You could talk about Israel Palestine where clearly a vitalist would support Israel and a Christian slave moralist/priest class would support Palestine,instead spending one hour and not getting much out of it.
But only if one accepted the Zionist narrative. One could make an argument that Hamas is more vitalist than the IDF as they are willing to go to greater lengths to win unlike Israel. Israel is a divided society like Western Europe and the U.S.
Based on some of the discussion I think you could easily characterize Hamas as more "vitalist"--they very much embody the mindset of Viking raiders who just rush into a foreign settlement, kill all the men, steal everything, take the women as sex slaves, and then burn it all down for fun. That appears to be pretty much literally what they would do to Israel if they could. But then there's the contradiction that their actual strength is so sorely lacking compared to the much less "vitalist" Israelis.
I'm not sure how you factor that in or how much it's supposed to matter, which I guess goes back to the root of the whole discussion about "vitalism," it's not clear what the boundaries are with this term. If we just define it as being a literal animal-tier barbarian who wants to rape and kill everything, why would anyone believe in that as a serious ideology? That's just a vulgar form of post-modernism.
The problem is that Israel is not an independent state reliant entirely on its own resources but dependent on the United States for its long-term survival both financially and militarily. The strategic picture might be less lopsided without U.S. support.
Yep, I tend to agree with the idea that "everyone has their own vitalism", and that the actual vitalists (as in, the ones who want to "Initiate Operation Africa" or rev up the "Biodiesel Refineries") are really nothing like the Substack variant of Vitalists. Almost like comparing a pygmy species on an isolated island to the more well-known species, like Pygmy Hippoes or Pygmy Elephants.
I also appreciate the points being made about "might makes right". The term "right" here really means "right to something", not moral correctness. There are times where the "right" guys lose the battle, whether or not you think there is an objective "right" guys. And yes, the moral "rightness" is more ascribed to "excellence" (arete) than "might". But the law of nature is might. I would say that the Vitalists do have a love for good specimens, which are sharp edges of Nature honed by its own internal winds. And I think BAP also explains in one of his Vidyas how "Vitalism" is intertwined with a sort of cosmological stoicism, where the world is recognized as an organic process. What the Stoics called the "World-Soul". The Platonists also believed in the World-Soul but believed in a greater principle of the Intellect, the source of ideas and whatnot. Stoics may or may not entirely believe in the "World-Soul" as the source of everything, which is not really a "thing" but a process or animation. Which is why sometimes you will see people call Stoics Materialists.
Very good points about Pindar... Brilliant composer! Despite, ehh, some things he said about the Gods. He clarifies that he altered those myths to replace even more unwholesome myths, so I do not think people should hate him for being a product of his times.
I've been thinking of a sort of "sportocracy" lately, where you get "ELO" for being good at some sort of game or sport. But the sport can't be one where you bash your head in like UFC, it should be a great sport. One that combines skill, strength, endurance, and cunning... And one that does not give you CTE to a significant extent. It would be like Pokemon where the Pokemon champion is the highest person in society and every town has its "gym leaders" and they are the local best. Or like Naruto or some shit. Idk I never watched that show. It is very difficult to strive for bestness these days because of the massification of everything. There are more people in New York City today than there were in the entire Greek world in the 5th century BC. Albeit, maybe people of lower quality, but it goes to show how hard it is to be "top". If we were in Yarvin world where everyone lived in one of ten thousand patchworks, maybe it would be easier. People would feel like they as individuals are more important.
I’ll have to listen to this one, in my experience a lot of people misuse the term vitalist.
An ‘American’ is anyone residing in the United States Empire and as is about as meaningful as the term ‘Soviet.’
You could talk about Israel Palestine where clearly a vitalist would support Israel and a Christian slave moralist/priest class would support Palestine,instead spending one hour and not getting much out of it.
But only if one accepted the Zionist narrative. One could make an argument that Hamas is more vitalist than the IDF as they are willing to go to greater lengths to win unlike Israel. Israel is a divided society like Western Europe and the U.S.
Based on some of the discussion I think you could easily characterize Hamas as more "vitalist"--they very much embody the mindset of Viking raiders who just rush into a foreign settlement, kill all the men, steal everything, take the women as sex slaves, and then burn it all down for fun. That appears to be pretty much literally what they would do to Israel if they could. But then there's the contradiction that their actual strength is so sorely lacking compared to the much less "vitalist" Israelis.
I'm not sure how you factor that in or how much it's supposed to matter, which I guess goes back to the root of the whole discussion about "vitalism," it's not clear what the boundaries are with this term. If we just define it as being a literal animal-tier barbarian who wants to rape and kill everything, why would anyone believe in that as a serious ideology? That's just a vulgar form of post-modernism.
The problem is that Israel is not an independent state reliant entirely on its own resources but dependent on the United States for its long-term survival both financially and militarily. The strategic picture might be less lopsided without U.S. support.
Yep, I tend to agree with the idea that "everyone has their own vitalism", and that the actual vitalists (as in, the ones who want to "Initiate Operation Africa" or rev up the "Biodiesel Refineries") are really nothing like the Substack variant of Vitalists. Almost like comparing a pygmy species on an isolated island to the more well-known species, like Pygmy Hippoes or Pygmy Elephants.
I also appreciate the points being made about "might makes right". The term "right" here really means "right to something", not moral correctness. There are times where the "right" guys lose the battle, whether or not you think there is an objective "right" guys. And yes, the moral "rightness" is more ascribed to "excellence" (arete) than "might". But the law of nature is might. I would say that the Vitalists do have a love for good specimens, which are sharp edges of Nature honed by its own internal winds. And I think BAP also explains in one of his Vidyas how "Vitalism" is intertwined with a sort of cosmological stoicism, where the world is recognized as an organic process. What the Stoics called the "World-Soul". The Platonists also believed in the World-Soul but believed in a greater principle of the Intellect, the source of ideas and whatnot. Stoics may or may not entirely believe in the "World-Soul" as the source of everything, which is not really a "thing" but a process or animation. Which is why sometimes you will see people call Stoics Materialists.
Very good points about Pindar... Brilliant composer! Despite, ehh, some things he said about the Gods. He clarifies that he altered those myths to replace even more unwholesome myths, so I do not think people should hate him for being a product of his times.
I've been thinking of a sort of "sportocracy" lately, where you get "ELO" for being good at some sort of game or sport. But the sport can't be one where you bash your head in like UFC, it should be a great sport. One that combines skill, strength, endurance, and cunning... And one that does not give you CTE to a significant extent. It would be like Pokemon where the Pokemon champion is the highest person in society and every town has its "gym leaders" and they are the local best. Or like Naruto or some shit. Idk I never watched that show. It is very difficult to strive for bestness these days because of the massification of everything. There are more people in New York City today than there were in the entire Greek world in the 5th century BC. Albeit, maybe people of lower quality, but it goes to show how hard it is to be "top". If we were in Yarvin world where everyone lived in one of ten thousand patchworks, maybe it would be easier. People would feel like they as individuals are more important.