has taken over. M-L von Franz
(Alchemy, 1980) says:
"This pronounced lack of a feminine personification of the unconscious
has therefore been compensated by the radical materialism which has
gradually taken hold of the Christian tradition. One could say that
practically no religion began with such a highly one-sided spiritual
accent and has landed - if you think of Communism as the end form of
Christian theology - in such an absolutely one-sided materialistic
aspect. The swing from one to the other is one of the most striking
phenomena we know of in the history of religion...
[...]
what seems to be self-evident, i.e., that the State should look after
its children, is really the projection of the mother image, and that is
not self-evident. He ends his book very intelligently by saying that we
should become conscious of what we are projecting onto the State and
begin with a real Auseinandersetzung, or confrontation, and not change
our laws by just projecting a mother image.
[Marti's book Urbild und Verfassung] describes a small aspect of a slow
turn which on a large scale has happened in the whole Christian
civilization and which one could call a secret unobtrusive return to
matriarchy and materialism. This enantiodromia has to do with the fact
that the Judaeo-Christian religion did not face the archetype of the
mother consciously enough. It had to a certain extent excluded the
question. It is well known, also, that when Pope Pius XII declared the
assumptio Maria his conscious aim was to hit Communistic materialism by
elevating, so to speak, a symbol of matter in the Catholic Church, so as
to take the wind out of the Communists' sails. There is a much deeper
implication, but that was his conscious idea, namely that the only way
to fight the materialistic aspect would be by raising to a higher
position the symbol of the feminine Godhead, and with it matter. Since
it is the Virgin Mary's body which is raised to Heaven, emphasis is on
the physical material aspect." (von Franz, 1980, pp.212-15)
Mats Winther
"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> skrev i meddelandet
news:509a3b33$0$4137$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
materialistic spirit, which also comes to expression as Marxist ways of
thought, i.e., that human flesh all over the world must be fended for
and humanity must be cultivated to grow out of bounds. Also Catholics
have been indoctrinated with this materialistic, mechanistic morality.
In the 19th century, Catholics did not think that humanity is the
supreme good. Nor did they think that the physical welfare of people
over the world is of central importance. Something has happened. An
obsession with matter and human flesh has taken over. M-L von Franz
(Alchemy, 1980) says:
"This pronounced lack of a feminine personification of the unconscious
has therefore been compensated by the radical materialism which has
gradually taken hold of the Christian tradition. One could say that
practically no religion began with such a highly one-sided spiritual
accent and has landed - if you think of Communism as the end form of
Christian theology - in such an absolutely one-sided materialistic
aspect. The swing from one to the other is one of the most striking
phenomena we know of in the history of religion...
[...]
what seems to be self-evident, i.e., that the State should look after
its children, is really the projection of the mother image, and that is
not self-evident. He ends his book very intelligently by saying that we
should become conscious of what we are projecting onto the State and
begin with a real Auseinandersetzung, or confrontation, and not change
our laws by just projecting a mother image.
[Marti's book Urbild und Verfassung] describes a small aspect of a slow
turn which on a large scale has happened in the whole Christian
civilization and which one could call a secret unobtrusive return to
matriarchy and materialism. This enantiodromia has to do with the fact
that the Judaeo-Christian religion did not face the archetype of the
mother consciously enough. It had to a certain extent excluded the
question. It is well known, also, that when Pope Pius XII declared the
assumptio Maria his conscious aim was to hit Communistic materialism by
elevating, so to speak, a symbol of matter in the Catholic Church, so as
to take the wind out of the Communists' sails. There is a much deeper
implication, but that was his conscious idea, namely that the only way
to fight the materialistic aspect would be by raising to a higher
position the symbol of the feminine Godhead, and with it matter. Since
it is the Virgin Mary's body which is raised to Heaven, emphasis is on
the physical material aspect." (von Franz, 1980, pp.212-15)
Mats Winther
"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> skrev i meddelandet
news:509a3b33$0$4137$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
0 new messages