Twitter cuts (#2)



OK, this is seriously interesting and — I suspect — highly productive, but did Nydwracu just throw me into a freaking cuddle pile?

(The trigger link.)

December 15, 2014admin 15 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , ,

15 Responses to this entry

  • Chris B Says:

    Turranian? what’s that? and I had a go at this with just hyperborean and atlantean categories here – http://www.newinternationaloutlook.com/2014/11/17/proposed-tripartite-political-classification/

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 15th, 2014 at 6:50 am Reply | Quote
  • soapjackal Says:

    one of my favorite works on hyperborean:

    “The hypothesis of historico-geo-physical correspondence is applied to the problem of the origin of the Indo-European language and culture system. The modern world is assumed to be the resultant of a triple interaction between three cultures: Indo-European, Turanian and Syro-Egyptian. These are associated with inflective languages and Saviour-God beliefs, agglutinative languages and Spirit-God beliefs and triliteral languages and Creator-God beliefs respectively.

    Tilak’s Arctic Home theory that the earliest Vedic hymns were written in the circumpolar regions is developed into an account of the origin of the Indo-European linguistic-culture system. This ‘Hyperborean Hypothesis’ is examined in the light of Ewing and Donne’s theory of the Ice Ages and of the Vedic, Avestan and prehistorical evidence of a culture isolated for a long period prior to 10,000 B.P. on the littoral of the Arctic Ocean in the region bounded by the Ob and Yenisei Valleys. The material is subjected to systematic analysis and the tentative conclusion is reached that the Hyperborean hypothesis may account best for the known facts. The paper is to he regarded as an essay in systematics rather than an attempt to prove a case, for which much further research would be needed.”

    http://www.systematics.org/journal/vol1-3/SJ1-3c.htm

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 15th, 2014 at 7:13 am Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Rather than a cuddle pile, it’s an illustration that neither of these categories are compliments or insults. They can all go right and they can all go wrong.

    I’m interested in a summary of what Turanian is.

    [Reply]

    R. Reply:

    Turanian is a large central Asian language family.

    I don’t see the point in this kind of pigeonholing.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Biology impinges on culture.
    The Atlanticist empire is not merely the realpolitik of living near the sea or ocean, it’s a gestalt of that plus the kind of people that end up succeeding in micro near the water. Similarly, the Hyperborean (which I understand less well) is a cold and landlocked people doing realpolitik, and thus forming a culture of ideas that suits them and their environment that’s flatly incompatible with Atlanticist life ways. The Turanian is yet a third people suffering from a third geography.

    Alternatively, the kind of person that migrated west was not the kind that migrated northeast. It was mainly chance, but they did differ and their descendents likewise differ.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Don’t those two sentences directly contradict each other? Cultural units acquire descriptive labels from sheer pattern recognition.

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    Rather than a cuddle pile, it’s an illustration that neither of these categories are compliments or insults. They can all go right and they can all go wrong.

    Yeah, that was the intent. The Atlantean cold-secessionist voluntary-phyleticism-only thing can give you Singapore, but it can also give you bay bonobos.

    It’s certainly clarifying — I can’t think of a good Turanian political leader/movement that gained power. Maybe some will show up if the categories are clarified further.

    (I suspect that there’s an Atlantean/Turanian dichotomy with Hyperborean layered on top as a specific response to specific conditions, which can either succeed at the necessary work or fuck up horribly.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 15th, 2014 at 8:19 am Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    “did Nydwracu just throw me into a freaking cuddle pile?”

    On the bright side, Anissimov is in the same category with Kim-Jong Un and Stalin.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 15th, 2014 at 1:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    TBH, I could use a For Dummies post on this new taxonomic system. I still think I’m Atlantean-ISH… but I’ve never been less sure.

    [Reply]

    The Electric Philosopher Reply:

    Almost certainly Atlantean here, assuming I’ve understood the definitions right. Seems much more fun and, ultimately, adaptable (and thus sustainable). If I recall what I’ve read about Dugin correctly, it’s something like: Atlantean- mercantile, permissive or at least diverse, more free market and freedom friendly. Hyperborean is more ‘conservative,’ hierarchical, tied to the soil and history in a Heideggerean sense. No clue what to make of this third category. I’m actually fairly ignorant of these positions, could anyone tell me if the the Atlantean spirit is more tech-friendly?

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    More disruptive-tech friendly, yes.
    Especially if, as I recently heard, the Soviet scientists were like 70% German by blood. Notably England, a more Atlantic place you cannot find, is peopled by a variety of German. I mean, I’m not great at pegging clade by sight, but doesn’t this guy look like a German with a Russian name?

    [Reply]

    The Electric Philosopher Reply:

    I dunno. I view (in my admitted ignorance) the Hyperborean/Atlantean dichotomy as purely conceptual, ultimately as something like a hyperstition- by all means, call my a filthy postmodern deconstructivist degenerate. Largely that’s because I’m not sure how much I buy into HBD, and at least that kind of clade-centric HBD; not being a geneticist, I prefer to declare epoche on the subject while admitting the possibility that ‘these things do matter.’ But I digress.

    The point I wanted to make, and this is why I asked about the Atlantean view on technology, is that I wouldn’t be surprised to learn if Dugin borrows Heidegger’s notion of the uprooting characteristic of technological revelation. That is, that Gestell (‘positionality’ or ‘enframing’, as in, to position the thing into a calculable matrix) uproots us from our attachedness to the earth, to the sky, to one another, our culture and so on, and so on. One can then understand a little more clearly the fear of capitalism (at least, techno-global capitalism) found among Hyperborean thinkers.

    Bloody hell, that was a clumsy reply.

    Alrenous Reply:

    I don’t know if Dugin himself buys that, but Hyperboreans in general don’t seem to. Russians aren’t anti-tech.
    But, focusing on the aspects of technology that are indisputably uprooting, Hyperboreans are clearly more skeptical than Atlanteans. Indeed it often seems that Atlanteans embrace technology because of its uprooting nature rather than despite it. It’s a reflection of the seminomadic ways of the sea – or perhaps both are reflections of some deep part of Atlantean culture.

    Posted on December 15th, 2014 at 5:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    Proposal: eye-tracking studies of people looking at maps to objectively categorise them.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 15th, 2014 at 7:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    Not really buying the Turanian category.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 15th, 2014 at 9:30 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment