|
Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Aug 29, 2018 17:55:59 GMT
I think even lower level inclusion of Latin could afford us advantages in the long run as a joining incentive, capital creator and class signifier First of all learning Latin can be seen as a decisive moral act, in that the act of doing so would instill the ideal or at least the logical argument into our membership that the past, these cultures have value, and that it is good to protect them. This would be reinforced every time one engaged with the language academically or used in the wider sphere of life. Secondly an academy which allowed young intellectually minded people to engage in the classics as they were written would be be a pull for the right kind of people and serve not only recruitment but also vetting, and a potential for gaining funds. Latin used to be taught in the schools of my country and although people in my parents generation often tell they hated learning Latin school, I always personally resented never getting the chance myself. Religious services and music faithfully reproduced in Latin probably also has a degree of public appeal. Latin and other language based education services could act as one of many public filters that could be useful as buffers/roads to flow into the general hierarchy of the org.
I agree with this assessment. Latin was a lingua franca of scholars for centuries (millennia?) and it has a great tradition of use which would be good for our people to carry on so we can feel like we are drawing on our ancestors as opposed to making it all up as we go along. It is still used in the natural sciences, binomial nomenclature being one example. And as you pointed out the dedication and intellect needed for the study of Latin could act as one form of quality control in terms of the hierarchy of the organization.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Aug 29, 2018 20:16:56 GMT
See this is the key thing to me here and unfortunately I'm completely scatter brained due to coming to several different conclusions, refuting some, accepting them again and so on due to to even a minor insert of information into the question can, while not completely, largely shatter what I've garnered in the past in regards to these points. The internet is so over saturated with occult and esoteric analysis of history and religion that its spawned into this cartoon narrative with a new age mystique, then from that generates its own noise that drowns out and obfuscates anything remotely constructive or truthful when these are probably (in my estimation) some of the most important things to try to understand.
I'd be interested in being proven wrong here but I think the first thing that should be attempted for anyone going down this route in the future is a complete refutation of any occult guru, no matter what their prestige or positive accountability they seemingly have. Since most people that are remotely savvy to any of this have a lot of their view shaped by these people (who are often frauds, someone like Jordan Maxwell comes to mind), an extensive look at source material in a deconstructive capacity might be best. What has me in a total mental paralysis might sound nihilistic and postmodern, but how do you even identify what's "real" in this pursuit? Reading Kabbalah? What's that derivative of? Or anything like that. You could get lost for eternity in the Secret Teachings of All Ages and still have to face the fact that it's written by someone who has already contextualized a lot of those things, based on people that contextualized those things, and so on. We can't resurrect the high priests of 4000 years ago, nor the occultists of a few centuries. My biggest fear is either:
A. The key texts are unavailable to the public, as suggested that they're perhaps kept in libraries that we'll never have access to. B. Are destroyed C., and my worst fear, that these texts are merely ancillary to the actual forces at hand and all they amount to are pieces of what's already a vague operation that we're trying to make a total systematical analysis of based off only the texts available. It'd be like trying to reconstruct a language where half the letters aren't in documented existence. A code with no cipher that's being decoded by force, generating a newly-synthesized fraud.
I think the best we can do, and the best suggestion I've read in a long time anywhere that Napoleoff suggested is that there might not be any strict continuity or grand mystical conspiracy to this, which I'm sure a lot of people already accept. What's interesting is the suggestion that there may be something in that vein and with continuity that we're subjected to over the last few centuries. This should be a future pursuit. The ultimate fruits of which, if we were able to get anything academically substantial out of, would be that maybe we could put a bullet in the YouTube conspiracy bullshit and beat down a new and more coherent path for people trying to unpack this mystery that aren't in it just to be spooked by Freemasonic myths and Ancient Aliens-tier poison. My understanding of Freemasons is quite prosaic, not to say that I think them benign, but it's quite prosaic as opposed to mystical. I have never been able to pay attention to these big conspiracy people like David Icke or Jordan Maxwell, not because they're wrong necessarily but because they don't give you much to grab on to in terms of concrete facts and coherent narratives but instead offer hours of hysterical theorizing going around in circles that amounts to nothing you can't get in a more coherent and substantiated form elsewhere. Alex Jones may be the apotheosis of this silliness; he literally makes it up as he goes along.
Much of what you might account as conspiracy is probably driven by ideological factors and biological ones. Plus parsing what does and does not count as a conspiracy can be difficult even if you know all the facts because you don't know specifically what you are talking about when you talk about a conspiracy; is liberalism a conspiracy started by John Locke or is it just a long line of people independently influenced by his ideas? But there are real conspiracies and the standard anti-Marxist narrative is in my view correct in framing the activities of the Marxists as a conspiracy stretching back to the 1800s and perhaps before and passed down often through the same families. What is called Cultural Marxism is clearly just a different praxis aiming at the same thing Marxism 1.0 had been aiming at. Then there are certain religions/cults, chief of which I will not name on this forum, that are and always have been some form of unholy parasitic conspiracy against all that is good and true and which repeat the same behaviors over and over again down the ages.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Aug 29, 2018 20:37:44 GMT
I learned Latin in high school and it is a very difficult language to learn. Perhaps the energy devoted to learning Latin may not be worth the reward you gain. Why would you want to have Latin as a buffer between the lower people in the hierarchy and the people in the hierarchy? If its because of esoteric-ism for the sake of being esoteric, then this is a bad idea. Lastly I do have a suspicion that hierarchies that are too opaque reduce the willingness of those at the lower portions of the hierarchy to participate in the process. An example would be democracy in america where people have no idea who is in power and for what reasons. The masses often think (rightly so) that those in charge have one face for the public and one face for the corporate donors. This reduces peoples willingness to participate which is why so few people actually vote. aarvoll's original proposal was to use Latin merely to conduct some of the higher-level discourse, not to isolate the higher echelons of the hierarchy from the rest in an ivory tower. This is not an unreasonable idea since most people either can't, won't, or don't want to be be involved in the discourse at very high levels, in addition to which information itself is a weapon which in the military and other contexts leaders are well advised to keep close to their chests; look at the massive-scale harvesting of Western knowledge by China which was only possible because our philosophy of knowledge being thrown open to everyone made it possible. Do you think this strengthens or weakens one's own position vis-a-vis an opponent?
Of course a mechanism needs to be found to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power by leaders, which is always a possibility. Ideally, the leaders in a hierarchy are models of perfect conduct and service to the telos and to their underlings, which is where the ideas of virtue and duty intersect with organizational structure.
|
|
|
Post by Ken (INTJ) on Aug 30, 2018 0:08:31 GMT
The thing about language is with google translate you can pretty much decrypt anything. So languages are not really a good method of hiding information. That said, using languages in a sacred or national context can be powerful. From Luther and Kant, I would say that German is useful for modern philosophy, and Greek and Latin for ancient philosophy. Sanskrit would be useful for the Vedas, and having the liturgy in the original Koine Greek might be an advantage. Norse is interesting given the North Sea revolution. Russian is also very politically relevant. Spanish is probably the most pragmatic. I would recommend learning a bit from the Romance, Germanic, and Slavic before specializing.
Also, a reminder to please rank your 1st through 5th choices in the voting thread.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Aug 31, 2018 0:27:10 GMT
The thing about language is with google translate you can pretty much decrypt anything. So languages are not really a good method of hiding information. That said, using languages in a sacred or national context can be powerful. From Luther and Kant, I would say that German is useful for modern philosophy, and Greek and Latin for ancient philosophy. Sanskrit would be useful for the Vedas, and having the liturgy in the original Koine Greek might be an advantage. Norse is interesting given the North Sea revolution. Russian is also very politically relevant. Spanish is probably the most pragmatic. I would recommend learning a bit from the Romance, Germanic, and Slavic before specializing. Also, a reminder to please rank your 1st through 5th choices in the voting thread. You can't use Google translate on voice chats, sort of, at the moment. Particularly if conducted in badly-pronounced language. Some good language suggestions you have there but it has given me an idea (or a number of ideas) for hiding information:
1: using codes that are changed frequently 2; using automatic computer encryption to encrypt messages
3: inventing a very simple easy-to-learn language with made-up words and perhaps very simple rules (or just use English-language grammar) and only a few hundred words to discuss very specific topics that don't need very many words anyway. With this method you could discuss sensitive matters right out in the open and your info would be safe because Google translate can't translate a made-up language spoken by a handful of people only in very specific contexts.
P.S. There are also Celtic languages, though they have been pushed to the periphery of Europe over the past centuries.
|
|