We live in a culture that urges us to forget the past, to overcome it, to dismiss it as irrelevant.
The family is such a connective artery to our genetic past.
We also witness this reconnection in how race and sex and any natural phenomenon, not directly linked to systemic stability and individual comfort, are dismissed or debased.
In this age sex itself is becoming a matter of personal choice, further disconnecting the individual from nature and offering him the delusion of free-will, when the entire methodology is meant to leave him vulnerable to current exploitation and vulnerable to trends and fashions.
If there is disillusionment then it can be understood as this disconnection form historical contexts, where narratives and official stories are offered to replace it. The slow degradation of tradition is such a severing...just as is the death of God, which was a source of identification for the masses who could not think beyond a certain level and needed a fast, comforting, self-identifying source.
Experience can be thought of as one's personal history and how this determines his choices and expectations. But this is the only one permitted, because it can be controlled, whereas the immutable past can neither be changed nor neglected...but it can be dismissed and forgotten. Erase an individual's heritage, detach him form his bloodlines and sexuality, as these have been determined by an past, and you have fabricated a tabula rasa: an artificial clean slate that can be written upon by any charlatan and clever little mind that comes along.
Instead we have the rise of immediacy. Immediate gratification, immediate expectations, immediate identifications. This is what is called shallow.
This obsession with living in the present, or overcoming the past, is this attempt to detach one from his anchoring. The past is not overcome it is only dealt with and built upon. Not the self-serving, self-flattering version, but the one which takes courage and introspection and honesty to cope with.
To know thyself is to know this past as intimately and deeply as you possibly can; it is to accept it, good and bad, flattering and unflattering, to, at least, offer yourself the option of coming to terms with it before you die, or doing something about it while still alive.
Those whom wish to dismiss the past, claiming to have overcome it, are those who fear it the most. It is those who fear that it will hinder their performance when they try to live-up to the ideals of the present...the modern. It is those who fear that they will not measure up in comparison to others, if their past is taken into consideration....allowing them the pleasure of explaining their failures and their limitations as a product of current situations.
In this topic I would like to discuss Family in modernity. I have not very much clue on this topic, but can see some of the devastating effects modernity has. Satyrs video lecture on this being the basis for this topic and the high ideals as narrated in the book by Numa Denis Fustel De Coulanges on the Greek Ancient State (which deals with this topic in its first chapters). I see todays parents as in most cases representing the state as well. Some youth turning their backs on their parents, because the parents don't offer love. Others becoming automatons. No burning hearth. Parents don't share their pasts, their stories, but are themselves state enforcers. Of the marxist or capitalist state, whichever way you choose to look at it. If all the advice or "love" one can get from the parents, is some the same like any other "chicken soup for the soul"- shit, one can get on every street corner, then why bother!? Or even pastoral lectures on how to live a proper life and guilt and blame for failing. I see both sides of the coin here. Modernity didn't start yesterday, but around 1900 already and so our parents were already born in this decline and their parents too.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Then let us begin from the prehistoric. Social mammals offer us a glimpse into how tribes, or early human social unities, must have functioned.
Then, with the advent of sophistication, farming, sedentary lifestyles, and the need to protect property this genetically homogenous unity splintrered inot the extended family: Mother, Father, Children...Grandparents...sometimes the brothers and sisters of the Patriarch all living in proximity.
The idea of leaving home was not a desirable outcome. A spurned son, the second son, most often the youngest one, may leave his family to create a new one elsewhere. This practice also preserved the property of the family, keeping it under the control of the Patriarch that most often went from father to elder son.
Modernity breaks up the family. The children are expected to go off on their own as soon as their early twenties. An older man living in proximity with his parents or his extended family is considered a degradation...a loser status. The closer to the hearth one stays the more undesirable sexually he becomes. This is where females are sued as mimetic filters. Those who do mare excluded, gradually, from the gene pool, from the social conventions.
All are now under the parental control of the state, the institution, making any association, beyond the usual brotherly love and support, undesirable. The parents are themselves brothers to their children, rather than representatives of a heritage. All children take on the role of second eldest, third eldest, youngest, and either submit to the degradation of not being directly linked to the Father figure, the state the Church, the God, or they go off, but not outside. They remain under the protection and control of the parent, at all times.
What they escape is the dominion of the eldest brother, which in this case is the father; the once Patriarch is now the eldest son, awaiting the death of his Father, which lives for longer periods than the lifespan of a biological father, because it is an idea.
All are now under the parental control of the state, the institution, making any association, beyond the usual brotherly love and support, undesirable.
I notice how overly friendly everyone is to complete strangers, yet they give their parents to homes for elderly. In a post office for example, people don't just buy stamps, send letters but it's always connected to some small talk. "Happy New Year". And the other has to top that friendliness by being even more friendly. This is all so shallow to me. And is a symptom of this brotherly love, that is replacing the family. My parents are divorced with new partners. Like children they think they now belong to new families, though they don't have children with their new partners, but have some together. These patch-work families become the norm. Sometimes even more crazy than that. With no connection at all, but "brotherly love". All the spiritual seekers I know are coming from dysfunctional families and are compensating with some sort of Religiosity. And they may even be "doing better" than average, but it ends up in materialism, this "doing better than others". It is really spiritual materialism, no matter how interesting it sounds.
Quote :
The parents are themselves brothers to their children, rather than representatives of a heritage.
I am teaching my parents about this.
Quote :
What they escape is the dominion of the eldest brother, which in this case is the father; the once Patriarch is now the eldest son, awaiting the death of his Father, which lives for longer periods than the lifespan of a biological father, because it is an idea.
That hurts. Here in Germany I can kind of relate a little to my post WWII socialist parents, because they wanted to avoid another "Hitler". 1968 was a symptom of the modern decline and no freeing of the mind like it was misinterpreted. I will just post a link of western Osho followers going crazy, worshipping their guru/master (while neglecting their families), but it's rather random, I could post Woodstock or whatever else famous event. I kind of reflected on the Gurus in the past weeks, so that's why. The Guru is another father figure. Like the cult. A last refuge that shapes you in form for the God-State. So that you become a better servant and can manage the pain of existence without meaning a little better (this is actually from 1978 and it lasted till the 80's and is still popular today after Oshos death):
Understanding the impact of 1968 is really essential for us today. Any clues? (besides reactionism to the Hitler Era... and what different currents were important then?)
The sense that the system will collapse is shared by right-wing intellectuals and leftist thinkers alike. It's not about political sides, but awareness. I recommend Kafka's "Trial" from 1914, because it was the first text to state the modern condition of man. Nothing much has changed since then. Thomas Mann ("Der Zauberberg") and Hermann Hesse have similar texts.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
In the final throws of life the organism fights with emotional desperation. It senses the coming end and it becomes angry.
See Alex Jones...See Hitler. An angry reaction to nature's (female) inevitable victory.
The video is the sense of surrender to the inevitable.
If life must endure then it must become aware and through this awareness gain some level of control. Not to hate, or love, irrationally, indiscriminately; not to dismiss the ego which makes the perception possible, nor the female for being what she is, nor the lion for being what it is...but to gain some control over it.
To control is to dominate. Like all dominions it has a short life. This is where resentment comes in.
Chaos cannot be defeated because it requires no effort, no energy, to thought, to come about. And it is in this temporal direction where life is possible as a (re)action to it.
I spent new years with some of these people. It is a cold dark place! If you kill the ego too early, you become a mess. This is the end-result. Many politicians of todays popular parties here, were hippies back in the 60's and 70's. They took drugs and meditated. Today everything is more separated at least. People are a little more aware and mix traditions and different paths less. But has any of these people reached enlightenment, like their Indian masters supposedly have (living good of their donations)?
Quote :
Buddhism (modern) is an extremely sick religion inhabited by atheists, agnostics, and at best polytheists. They congregate together at 'dharma-centers', which are little more than outpatient mental wards for depressed materialists, and engage in idle chatter about attainment of oblivion and the denial of all things spiritual. The only difference between a typical 'Buddhist' and the Islamo-Fascist suicide bomber who straps explosives to himself and enters a crowd of infidels, is that the 'Buddhist' has set out to annihilate himself only, thru spiritual euthanasia practices. Both of these types are the worst of demons which roam samsara and plague others with their bestial ignorances." -Dr. Rama T. Guptar
But even in this quote, you can recognize from the terminology used, that there is some hidden truth in these activities. This just goes unnoticed by the majority of westerners wanting to join exotic eastern traditions to be something special, to feel loved, all a lack from their parents, who had other issues (like poverty and wars).
I don't like the term genetic filth (it has to be well defined at least). But I would like to apply it to these people! Even if some of them are "new rich", "successful" and considered "role models" even. There are some good looking chicks. But they are shallow fucks! And it is my weakness and desperation that I go there. "Riding the tiger of modernity" may in most cases be self flattery. You have to be careful applying tools, so that you do not become their tool instead. It is their desperation that I share, coming from a broken family myself. Maybe with me it is more obvious that my family is broken than with most others whose parents stay married long past any fire in the hearth is still burning or efforts are made to keep it lit.
Family today is still worshipped as a value! This is an important fact, I want to state! Not just by conservatives, traditionalists and the new right, even leftists. It is just that family isn't family anymore, when the father is not the authority but the state. And the mother is not the mother, but the second income. And state institutions take over for the raising of the children. So "family" itself has become a meaningless term, like "love". In this topic, I hope we can restore some of the meaning of family.
In the final throws of life the organism fights with emotional desperation. It senses the coming end and it becomes angry.
See Alex Jones...See Hitler. An angry reaction to nature's (female) inevitable victory.
The video is the sense of surrender to the inevitable.
Would you consider anger the driving emotion of these spiritual "truth seekers" (escapists) like in the Osho vid? That's scary. I never looked at it this way. I feel MY anger if I am amongst these types for too long. (I worked at a place where there were lots of them.) I thought it was just me who was angry and they were all further "liberated" than me. Maybe I was wrong.
Surprisingly most of my anger left once I quit that job there.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Family, like love, has lost all meaning, it has lost all substance. It's an empty word that has been stripped of meaning, by stripping it of its purpose, the reason why it evolved.
If life must endure then it must become aware and through this awareness gain some level of control.
I studied some scientology materials and even took a course. These two poles together are workable. If you miss one, you become onesided (out of balance). East and West have to find together. Male and Female. Control of the Chaos. And sense: awareness of the chaos.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
In the final throws of life the organism fights with emotional desperation. It senses the coming end and it becomes angry.
See Alex Jones...See Hitler. An angry reaction to nature's (female) inevitable victory.
The video is the sense of surrender to the inevitable.
Would you consider anger the driving emotion of these spiritual "truth seekers" (escapists) like in the Osho vid? That's scary. I never looked at it this way. I feel MY anger if I am amongst these types for too long. (I worked at a place where there were lots of them.) I thought it was just me who was angry and they were all further "liberated" than me. Maybe I was wrong.
Surprisingly most of my anger left once I quit that job there.
Anger is a preparation to a fight/flight reaction to a stimuli. The stimuli is automatic, as it is an evolution attempting to be more efficient, and so more effective, by relying on a trigger mechanism with no analysis required.
Consciousness requires a perception of divergence which requires a closer analysis, a more detailed observation. The first reaction to the unknown is this fight/flight, which anxiety prepares the body for. This only shows the negative relationship between life (ordering) and the world (entropy). We are afraid of the dark because it is better to be wrong towards the negative than towards the positive.
Life evolves on this negative relationship.
Anger is perhaps a preparation for the fight option when flight is no longer a viable option.
The more you know of the other, this unknown phenomenon, that egnages you through your sense organs, the less you feel anxious in regards to it...unless this awareness is accompanied with the awareness that it is a threat and that you cannot escape it (flight). Anger is in preparation for the only other option left.
There is, in the case of humans or modernity, an escape. Since modernity is based on lies or pretenses, the escape is really an escape from these leis and pretenses...a changing of your perspective when the perspective that confronts you is a fabrication.
The fabrication, this complex of memes, this Matrix, has a defensive counter to this. It preempts this by attacking you with the very argument against it. It posits the real world as the fabrication.
Take feminism and how it claims that sexual attraction is a matter of culture, when it is the denial of sexuality which is a cultural artifice. Same goes for many of the ideas participating in the matrices of modernity...these webs of lies constructing a barrier, an institutional noetic wall, between perception and the world. The mind is prone to accept the lies because it seeks relief from a world of unknowns...and because modern systems allow genetic garbage to flourish, by sheltering it, the masses are the majority who want the lie to be true, because the truth is so frightening and cruel and unflattering.
I've started some contact with my parents. But I don't want it to be play acting. Let's play "house". My brother is an automaton, who thinks everything is okay. Like my buddhists. All play acting.
Let's play "house" together. Picture a little girl playing with a puppet house. THAT is all family is today. With the emasculated "Ken". And "Barbie" works a job too. She isn't hot anymore. A single mom often. Or a feminist man-eater.
My buddhist "friends" want to pity me all the time. (Like Christians, if you tell them you worship Satan, which they assume anyway, no matter what you tell them to their "Gretchen Question" -What do you believe?- other than : Jesus..) Because they make more money than I do (most anyway) and I can't afford all their travels (they travel a lot). I've let them invite me in the past sometimes. So now some think they bought me and own me as their "project".. And I get an extra bit of "chicken soup for the soul"-advice from these deluded fucks. Would they fucking chant buddhist mantras (in Germany) if they had a happy home with mom and dad to go to? Fucking yuppies.
Would you claim everybody without a family is rather dying than living? Hitler came from a broken home. His anger can be psychoanalysed like that. Alex Jones is just a showman in my opinion. I don't think he is all that angry in reality.
Today we use the term "functional family". Like "functional wheel in the machine". A marxist mechanistic terminology. I forgot the sociologists name, but someone pointed out that with Marxism the "Arbeitsteilung" (German for: labor division) started. That's why most jobs are dull today. They are specialized tasks. No one does anything complex anymore, just like little wheels.
See now, why I claim that you are an idealist? The pagan greek family ideal is soooo much more than anything anybody has today. Even the shiny happy people! Especially those, if they are "spiritual".
Islam being the last exception of this general state. (But already declining from what I witness with their younger generation here, who submit to western decay without resistance at an even faster pace than their peers.)
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I Would you claim everybody without a family is rather dying than living? Hitler came from a broken home. His anger can be psychoanalysed like that.
Ana absence of a family is about the absence of a father. Most try to find a substitute elsewhere: drugs, alcohol, hedonism, materialism, nationalism, religion...any surrogate masculine figure.
See now, why I claim that you are an idealist? The pagan greek family ideal is soooo much more than anything anybody has today. Even the shiny happy people! Especially those, if they are "spiritual".
We all have ideals because we all interpret, generalize/simplify a fluid reality into static forms. We also all need a code to live by; a set of principles to identify with.
So, yes, I have ideals...but I do not call them absoltue nor do I think they are universal. I know what they are: mental projections that give me a direction...a meaning....a purpose...they orient by activities. It is an ordering.
Am I an idealist in the sense that I think my world-view leads to happiness or perfection? No. In my mind it leads to a superior order or a more natural lifestyle.
I was fortunate enough to be a part of a strong family unity. I know of its benefits and I know of its costs. I also know that without a strong female there is no family. The female is the keeper of tradition. A male its representation, allowing him to be more engaged with the current without being swept away by it.
When there is no strong female present, there is no family...and the male representative gets swept away. And when I say strong female I mean a female totally given over to a masculine ideal.
Ana absence of a family is about the absence of a father.
I think so too.
Quote :
Most try to find a substitute elsewhere: drugs, alcohol, hedonism, materialism, nationalism, religion...any surrogate masculine figure.
This is why you are here, no?
Yes, master! How to become a cult leader:
Quote :
Alex Jones is not angry? Then that's some fine acting.
Yes. The give away is the title. Alex Jones Show. Other than that it is really convincing. He "woke me up" in 2009. It got me nowhere. The MRAs at least led me here.
Quote :
We all have ideals because we all interpret, generalize/simplify a fluid reality into static forms. We also all need a code to live by; a set of principles to identify with.
And I don't want to weaken your spirit. I just say that from my perspective the ideals in the book "Ancient Greek State" are very high. Very reasonable too. It's just my subjective perspective.
Quote :
Am I an idealist in the sense that I think my world-view leads to happiness or perfection? No. In my mind it leads to a superior order or a more natural lifestyle.
That sounds good enough.
Quote :
I was fortunate enough to be a part of a strong family unity. I know of its benefits and I know of its costs.
And what are the costs? How is it still managable in todays modern society to keep a strong family unit?
Quote :
And when I say strong female I mean a female totally given over to a masculine ideal.
I haven't read the book completely yet. But: could you expand on that. What does it mean: a female totally given over to a masculine ideal?
I saw a wedding: western tibetan buddhist kind. And the Lama (who married the couples) said the man should be like some Blue Dorje Buddha. I forgot his name. And the woman like the Red Dakini. They are supposed to represent the masculine and the feminine ideals. The Red Dakini is an athletice type. I would like to know the difference between those modern feminists and a female "given over to a masculine ideal"? Does "given over" mean "submitting"? So is she a motherly figure or a strong masculine type herself? What is it?
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
"Ten years later, the debate has moved on. I used to argue that it’s appropriate for teenagers to want to know about sex. But now it’s not teenagers we’re talking about. It’s children. Both girls and boys.
While boys are not being encouraged to wear smutty underwear, they are being groomed by the drip-drip effect of the cheapening of sexuality in music, magazines, and, yes, in our own attitudes as adults.
It’s no surprise that this diet of coarsened sexuality is beginning to affect our very young. How young are we talking about? Well, teachers have reported a rise in sexualised behaviour in children aged seven. Birmingham City Council even set up an Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour Unit to tackle this problem.
Over the top? Perhaps not, judging from the experience of a friend who had her eight-year-old son’s friend over for tea. This angel-faced boy, stared at her chest, and exclaimed, ‘Haven’t you got big t**s?’
I had to take a child to task for repeating obscene rap lyrics to my sons, and teaching them dance moves that involved groin-thrusting and grabbing their crotches.
Was it an over-reaction to tell them off for wiggling around in a way I knew was designed to be sexual, or was I making too much of a childish game? My children had no idea of the connotations - except at the most general level. But the rap singers and their record companies certainly do. My gut instinct was that I didn’t want my children doing it.
But it’s the way children are ’sold’ sex now that turns my stomach. Sociologist Frank Furedi has a term for it: pornographication.
He argues that children have always imitated adult forms of behaviour."
I saw a wedding: western tibetan buddhist kind. And the Lama (who married the couples) said the man should be like some Blue Dorje Buddha. I forgot his name. And the woman like the Red Dakini. They are supposed to represent the masculine and the feminine ideals. The Red Dakini is an athletice type.
Tibetan Tantric Buddhism does Not see male and female as equal.
See the Kalachakra Tantra for example. Or as Serrano would say it [in Nos], "A woman has no soul. She is soul."
Nietzsche called her Life. And the Dionysian was the Masculine type that affirmed Her in his will to power. I see the Dionysian and the Apollonian as different degrees of the Masculine.
Evola's Metaphysics of Sex is a good place to start, if you haven't already. And he was no Catholic! Evola's God-king was no plotinian monad [that's Guenon], or how you have forcefully (mis)interpreted Satyr's 'looking to the past' as a retropolation back to a One. I doubt this is what Satyr means by reverence for an Ancestor.
, or how you have forcefully (mis)interpreted Satyr's 'looking to the past' as a retropolation back to a One. I doubt this is what Satyr means by reverence for an Ancestor.
My little dove, I have my own mind. Don't twist my words, I haven't forcefully misinterpreted anyone. And I am not a Satyr-sheeple either, okay. I am learning Satyrs viewpoint (it's a continual process). Like I would learn yours, if you had one of your own. And wouldn't be name-dropping all day. Hiding behind your references, like the little lying bitch you are.
I respect Satyr. He's a teacher. And learning from him is a continual process. But I don't want to suck his dick, okay. If you want to be his pet then join Purple Dragon in the Dungeon. But don't waste the space on this forum, with your estrogen soaked citations.
Tibetan Tantric Buddhism does Not see male and female as equal.
I know, really wicked! (That's why I still visit the Dharma Centers, to tease the feminists and manginas in there, who try to modernize Tibetan Buddhism along the gendermainstreaming agenda.)
Quote :
See the Kalachakra Tantra for example.
Evil!
Quote :
Or as Serrano would say it [in Nos], "A woman has no soul. She is soul."
If he had stopped after, the first phrase, that would be tibetan Buddhism. Has no soul. Stop. She isn't soul either in tibetan Buddhism. In tibetan Buddhism there is no soul. Only original Buddhism is Brahmanism.
Quote :
Nietzsche called her Life.
In my weaker moments I share this romanticism. But I would like the quote on this one too, since I only know of him referring to "a woman" (the archetype, not the actual women) as "the truth" and not "Life", which is a little difference at least. Since one can very well live without "the truth", but not without "Life".
Quote :
And the Dionysian was the Masculine type that affirmed Her in his will to power.
I haven't read this masterful work of N.. Can you prove THIS claim with a citation, please. My little feminist.
Lyssa wrote:
I see the Dionysian and the Apollonian as different degrees of the Masculine.
This needs to be preserved! And why exactly do you see it this way, with your sensitive eyes? Because you live in a land of fairies and elves, your own fantasy? Or because you are a victim of modern GENDERMAINSTRAIMING?
Quote :
Evola's Metaphysics of Sex is a good place to start, if you haven't already.
Name-dropping. What exactly did you read in this excellent work, that makes you recommend it to me?
Quote :
And he was no Catholic!
He was raised so. I go by a Bowden lecture on this one. I believe we stay in the beliefs we were raised and can escape them little. (And therefor shouldn't waste energy to try so.) I am freudian in this sense.
Quote :
Evola's God-king was no plotinian monad [that's Guenon],
I believe Guenon was a Sufi, a Muslim.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
In my weaker moments I share this romanticism. But I would like the quote on this one too, since I only know of him referring to "a woman" (the archetype, not the actual women) as "the truth" and not "Life", which is a little difference at least. Since one can very well live without "the truth", but not without "Life".
What you would like is none of my concern; can't be bothered. Read Zarathustra.
Quote :
I haven't read this masterful work of N.. Can you prove THIS claim with a citation, please.
N.'s entire work is exactly about that. See Will To Power, 1041, 1067.
Quote :
My little feminist.
Yes, I would appear such to pansies.
Quote :
Lyssa wrote:
I see the Dionysian and the Apollonian as different degrees of the Masculine.
This needs to be preserved! And why exactly do you see it this way, with your sensitive eyes? Because you live in a land of fairies and elves, your own fantasy? Or because you are a victim of modern GENDERMAINSTRAIMING?
Read Birth of Tragedy.
Quote :
Quote :
Evola's Metaphysics of Sex is a good place to start, if you haven't already.
Name-dropping. What exactly did you read in this excellent work, that makes you recommend it to me?
What makes you think its something I saw in the book, and not in you? weak jupiter, strong neptune. Swim carefully...
Quote :
Quote :
And he was no Catholic!
He was raised so. I go by a Bowden lecture on this one. I believe we stay in the beliefs we were raised and can escape them little. (And therefor shouldn't waste energy to try so.) I am freudian in this sense.
Its not where you start, its where you go that says who you are. The weak who cannot overcome and think for themselves would believe so. I don't touch psych. books; I'm more than enough for me.
Quote :
Quote :
Evola's God-king was no plotinian monad [that's Guenon],
Cookie, you mean the one that's raped with alcohol, porn, drugs, and many men who've impregnated it? I'm convinced you do.
Quote :
Don't twist my words, I haven't forcefully misinterpreted anyone.
You have, for a Fact, said Satyr's concept of looking back to the past can be applied/interpreted as the Plotinian One, where your ancestors simply replace the One if you go back far enough. That's how you platonize him and comfort yourself. I've read McEvilley and I think its a fantastic book, and have recommended it myself. So I know where you are coming from, and you are wrong.
Quote :
And I am not a Satyr-sheeple either, okay.
With the kind of definition of the Pagan spirit you have, you couldn't be his sheeple even if you wanted to; see, that's what makes your calling him your Saviour amusing.
Quote :
I am learning Satyrs viewpoint (it's a continual process).
Sure. Pick bits of in-formation, systematize them as bloodless concepts and Arrange them alongside the numerous other information you've studied from likewise. And then convince yourself your re-arranging data is you having an 'original' mind. ! lol Real Philosophy takes/ought to take birth as living, breathing, ideas that pull and weave other ideas from an organic necessity. You touch one point and the whole web must disentangle and fall apart. In your case, Philosophy, Thinking becomes the Casual porn activity of jumping from books to books, getting off on information into a working system that's not going to fall apart just because you've decided one day to do away with some thinker, some thought. Do you get it?
Quote :
Like I would learn yours, if you had one of your own.
Like I would let you learn from me and I do have one. Not all people are as kind and magnanimous as Satyr. He's spilled his blood everywhere. He's a blood-letter. Dakinis need their blood-offerings, don't they! Where's your sacrifice to me? You're too pale. No blood. No spirit.
Quote :
And wouldn't be name-dropping all day.
That's funny coming from a guy suggesting authors every other day, and constantly bragging how many books he's read in the past. Moron, is it about how Many books you've read, or what kind you've read, even if it be just one in your whole life, that is so rich, everytime you dive into it, you come back richer with something else?
Quote :
Hiding behind your references, like the little lying bitch you are.
Why do you snivel so much, cunt? You've better luck getting something out of me, if you asked me nicely. beso mi culo...
Quote :
I respect Satyr. He's a teacher. And learning from him is a continual process.
And....?
Quote :
But I don't want to suck his dick, okay.
Okay. Whatever you say.
Quote :
If you want to be his pet then join Purple Dragon in the Dungeon. But don't waste the space on this forum, with your estrogen soaked citations.
What? That's supposed to be humiliating? LOL
Yea, I'm Satyr's slave; he's a total Man. He makes me proud to submit. Are you jealous, biatch? I know you've said you are a little feminine, and fight with other guys for his attention, but you're not the kind of catfight I'm looking for...? Take it easy. Chip down those nails, you might scratch yourself.
Dragon? You mean the sitting Duck! who doesn't have the ba--s to face me in person... he's scared shite going through intermediaries, complaining like a little girl.
His biggest experience is losing some nice girl called Natalie and because he couldn't dominate her, he taunts Satyr to f--- her. That's how emasculated he is. He wants another's d--k to do the job for him ha! HA! HAA!
He knows I'd tear him, its a good thing he hides there from everyone.
Why would I join him when his idea of domination is offering some chunks of rage writings and a few paragraphs of rape-prose he calls philosophy? Is he a Man? Can he dominate? Can he make me submit to him? Can you? Didn't your estrogen soaked woman dump you for an alpha male? You let her go because You Knew you were not good enough for her. She showed you your place, didn't she. Its why you can't hate her, can you? How weak and pretentious you resign feigning, 'all I want now is some girl who is simple and plain'... in other words, you can't dominate. You and the duck would make a nice pair. You are a pretty flower and he's a rapist without the p--is, so you'll be safe... just perfect! They should put you two together. Fortunately for the squatting Duck, he has a good heart, his heart's in the right place; its why I would want to spare him; you, I can't the same. I can't even say that much. Loved the personal pleasantaries, arigaaatto, and now that we've established who's who and who's under and who's on top, and who's inside whom and what's hanging out from where and all positions are covered, I have to get back to some real work. And maybe, just maybe you might learn something from me. Dakinis are known for gracing the pure-hearted, without demanding a sacrifice. Know thyself.
You have, for a Fact, said Satyr's concept of looking back to the past can be applied/interpreted as the Plotinian One, where your ancestors simply replace the One if you go back far enough. That's how you platonize him and comfort yourself.
I did that. I wouldn't do it anymore.
Quote :
I've read McEvilley and I think its a fantastic book, and have recommended it myself. So I know where you are coming from, and you are wrong.
I haven't. I don't usually read academics.
Quote :
With the kind of definition of the Pagan spirit you have, you couldn't be his sheeple even if you wanted to; see, that's what makes your calling him your Saviour amusing.
For me Pagan spirit is not about definition. I go by original sources (the Edda, Nibelungen,...) rather than adademic books.
Quote :
Not all people are as kind and magnanimous as Satyr. He's spilled his blood everywhere. He's a blood-letter. Dakinis need their blood-offerings, don't they! Where's your sacrifice to me? You're too pale. No blood. No spirit.
All the western female tibetan buddists call themselves dakinis. That is so funny. I wonder who started it and if it has anything to do with feminism. See June Campbell's book on her abuse by Kalu Rinpoche, for a clearer picture. In tibetan the term for woman is "being of lesser birth" and man "being of higher birth". See the book by the Trimondis on tibetan Buddhism. Colin Goldner on the Dalai Lama. As well as Bruno Waldvogel-Frei.
I have and he puts the dionysian as the female archetype and the apollonian as the male archetype.
Quote :
What makes you think its something I saw in the book, and not in you? weak jupiter, strong neptune. Swim carefully...
Jupiter is a ruler of Pisces (behind Neptune). So Pisces has a strong Jupiter. Plus I've got a strong Jupiter elsewhere important in my horoscope also. I'm not all about the sun. Try: weak Mercury (Communication), just going by Pisces alone.
Quote :
Its not where you start, its where you go that says who you are.
I thought so too, until I discovered Satyr and I am gradually changing my mind on this one.
Quote :
I don't touch psych. books;
When I read your "Han"-poetry my first thought was FREUD! He was the ultimate han. "Man is not in charge of his own house and I am going to prove it." And then he made this system where you can just feel his anger in every nuance. Very impressive.
Quote :
I'm more than enough for me.
Then why pose as a dakini? Why do you need men chasing after you?
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
The Will to Power is a forgery. I can on the other hand give you numerous quotes where N. talked favorably of the jews and critically of the germans.
"Mazzino Montinari and Giorgio Colli have called The Will to Power a "historic forgery" artificially assembled by Nietzsche's sister and Peter Gast."
The typical remarks trying to discredit his thoughts. People like to make much of Nietzsche's sister's publishing of 'The Will to Power', and pretend she distorted this work. This just isn't true; the 'The Will to Power' was compiled from plans, notes, and passages in Nietzsche's own hand, much of the copyist work being done by Nietzsche's closest friend and trusted amenuensis, the musician Peter Gast; and Gast was one of the few who could actually read Nietzsche's handwriting [as well as knowing his philosophy intimately]. There are passages in WTP that as you say Seem to speak favourably of the jews; if his extremely anti-semitic sister had forged his work, why would such passages remain intact! Its the height of dishonesty to call anything one disagrees with, as a forgery, or mentally-ill notes... this is an old old rumour. His sister simply executed all the notes and plans he had left along with Gast and it was published in 1901 Before the formation of the NS party. How can one take seriously the Stupidity of any suggestion that she "twisted her brother's work towards NS". Its a mindless cliche. As to Montinari and Colli, as if there wouldn't have been any publisher's politics with competing attempts on his sister's part. Its too insignificant - who cared what they say. If it had been a forgery, and n.'s sister somehow managed to manipulate his words - which is assuming she too was as brilliant as him! - ridicuulous assumption, the contradictions would have been blaring and apparent with the rest of his work. And there's no such. Nevermind. Lets assume its a forgery by his sister. What does it matter when the content as in the form we have it, makes total sense, has an aesthetic and philosophical value on its own. However it was manipulated, say, and whoever did it, what does it matter when what's before you can stand as a beautiful work on its own. Regardless, Will to Power was no forgery. His sister may have been anti-semitic, but she also genuinely loved her brother and wished to see his works preserved in their authenticity.
Quote :
I have and he puts the dionysian as the female archetype and the apollonian as the male archetype.
Point out.
Quote :
Quote:
What makes you think its something I saw in the book, and not in you? weak jupiter, strong neptune. Swim carefully...
Jupiter is a ruler of Pisces (behind Neptune). So Pisces has a strong Jupiter. Plus I've got a strong Jupiter elsewhere important in my horoscope also. I'm not all about the sun. Try: weak Mercury (Communication), just going by Pisces alone.
I know what the Pisces is. Isn't necessary every pisces ends up with a strong jupiter. You don't. The fact that you couldn't keep your political party intact and together, already reveals your jupiter's in a weak placement. Your Mercury is good. Its what allows you to move between and across East and West for example, with the ease you do. In any case, what makes you think I pointed that out to say, you had a weakness?! I'm saying your weak jupiter and strong neptune allows you an advantage to pick up streams of thought that are too fine, like the ones that sound on the lower frequency. Evol'a book would have let you pick up the 'undercurrents' on the male/female metaphysics.
Quote :
Quote:
Its not where you start, its where you go that says who you are.
Thought so until I discovered Satyr and am gradually changing my mind on this one.
Sorry, come again?
Quote :
Quote:
I'm more than enough for me.
Then why pose as a dakini? Why do you need men chasing after you?
Twerp, why do you take it out of context? That line was after I said I don't need psych. books and Freud to teach me psychology and insights into people; my instincts are enough for myself. I am enough for myself in that sense. And Dakini because they show no mercy to the dishonest
Naaah dakini is as you say, a pose - I was just playing, since you used that word to express a male-female balance. I was trying to rag you because the Dakini was never meant to represent the equal feminine counterpart. The skydancer is a personification of the guardian of the thresholds during meditation when you Invade Into another space. So you have to face the wrath of the door-keeper and you have to give her a payment to let you through. So you give all your negativity - your repressions as "blood offerings", as price to move on further. I was just engaging in a mock ritual, asking you to "offer up" your negativities for sacrifice to the Dakini. She won't grace you till you are honest with yourself. Its the same among the Irish/Welsh. Recall Robert Graves, and the part about giving the White Goddess a token, a silver coin she demands before she floods open your mind and poetry flows. Its just poetics.
Reg. how the Dakini was appropriated by the Western Feminists - I think it already had its origins in Tibet, which already has its origins in the Kaula/Shakta cults if you've read Woodruffe. The name Dakini is diff. from what this means to the Tibetans when they address her as Khandro. The latter etymology is independent of any male derivation, while Dakini derives from a word denoting the male. See [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I have already posted content from Trimondi here.
You have, for a Fact, said Satyr's concept of looking back to the past can be applied/interpreted as the Plotinian One, where your ancestors simply replace the One if you go back far enough. That's how you platonize him and comfort yourself.
I did that. I wouldn't do it anymore.
I see. How sweet.
Quote :
Quote :
With the kind of definition of the Pagan spirit you have, you couldn't be his sheeple even if you wanted to; see, that's what makes your calling him your Saviour amusing.
For me Pagan spirit is not about definition. I go by original sources (the Edda, Nibelungen,...) rather than adademic books.
And where did I say you had to use academic books? I value the Eddas as well. Although one would have to escape the bits of christian remnants that Snorri left. One can't be too sure.
Your paganism is New Age, exactly like the paper Evola presented on that same subject... a concoction of diverse beliefs.
Nietzsche's closest friend and trusted amenuensis, the musician Peter Gast;
who's antisemitism he rejected vehemently. And he hated his mother and sister!
Quote :
There are passages in WTP that as you say Seem to speak favourably of the jews; if his extremely anti-semitic sister had forged his work, why would such passages remain intact!
I haven't read WTP. I mean "Götzendämmerung" and other works, where he also spoke critically of the Germans.
Quote :
Regardless, Will to Power was no forgery. His sister may have been anti-semitic, but she also genuinely loved her brother and wished to see his works preserved in their authenticity.
But he hated her and his mother too and disagreed with her husbands political involvement in antisemitism also.
Quote :
I know what the Pisces is. Isn't necessary every pisces ends up with a strong jupiter.
That would be new to me. You of course have an academic source for this? Better a shorter quote, because I can't read so much.
Quote :
You don't. The fact that you couldn't keep your political party intact and together, already reveals your jupiter's in a weak placement.
Jupiter doesn't equal success. And I was just helping built a regional base for a little libertarian party. I left when my work was finished. Just in time. My views towards Libertarianism changed since then.
Quote :
Your Mercury is good.
No, it is horrible, but I am working on it since 2008.
Quote :
Its what allows you to move between and across East and West for example, with the ease you do.
Hermes, as the one who can cross borders... I think it's all Neptune.
Quote :
Quote:
Its not where you start, its where you go that says who you are.
Thought so until I discovered Satyr and am gradually changing my mind on this one.
Sorry, come again? [/quote]
This means: today I place more value in my own and others family backgrounds. It helps me to save time. I ask people about their families more. And if they place no value in their families, I sort them out. So I focus more on the past than before, when I was just looking for personal progress and all those modern promises.
Quote :
One thing worth knowing from you would be, Are you a rune practitioner? Anyone better than Stephen Flowers/ von list? Since you are German, chances are you might be more aware than me.
I am not familiar with your authors.
Karl Spiesberger isn't translated, I guess.
Someone on Amazon germany posted a list, he seems to know really well. So I will post the list and you might find english translations to some of the titles:
Quote :
1954: "Runenmagie" von Karl Spiesberger 1955: "Die Tala der Raunen" von Roland Dionys Jossé 1957: "Runenexerzitien" von Karl Spiesberger 1982: "Das Runen-Orakel" von Werner Kosbab 1983: "Die Träume Gottes" von Arnold Mohs 1985: "Buch der Runen" von Zoltán Szabó 1987: "Runen" von Ulrich Jürgen Heinz 1990: "Das Runen-Handbuch" von Reinhard Florek 1992: "Die Kraft der Runen" von Waltraud Drexler 1993: "Vatan" von Edmund und Michaela von Hollander 1995: "Runen im Leben der Völker" von Harry Radegeis 1997: "Runenübungen" von Ulrich Jürgen Heinz 2000: "Geheimnis der Namen" von Zoltán und Ingrid Szabó 2004: "Geheimnis der Vornamen" von Zoltán und Ingrid Szabó 2004: "Der Göttliche Code 1" von Isa Denison 2006: "Runen-Leben" von Axel Brück 2009: "Der Göttliche Code 2" von Isa Denison 2009: "Chaosrune & Zauberschwert" von Frater Malig 854
I could throw everything in my ocean. But sometimes I chose not to. The book Satyr recommended on the pagan ancient greek family tradition, seems to be something one should place beside and above. I will buy it next month. I hate reading on monitor.
Quote :
And where did I say you had to use academic books? I value the Eddas as well. Although one would have to escape the bits of christian remnants that Snorri left. One can't be too sure.
Yes. In your "Cinematic masterpieces" I smuggled in a movie on the "Nibelungen". Great stories of family and heroic values, tradition.
Quote :
Your paganism is New Age, exactly like the paper Evola presented on that same subject... a concoction of diverse beliefs.
Yes. This is the curse of modern times. The information era. With the internet. Diminishing borders. Multicultur. And all that. But I think Neoplatonism is an impasse now. I focus on self-improvement, which is Scientology and roots (the "soul") which is Paganism. The real kind Satyr represents and maybe you?
Three basic reasons- according to Satyr - why Nietzsche rejected antisemitism:
-1- The noble spirit is grateful to his enemies because they keep him fit and because the help him define himself as that which does not wish to be like his enemies. One is grateful to a virus for maintaining his autoimmune system...because "What does not kill us only serves to make us stronger"
The noble spirit does not despise what opposes him, but is thankful that they do, wishing upon himself powerful enemies to help him become powerful in opposition.
-2- The rational man does not hate something or someone for being what it is. For instance...one does not hate a lion for being a lion and attacking a man. If a man ventures into a lion's territory he should know what a lion is, in relation to himself. If he does not, and does not take the necessary precautions or is arrogant and foolish, and he gets eaten by a lion, it is not the lion's fault for being what it is, but the man's fault for not knowing, beforehand, and totally, and honestly, what a lion is.
This also relates to the infamous MRA movement. One does not hate women for being what they are, one studies them analyzes them, courageously and honestly and with care...and if he still wishes to engage with them for whatever reason, then he also accepts the risks and the costs for doing so. If the risks taken lead to a negative outcome, a more costly in reference to the desired and expected benefit, then the man accepts this as a necessary aspect of engaging the natural phenomenon called "female." One does not succumb to romanticism, considering females as being something other than what they are. If he does then whatever happens is not their fault, entirely, and one cannot blame them for being exactly what they are and for not living up to his ideals or hopes.
Every action with an intended benefit entails a cost...and a risk for a cost higher than the intended benefit.
If a man wants to climb Mt. Everest and does, it is not the mountain's fault. The mountain is not only honored when one climbs it. If one chooses to ,live amongst a wild animal, like bears, and is subsequently mauled and deformed, he does not hate bears afterwards....not unless he's a fag, an ignoble, child-like, imbecile.
-3- To hate the Jew is to buy into his world-view. The Jew identifies with being the chosen; chosen to suffer on behalf of a God-King. This is their bonding meme: to be amongst the few, special, ones belonging to a Deity rejected by all other peoples, and suffering the costs of what this means. See above. For them this cost promises a benefit; the higher the cost the more substantial the potential, hoped for, benefit. It is a reversal of reasoning...nihilism. A rational mind computes the possible costs in relation to the possible benefits and then adjusts its actions to minimize the former and maximize the latter. In this case the opposite is the case. Here the Jew, being a product of a history which offered a "ray of light" to the downtrodden and miserable and the hopeless, reverses the computations (Pascals' Wager). The Jew, the Judeo-Christian mind, wishes to maximize the costs so as to hope for a minimal benefit. Within the cruelty of nature, he finds a possible alternative to his plight.
This desire to maximize the possible costs so as to ensure a minimal benefit, is a passive-aggressive attitude, based no the wrong assumption that, in the end, nature, the world, reality, balances out.
This idea that all balances out, so that there is no positive or negative victory is founded no the assumption of a unity, a whole, a perfect, absolute Universe...anthropomorphized as a God who overlooks it all and allows Satan so as to make virtue possible.
But I digress. To hate, as Hitler presumably did, is to accept the emotion as the foundation of activity. One acts in regards to his emotional reactions...which are automatic, unconscious, intuitive...buying into the paradigm which lowers all to a slow decline towards chaos. Reason, of course, being a higher, more ordered, state of consciousness.
To hate the Jew is to accept his Cult of Victim-hood and to abide by it. The Holocaust was a godsend for the Jews, who now prey for the destruction of Jerusalem so as to bring about the prophesied conditions which would usher in the coming of the "true" Messiah - not Jesus. To hate the Jew is to reinforce his own faith in his own nihilistic delusion. Being hated, simply for being a Jew, only offers credence to the delusion that they are the "chosen ones."
Yes. This is correct. He rejected it. This is important for me to state this facts clear. I haven't read WTP and it will probably stay controversial, but I know this from academic sources (like Safranski) and my own reading. It would have been a complete turn around, if he had turned anti-semite in the end of his life.
Today there is an even more intellectual and highly charged debate about genes and different tribes and ideas about what Judaism actually is, amongst Jews mainly. It is a race of course, with some shared memes, but not on all accounts, like in other groups also. Just a common history. We have more Secularisation. Like within Islam also and Christianity. Humanism with some preference for the own kind. (Supremacist thinking, like there are White Supremacists also.). For this forum jewish sources are important. Some are high IQ people, scientists and so on. Kafka described alientation in modernity.
