Yes, as his actions help to to typify him as a lunatic and play into the hands of anybody wishing to associate those actions with his motivations.
However, it was more to do with immigration. An attempt to preserve his heritage. I don't know how much immigration you get in Romania, but we have plenty in Ireland too. I see my own heritage being watered down and destroyed by my own peers and I understand his motivations.
If you live in Norway which is heavily left-leaning liberal then the only option is direct action against those you see as the enemy.... as they already dominate politics, the media and academia.
Look around you; you'll see this same message everywhere. It's all pervasive. What would you do about it?
Who would kill kids and adolescents for any motive? Doesn't make sense. Just like al qaida killing random people in an airplane.
What heritage did he preserve? Didn't his father disown him in public? I saw on tv he said his son should of commited suicide rather than kill random teens and kids like that. You go with a big gun and just massacre teens in a camp.
Killing youngsters with a semiautomatic ain't no heritage preservation to me...
In Romania we live with the gypsies and muslims and hungarians for thousands of years. We are used to it. We don't feel threaten, we think of the future and present, not the idealized past. Whats heritage good for, if we die in poverty?
apaosha Daeva
Gender : Posts : 1852 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 37 Location : Ireland
Who would kill kids and adolescents for any motive? Doesn't make sense.
I believe they were the next generation of Labour politicians. Future leaders. And a lot of them were not Norwegian.
You said to me before that since God was dead, everything is permissable. Why then does this disturb you?
Is there nothing you would kill for?
Quote :
What heritage did he preserve?
He didn't preserve anything. He destroyed a lot. I think that was the point. Now he's another devil for modernity to point a warning finger at. He failed.
Quote :
In Romania we live with the gypsies and muslims and hungarians for thousands of years. We are used to it. We don't feel threaten, we think of the future and present, not the idealized past. Whats heritage good for, if we die in poverty?
What is luxury worth if you lose your identity?
Sure, you're not homogenous... but any group identity is made up of a distinct multiplicity which together defines that group's identity. Either you preserve that distinctiveness selfishly or you permit it to absorb the other and in doing so lose that particular distinctiveness.
Yes everything is permitted in the moral and objective sense, but I have my own passions and aversions. A little romanian girl who grew up in Norway is missing because of that event, but I feel sorry for all the parents, no matter what they were. I'd kill for freedom I guess.
For me a community is made up of those who participate in it. All I see is that he murdered people who were on "his land" which wasn't his in fact. Tho who live and work have a right just like anybody else everywhere in my opinion. A lazy ass american doesn't deserve shit if a mexican or neggro works and he doesnt, having heritage doesn't cut it. Meritocracy in my opinion is better.
Who would kill kids and adolescents for any motive? Doesn't make sense. Killing youngsters with a semiautomatic ain't no heritage preservation to me...
Even a fool has a use. Look at how many of them kill and die in Afghanistan daily, only to be praised as "heroes" by imbeciles who cringe at the thought of those poor Caucasian children being nipped at the bud. Perhaps a few towel-head babies for our more expensive gas and our peace of mind is tolerable.
Puzzled as to why children have such a privileged position in our moral judgments. Immaturity is not excused in nature, but it is in modern western human culture.
Is it because we feel children ourselves, or that we wish to remain so, or to be thought of being so indefinitely? Do we see ourselves in them?
Best roast goat I've tasted was young, but nobody cries out about how "wrong" it is to slaughter a goat's kid? Mine notwithstanding.
It must have something to do with hope. When you kill a child, what are you killing? A hope. A possibility.
The child can belong to degenerate morons yet the hope is that he, she, it, will turn out to be better...perhaps a brilliant mind or a gifted artist.
Mmmmm...no it also has to do with the death of innocence. What is a boy-child but a future douche-bag so void of understanding and so weak of will that he is almost adorable in his puppy-like stage of total oblivion.
I recall how I used to find myself in public areas listening to a infant cry and cry, in that aggravating grating whine nobody can ignore, dreaming of smashing its tiny little soft skull upon the nearest wall. I felt a bit ashamed of the thought, for I too have been conditioned, but also an underlying sensation of mirth.
These days I smile, knowing what lies ahead of it. I am happy knowing what life has in store, for that tiny ball of genetic filth. Like those lambs being raised by a shepherd for his future meals.
Even a fool has a use. Look at how many of them kill and die in Afghanistan daily, only to be praised as "heroes" by imbeciles who cringe at the thought of those poor Caucasian children being nipped at the bud. Perhaps a few towel-head babies for our more expensive gas and our peace of mind is tolerable.
Puzzled as to why children have such a privileged position in our moral judgments. Immaturity is not excused in nature, but it is in modern western human culture.
Is it because we feel children ourselves, or that we wish to remain so, or to be thought of being so indefinitely? Do we see ourselves in them?
Best roast goat I've tasted was young, but nobody cries out about how "wrong" it is to slaughter a goat's kid? Mine notwithstanding.
It must have something to do with hope. When you kill a child, what are you killing? A hope. A possibility.
The child can belong to degenerate morons yet the hope is that he, she, it, will turn out to be better...perhaps a brilliant mind or a gifted artist.
Mmmmm...no it also has to do with the death of innocence. What is a boy-child but a future douche-bag so void of understanding and so weak of will that he is almost adorable in his puppy-like stage of total oblivion.
I recall how I used to find myself in public areas listening to a infant cry and cry, in that aggravating grating whine nobody can ignore, dreaming of smashing its tiny little soft skull upon the nearest wall. I felt a bit ashamed of the thought, for I too have been conditioned, but also an underlying sensation of mirth.
These days I smile, knowing what lies ahead of it. I am happy knowing what life has in store, for that tiny ball of genetic filth. Like those lambs being raised by a shepherd for his future meals.
Have the lambs stopped crying, Clarisse?
I agree to an extent.
There are certain children I've met in my life that have given me an urge to kill
Children know how much they can get away with so take advantage of it at every turn. Whatever comes out of their mouths is excused as "cute". I've looked some kids in the eyes and seen nothing but deviance and unwarranted protection.
I don't think kids should be made a big exception from adults. A lot of this probably has to do with the fact that I have an extremely sharp long-term memory and was a mature child.
My idea of innocence is very different than other people's. I was always the evil child to spoil everyone else's :]
We have a unique personality from the time we're born due to genetics and early gestation etc etc, and as a child develops their true nature begins to bud. It's very easy to tell how a child will be like in 10-20 years.
And, I think what probably bothers me most about the new generation is how shallow and stupid they are. It never ceases to blow my mind that they don't have enough substance to be considered a 'hope' in anyway. It's very hard to see something cute or precious when it acts more vile than some adults I've encountered.
It's like they come out knowing everything and having no curiosity whatsoever. They think that they're permitted to judge and their judgement is always correct. I think this is due to the lack of respect for older people in general--it's totally gone.
apaosha Daeva
Gender : Posts : 1852 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 37 Location : Ireland
_________________ "I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Puzzled as to why children have such a privileged position in our moral judgments. Immaturity is not excused in nature, but it is in modern western human culture.
Is it because we feel children ourselves, or that we wish to remain so, or to be thought of being so indefinitely? Do we see ourselves in them?
No, children are durable goods in which people invest in. This is why childre are more privileged. Not that I like kids or anything, just that a community needs to cultivate their kids if it is to survive. Like the western folk, they are going extinct because they are idiots and don't foster kids which could stop the muslim takeover.
Who would kill kids and adolescents for any motive? Doesn't make sense. Killing youngsters with a semiautomatic ain't no heritage preservation to me...
What if you don't like Mondays? ;{
Monday is a christian invention :p The whole calendar which we inherit is dumb. Fuckin popes, why do we have to follow their dumbass calendar based on their idiocracy? And why count the year from the supposed year of birth of that Jesus fella? Why not count from something more interesting like the end of WW1, WW2, or fall of the Soviet block?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
No, children are durable goods in which people invest in. This is why childre are more privileged. Not that I like kids or anything, just that a community needs to cultivate their kids if it is to survive. Like the western folk, they are going extinct because they are idiots and don't foster kids which could stop the muslim takeover.
Then your emotional response is not warranted. The fact that he killed children and not adults is but a minor detail having to do with opportunity and ease.
These children, in his mind, were being trained to accept the non-distinct society of multiculturalism, and so they were already dead weight to him.
Let me put it to you this way:
The modern Greeks have little to do with their ancient ancestors. In all matters they are in their majority Jewish in mind and morality and world-view.
If they die, have Greeks died?
Here's a hint: The ancients did not primarily separate people according to races but according to education - παιδιεα.
They considered it a higher indication of kinship to think alike even if you may not look alike or be from the same family tree. This is why in love agape αγαπη, the affection of kinship took precedence over all else, because friendship is a relationship based on common ways of thinking.
To be a Hellene, therefore, was not a racial identification, although it also factored in as we are human after all, but was a rational designation indicating a manner of thinking, no matter where you come from.
Of course, having said that, the way you think is determined to a big degree by heritage, as potential is decided there.
Monday is a christian invention :p The whole calendar which we inherit is dumb. Fuckin popes, why do we have to follow their dumbass calendar based on their idiocracy? And why count the year from the supposed year of birth of that Jesus fella? Why not count from something more interesting like the end of WW1, WW2, or fall of the Soviet block?
No, children are durable goods in which people invest in. This is why childre are more privileged. Not that I like kids or anything, just that a community needs to cultivate their kids if it is to survive. Like the western folk, they are going extinct because they are idiots and don't foster kids which could stop the muslim takeover.
Then your emotional response is not warranted. The fact that he killed children and not adults is but a minor detail having to do with opportunity and ease.
These children, in his mind, were being trained to accept the non-distinct society of multiculturalism, and so they were already dead weight to him.
Do I have an emotional response, or did that idiot have one when he decided to put bullets into them? My argument is that kids are an important part of a community because they are a huge investment, especially for a country like Norway which has a small population.
Σατυρ wrote:
Let me put it to you this way:
The modern Greeks have little to do with their ancient ancestors. In all matters they are in their majority Jewish in mind and morality and world-view.
If they die, have Greeks died?
Bad way to put it. You have to specify the time. Greeks before the current age, or Greeks under the Ottoman empire, etc. I don't know why you are surprised though, greeks and jews were working with the ottomans like good pals, they aren't trusted. And it's not that the jews corrupted them, they are the ones who invented Christianity, the jews only started the spark and presided over it. Remember the first bibles were greek.
Σατυρ wrote:
Here's a hint: The ancients did not primarily separate people according to races but according to education - παιδιεα.
Which ancients? DId they turn people into slaves because they failed at education? I think not.
Σατυρ wrote:
They considered it a higher indication of kinship to think alike even if you may not look alike or be from the same family tree. This is why in love agape αγαπη, the affection of kinship took precedence over all else, because friendship is a relationship based on common ways of thinking.
To be a Hellene, therefore, was not a racial identification, although it also factored in as we are human after all, but was a rational designation indicating a manner of thinking, no matter where you come from.
If that is so, I designate myself as a Spartacist. I like his manner of thinking.
Σατυρ wrote:
Of course, having said that, the way you think is determined to a big degree by heritage, as potential is decided there.
How can you know such a thing? I think we are more determined by our environment:
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Do I have an emotional response, or did that idiot have one when he decided to put bullets into them? My argument is that kids are an important part of a community because they are a huge investment, especially for a country like Norway which has a small population.
And what I'm telling you is that the fact that you weep for their children, their hope, means you associate yourself with it.
Their hope was lost the moment they embraced Judeo-Christianity and the subsequent liberalism it spawned.
Funny how the "bringers of hope", in some afterlife or some future utopia, are the ones who take it away in the here and now.
Hope? Those children were already headed to the lobotomy clinic.
Lex wrote:
Bad way to put it. You have to specify the time. Greeks before the current age, or Greeks under the Ottoman empire, etc. I don't know why you are surprised though, greeks and jews were working with the ottomans like good pals, they aren't trusted. And it's not that the jews corrupted them, they are the ones who invented Christianity, the jews only started the spark and presided over it. Remember the first bibles were greek.
I think you are a bit confused.
Christianity was Hebrew philosophy coupled with Platonic thought...and Plato was but a symptom of Hellenic decline...he and his Socratic invention. The realm of the ideal from whence all comes from....
That the Bible was written in Greek should not surprise you,a s it was the English of its time. The Romans thought it a privilege, a sign of sophistication, to teach their children Greek and to converse in it.
The heathen Greeks were massacred in droves after Constantine the Great established Christianity as the official dogma. For political reasons.
Up until recently the modern Greeks were not allowed by the Orthodox Church to baptize their children with ancient Greek names.
Lex wrote:
Which ancients? DId they turn people into slaves because they failed at education? I think not.
Yes they took the enemy as slave, and they did not discriminant between Greek and Barbarian. They thought it the "right of the victor" to do so, and still they treated their slaves far better than the Americans treated the Negroes. They often became a valued part of the family.
Thinking of someone as of your kind and considering him inferior are two different things.
The ancient Greeks separated the world into Hellenic and Barbarian...the term barbarian comes from the noise these aliens produced sounding to the Greeks as "bar bar bar".
Also, you should not only get over your Judeo-Christian hangups about "innocence lost" but that crap about slavery should go as well.
Try thinking without your penis or your self-interests clouding your mind.
Lex wrote:
If that is so, I designate myself as a Spartacist. I like his manner of thinking.
And what is that?
Lex wrote:
How can you know such a thing? I think we are more determined by our environment:
Your superstitions are your affair.
Perhaps realizing that determination simply mans the sum of all previous environmental conditions, as opposed to the immediate one.
My past determines how tall I can potentially become, as I do not think you are claiming that we can be as tall as we wish, and the immediate environment places our height where it is.
If not, then you've pretty much "debunked" evolution theory and you imply that species are superficial designations, as the immediate environment can "heal" them of being an ape or a dog or a worm.
Listen it can be a bot complicated. First the genetic past determines your potentials in all physical and mental attributes, and then the environment determines where within this potential you will fall.
This makes it possible for a man of inferior genes to reach a higher place than a man with more potential but less opportunity or perhaps a chance disease thwarting this potential and so on. Add to this the slight effects of overcoming one's limitations, which might be called "free-will" or how social and cultural rules establish artificial limits to certain advantages offering the illusion of parity, and you've got a hodge-podge of a mess.
And what I'm telling you is that the fact that you weep for their children, their hope, means you associate yourself with it.
I don't weep but I do associate myself against retards who mass murder for no good reason. He was, as I've read from his manifesto, a Christian dumbass who couldn't accept the fact that migration of large portions of populations is something always present in history. His "nordic heritage" was something idealized and romanticized.
Quote :
Their hope was lost the moment they embraced Judeo-Christianity and the subsequent liberalism it spawned.
Wasn't HE the one who embraced Christianity? Who called himself a "Martyr" and asked more to become "Martyrs"? I think you've got it in reverse gear.
Quote :
Hope? Those children were already headed to the lobotomy clinic.
How so? Can you predict their future?
Quote :
I think you are a bit confused.
Christianity was Hebrew philosophy coupled with Platonic thought...and Plato was but a symptom of Hellenic decline...he and his Socratic invention. The realm of the ideal from whence all comes from....
Christianity is more similar to Stoicism rather than Judaism. And Stoicism is a product of ancient greeks. You should see the similarities of what the Stoics and the Christian Fathers have. The Jews remained with their Old Testament, the New Testament was nothing but a rewritting of Stoicm philosophy.
Quote :
The heathen Greeks were massacred in droves after Constantine the Great established Christianity as the official dogma. For political reasons.
Up until recently the modern Greeks were not allowed by the Orthodox Church to baptize their children with ancient Greek names.
Poor them. If only the Greek communists could of destroyed the Christian Church like they did in Romania.
Quote :
Also, you should not only get over your Judeo-Christian hangups about "innocence lost" but that crap about slavery should go as well.
Try thinking without your penis or your self-interests clouding your mind.
That sounds like you think there is some sort of free will, without interest and passions attached. I will never be such a thing. It's like saying someone could be only a spectator, when in fact we are always responding to our environment and our behavior is modeled.
Quote :
Your superstitions are your affair.
Perhaps realizing that determination simply mans the sum of all previous environmental conditions, as opposed to the immediate one.
Superstitions? Behaviors can become extinct or can be created, it depends. You can't just deny that immediate behavior modification. It's easy to test. Maybe you are taking past behaviour modification to the extreme.
Quote :
Listen it can be a bot complicated. First the genetic past determines your potentials in all physical and mental attributes, and then the environment determines where within this potential you will fall.
Did you check to see if environment can affect genes? Maybe you should that shit out. It's not that simplistic.
Quote :
This makes it possible for a man of inferior genes to reach a higher place than a man with more potential but less opportunity or perhaps a chance disease thwarting this potential and so on. Add to this the slight effects of overcoming one's limitations, which might be called "free-will"
This is some sort of nonsense, what is "inferior" and "superior" relating to genes?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I don't weep but I do associate myself against retards who mass murder for no good reason. He was, as I've read from his manifesto, a Christian dumbass who couldn't accept the fact that migration of large portions of populations is something always present in history. His "nordic heritage" was something idealized and romanticized.
Christians killing Christians is a good thing.
As for romantic...look at your opinions to see romanticism at work. Wanting to maintain your heritage is a form of self-preservation; knowing and understanding your heritage is what identity is founded upon. Piss on it and you have no sense of self....ready to be exploited by some liberal shit concerning the "sanctity of life" and how children deserve this and that, or about the "brotherhood of man".
Lex wrote:
Wasn't HE the one who embraced Christianity? Who called himself a "Martyr" and asked more to become "Martyrs"? I think you've got it in reverse gear.
Where's the tragedy in that?
Lex wrote:
How so? Can you predict their future?
The past is always a good indicator. As for each one individually, no. I would need more info.
But your crying implies that you knew them intimately and they all deserved life. Do you also weep when you hear about a Muslim child dying?
Lex wrote:
Christianity is more similar to Stoicism rather than Judaism. And Stoicism is a product of ancient greeks. You should see the similarities of what the Stoics and the Christian Fathers have. The Jews remained with their Old Testament, the New Testament was nothing but a rewritting of Stoicm philosophy.
The Greeks produced many lines of thought, one of which was integrated into the christian faith along with Jewish slavishness, grovelling, monotheism and the ideas of salvation, sin, guilt and shame.
That platonic thought and its Ideal became a perfect way to infect Roman thinking with the principles of nihilism is owed to the creative genius of the Greeks.
Jewish nihilism and slavishness found its universality through the Greeks. It was made marketable to Caucasians and all the myriads of slaves and the downtrodden and the ill and the unfortunates in the Roman Empire.
Christianity is how the nihilistic virus evolved to infect a new body. Jesus made Jewishness less closed, it opened up the membership criteria...the chosen people could now be selected from amongst the meek and weak in any civilization. Entry into the "chosen" group, was not a matter of birth anymore but one needed only to be stupid, and self-hating, and life-denouncing and he got in....God would "save" him.
Lex wrote:
Poor them. If only the Greek communists could of destroyed the Christian Church like they did in Romania.
Yes, too bad...but then we would of had a different strain of the same virus. Christianity...Marxism....same principles different methodology and symbolism. Marx, the Jew, adapted Jesus, the Jew, to a post-industrial age. Spinoza, the Jew, had secularized the Judeo-Christian God, beforehand. He called Him substance.
Lex wrote:
That sounds like you think there is some sort of free will, without interest and passions attached. I will never be such a thing. It's like saying someone could be only a spectator, when in fact we are always responding to our environment and our behavior is modeled.
See, now you are using absolutes to defend the indefensible.
Yes, absolute freedom is impossible, but a degree of it, in relation to another, is possible. And yes, absolute power, omnipotence, is impossible, but a degree of it, in relation to another is. And yes, absolute knowledge, awareness, omniscience, is impossible, but a degree of it, in relation to another is possible.
And so, yes, total detachment, total objectivity, is impossible, but a higher degree of it is possible in relation to another.
As for "free-will" if it is taken literally and as a given, yes it is absurd...an oxymoron. What freedom is is the Will striving towards its own completion, and attaining a degree of it. I will what I choose to Become. In that choosing I define myself.
A man, a mind, is never free from the immutable past, but if he exhibits a force of will equal to it, he might stretch its determined limitations ever so slightly.
The Will's desire to be free, in this case - it is this desire to detach, to be the second in dualism, it is to be God.
Lex wrote:
Superstitions? Behaviors can become extinct or can be created, it depends. You can't just deny that immediate behavior modification. It's easy to test. Maybe you are taking past behaviour modification to the extreme.
We are all victims of behavioral modification. Do you not say "please" and "thank you" to strangers, and even when you do not mean it? Do you not stop at red lights? Do you not react to certain words in certain ways, despite yourself?
On the one hand you denounce free-will and on the other you imply that a man is born free of all past influences or that these can simply be replaced in a lifetime. If man is so gifted then he should choose to be a monkey, if he so wishes. If man is so free from his past then why not sprout wings and fly?
But your acceptance of the past is selective...you even accuse others of romanticizing it, because that's what you are prone to do...or is it the present that you worship?
These events, like in Norway, show that the past is buried never obliterated. Behavior modification simply trains the individual to react to particular stimulation in desired ways, using positive and negative reinforcements and repetition. If and only if these modifications are consistent and they are applied over many lifespans can any permanent alteration occur.
One can train someone to act civilized or to pretend to be non-violent without the other actually being so. Acting out what is expected of you, so as to avoid the consequences or gain the rewards is not being so. Repression is what happens and this, depending on the individual's particular circumstances, can lead to neurosis or these emotional explosions of violence...or they might simply come forth as disease.
Lex wrote:
Did you check to see if environment can affect genes? Maybe you should that shit out. It's not that simplistic.
I will, when you actually read what I said.
If I said that environment do not affect genes then you should link me to where I did so, and quote it. If I did not, you should keep your mouth shut and go off to cry over those poor children.
Now, since this is becoming fun...what I AM saying, rather than what you think or you would like me to be saying, is that your assertion that a generation or two of edumucation or training or the "right" environmental conditions completely does away with centuries or millions of years of natural selection is a very naive proposition. It is so naive that imbeciles have been building utopias with it for centuries....like Christianity's ideal man or Communism perfect worker.
I know teaching children to be polite and to dress nicely and to parrot behaviors offers you the sense of being amongst "good natured" people with no dark drives in their heads, but I assure you this is not the case. When you train a lion cub to perform and to behave, this does not mean that it is tamed or that noe day it will not tear your fuckin' head off.
Nobility is not taught...it is an innate quality.
Imagine, if you will, that tomorrow all the laws and rules no longer apply...what will happen and how long will it take for your god-fearing, polite, kind, altruistic neighbors to revert to their underlying nature?
The problem with uniformity is that it offers a common code of ethics and morals and values and behaviors...which produces the illusion of parity when it is only a parity in behavior where the nature of each is repressed and hidden to conform to it. This "mad" Norwegian or Kaczynski were not mad because of what they did, but because they did it, overcome by their passions, despite the possible consequences to them. The average pedophile is not ill because he has these nasty prohibited thoughts, but because he acts upon them...this is the only thing that sets him apart form the average dolt.
I think you would be surprised as to how many sick fucks are walking around out there all serious and respectable and "normal".
Lex wrote:
This is some sort of nonsense, what is "inferior" and "superior" relating to genes?
In nature it is fitness....when it comes to my standards it is intelligence.
Superior genes are those that produce superior awareness, because intelligence is the only thing separating man from other animals and so I choose it as the defining human characteristic. Of course, if you wish to define it more sharply, given that intelligence can be coupled with psychological deformity or a lack of courage or a domination by instinctual drives, particularly the sexual one, then nobility is how I would define superiority amongst humans.
I have tried to make sense of it myself here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
As for romantic...look at your opinions to see romanticism at work. Wanting to maintain your heritage is a form of self-preservation; knowing and understanding your heritage is what identity is founded upon. Piss on it and you have no sense of self....ready to be exploited by some liberal shit concerning the "sanctity of life" and how children deserve this and that, or about the "brotherhood of man".
Good for who? for you?
My opinions? What's romantic in them? The shit about heritage is romantic, pastoral romanticism. About the "good 'ol days" of the ancient greeks before christianity existed in your case. I don't know about any liberal shit here where I live, but the idea of having no sense of self is something which one can go to therapy or take meds. It's an effect of anxiety sindroms in most cases. Which can have genetic as well as environmental causes.
My self is ok without living with my head in history.
Quote :
The past is always a good indicator. As for each one individually, no. I would need more info.
Ever tried to predict the evolution of Euro/USD with accuracy, based on the past evolution? You can't. There are are situations in which you can be fooled by history.
Like the turkey always being fed by the peasant, his past was good for him but in the future his head will get chopped off.
On the large scale you can always "predict" the end of humanity, or that some society might go to shit. Anyone can do that.
Quote :
The Greeks produced many lines of thought, one of which was integrated into the christian faith along with Jewish slavishness, grovelling, monotheism and the ideas of salvation, sin, guilt and shame.
That platonic thought and its Ideal became a perfect way to infect Roman thinking with the principles of nihilism is owed to the creative genius of the Greeks.
Jewish nihilism and slavishness found its universality through the Greeks. It was made marketable to Caucasians and all the myriads of slaves and the downtrodden and the ill and the unfortunates in the Roman Empire.
This whole rambling about nihilism up and nihilism down is a kind of spook, putting it in Stirner's terms, good for a conservative audience. Those poor greeks didn't know what hit 'em.
Do you really think the Jews were the only ones who became monotheistic? The Dacians had a sole god Zalmoxis, Herodotus wrote about it. So did the Egyptians, etc. Shame? Shame is something everpresent in all cultures or societies. You think people are ashamed of their failed children because of Christianity? Nope, it's simple cultural relations, Christians or Jews didn't just invent shame out of thin air.
Guilt? Sin? This is also everpresent. The Profane and Sacred are concepts of all cultures. Violanting norms produce both. The people of the Roman Empire didn't just start to behave slavish because of "jewishness",since they were brutally exploited and a great part were actual slaves they lived in a system which promoted such behavior. Modern day slavishness I have encountered in the University, it's a strategy of some students to kiss up and be servile to professors in order to get better grades then the rest of us. But this kind of behavior can be extinguished, changed with proper incentives.
Quote :
Christianity...Marxism....same principles different methodology and symbolism
Funny simplifications. Was Jesus a historical materialist as Marx? Or was Marx a Messiah like Jesus? Christianity proposes false causes for suffering like original sin and human nature. Marx proposed the relations of production and primitive capital accumulations and their affect on the proletariat as being a cause of suffering. Maybe you didn't know about Caesar but he was one of the few Roman Socialist Reformers of Rome. Isn't that funny?
Maybe Caesar was a Jew himself? A jewish socialist reformer before Jesus?
Quote :
Nobility is not taught...it is an innate quality.
Must be the 'nobility gene'?
Quote :
Imagine, if you will, that tomorrow all the laws and rules no longer apply...what will happen and how long will it take for your god-fearing, polite, kind, altruistic neighbors to revert to their underlying nature?
Good scenario for a post-apocalyptic movie there. Did you not look into the operant conditioning thing? People don't behave because of their thinking or feeling, they behave because the stimulus-response conditioning. All your god fearing altruistic neighbors might turn into homosexual prostitutes if their behavior was modified. Depends on the conditions, The Standford prison experiment was a good look into that, you can condition people into almost anything. But there ain't no underlying nature, this is mumbo-jumbo.
Quote :
Now, since this is becoming fun...what I AM saying, rather than what you think or you would like me to be saying, is that your assertion that a generation or two of edumucation or training or the "right" environmental conditions completely does away with centuries or millions of years of natural selection is a very naive proposition. It is so naive that imbeciles have been building utopias with it for centuries....like Christianity's ideal man or Communism perfect worker.
I never asserted this. Nice job for adding that "right" word as well.
Quote :
I know teaching children to be polite and to dress nicely and to parrot behaviors offers you the sense of being amongst "good natured" people with no dark drives in their heads, but I assure you this is not the case. When you train a lion cub to perform and to behave, this does not mean that it is tamed or that noe day it will not tear your fuckin' head off.
Thanks for the observations. Good thing I wasn't talking about "good" or "evil" or "bad" behavior. "Good natured" ? who said anything about that?
Quote :
In nature it is fitness....when it comes to my standards it is intelligence.
Quote :
Superior genes are those that produce superior awareness, because intelligence is the only thing separating man from other animals and so I choose it as the defining human characteristic. Of course, if you wish to define it more sharply, given that intelligence can be coupled with psychological deformity or a lack of courage or a domination by instinctual drives, particularly the sexual one, then nobility is how I would define superiority amongst humans.
You got it wrong. When you speak of superior or inferior you enter the teleological discussion which is not part of the theory of evolution. Fitness isn't a purpose of gene evolution for genes to be "superior" or "inferior". Neither is intelligence.
Your choosing is superfluous. Is that the only thing separating man from other animals? Maybe it was verbal behavior? Did you ever wonder about that?
Superior awareness? Did you invent the criterion for this as well?
"instinctual drive"? there are no instincts, since sex and hunger and even survival can be overriden by the organism, especially in humans. By definitions instincts are automated responses, but how can they exist, if they there is possibility for overriding them? I do acknowledge that there are of course, reflexes, which I don't know if they can be overriden or not. But I don't think they fit the "classical" image of an " instinct ".
Quote :
Perhaps realizing that determination simply mans the sum of all previous environmental conditions, as opposed to the immediate one.
My past determines how tall I can potentially become, as I do not think you are claiming that we can be as tall as we wish, and the immediate environment places our height where it is.
If not, then you've pretty much "debunked" evolution theory and you imply that species are superficial designations, as the immediate environment can "heal" them of being an ape or a dog or a worm.
Listen it can be a bot complicated. First the genetic past determines your potentials in all physical and mental attributes, and then the environment determines where within this potential you will fall.
What about random mutations? Seems to me like you are not taking them into account. And why are you separating between physical and mental behavior? Instead of this ambiguous "genetic past" I suggest the phrase "genetic make-up", meaning the genotype which an organism has.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
My opinions? What's romantic in them? The shit about heritage is romantic, pastoral romanticism. About the "good 'ol days" of the ancient greeks before christianity existed in your case. I don't know about any liberal shit here where I live, but the idea of having no sense of self is something which one can go to therapy or take meds. It's an effect of anxiety sindroms in most cases. Which can have genetic as well as environmental causes.
My self is ok without living with my head in history.
Fascinating.
Lex wrote:
Ever tried to predict the evolution of Euro/USD with accuracy, based on the past evolution? You can't. There are are situations in which you can be fooled by history.
Like the turkey always being fed by the peasant, his past was good for him but in the future his head will get chopped off.
On the large scale you can always "predict" the end of humanity, or that some society might go to shit. Anyone can do that.
Interesting.
Lex wrote:
This whole rambling about nihilism up and nihilism down is a kind of spook, putting it in Stirner's terms, good for a conservative audience. Those poor greeks didn't know what hit 'em.
Presumably, niether do you. Maybe your head is already chopped off and you are running around until your body realizes it.
Remind me how looking back constitutes a painting the past emerald, 'cause I missed that part.
By the way "currency" and economics in general is based on bullshit. You can't use bullshit to predict anything because.....because it's bullshit. But you can use the behavior this bullshit manipulates to do so.
Lex wrote:
Do you really think the Jews were the only ones who became monotheistic?
Is that what I said, 'cause I distinctly remember once saying that there is no such thing as uniqueness. Perhaps they were the first to base an entire system on monotheism or, maybe, they were the first to exclude all others from their realms of salvation.
I doubt Jesus was the first to say what he is said to have said....but he was the one who got blamed for it. The right man at the right time.
Jews are exactly that: the "right" people at the "right" time to infect the Romans.
Lex wrote:
The Dacians had a sole god Zalmoxis, Herodotus wrote about it. So did the Egyptians, etc. Shame? Shame is something everpresent in all cultures or societies. You think people are ashamed of their failed children because of Christianity? Nope, it's simple cultural relations, Christians or Jews didn't just invent shame out of thin air.
My dear boy, they made shame part of their dogma, and taught it as a necessity. To be ashamed of your nature: to be held accountable for some bullshit sin that happened before you were born to be forever obligated to pay for it?
That, dear boy, the Greeks never had. No other people had this filth.
Lex wrote:
Guilt? Sin? This is also everpresent. The Profane and Sacred are concepts of all cultures. Violanting norms produce both. The people of the Roman Empire didn't just start to behave slavish because of "jewishness",since they were brutally exploited and a great part were actual slaves they lived in a system which promoted such behavior. Modern day slavishness I have encountered in the University, it's a strategy of some students to kiss up and be servile to professors in order to get better grades then the rest of us. But this kind of behavior can be extinguished, changed with proper incentives.
Boy, this mode of thinking is inherited....passed down from generation to generation.
To have it institutionalized and culturally ingrained is a Jewish infection, and you are suffering form it. Look at your automatic emotional response to the news that some children were slaughtered by a deranged gunman. I bet you weep when you see a lamb being eaten by a wolf.
Lex wrote:
Funny simplifications.
I now...not as complex as you crying foul when you hear of someone being shot. Did you think of yourself when you heard the news? Did you think of your own potential children and all the unforeseeable calamities that might befall them?
Lex wrote:
Was Jesus a historical materialist as Marx?
No, but neither was Marx. Let us share....and share alike. If I have one shirt, let me give it to my neighbor. Let me love and work for my neighbor, and think of him as my brother, my comrade, my family. We are all one under God or the Communal decree.
Lex wrote:
Or was Marx a Messiah like Jesus?
A messiah comes wearing the garments of his time and place, speaking in the tongues of his time and place, using the contexts of his time and place. Would Marx wearing a tunic and sandals suffice for you, boy?
Maybe the current Venus Project requires someone to elucidate you as to how and why it is Marxism adapting to a post Cold War era.
Lex wrote:
Christianity proposes false causes for suffering like original sin and human nature. Marx proposed the relations of production and primitive capital accumulations and their affect on the proletariat as being a cause of suffering. Maybe you didn't know about Caesar but he was one of the few Roman Socialist Reformers of Rome. Isn't that funny?
How individuals explain the "problem" is a matter of historical contexts, the solutions they offer is what unites them, boy.
Perhaps you should look into Rome before Caesar and the Greeks before Plato and their decline.
Lex wrote:
Maybe Caesar was a Jew himself? A jewish socialist reformer before Jesus?
That yo use this line of thinking and that condescending tone already tells me you are a retard.
Here's the thing, little boy.....Jew in this case, has little to do with a racial identification. It might be birthed in a particular geographical area and it might flourish within particular genetic populations but the designation Greek Jew becomes something else.
Now, you might be a Slav or a Black or a Chinaman, but if you think like a Jew, then a Jew you are, boy....and in your particular case it is becoming clearer and clearer.
Lex wrote:
Must be the 'nobility gene'?
I think your question answers itself.
No matter, you need a dogma a threat and a reward to be as you are. So, cry over those poor Caucasian children who so wrongly died at the hands of a madman, because I bet you are not so genetically inclined as to not be capable of the same thing.
Lex wrote:
Good scenario for a post-apocalyptic movie there. Did you not look into the operant conditioning thing? People don't behave because of their thinking or feeling, they behave because the stimulus-response conditioning. All your god fearing altruistic neighbors might turn into homosexual prostitutes if their behavior was modified. Depends on the conditions, The Standford prison experiment was a good look into that, you can condition people into almost anything. But there ain't no underlying nature, this is mumbo-jumbo.
Spoken like a true liberal. A clean slate you are, boy....pure and capable of anything if given the right stimulation...and that is why you are what you are.
I suggest we stimulate dolphins to become sharks, or why not, let us stimulate you to turn....dare I say....noble. Oops....no dice.
I like the "almost anything" part, it leaves that window of dependability to make the hopeful, bullshit stick to just about anything and then not stick, depending on your interests. I don't know about you, but a homosexual prostitute is the last thing I am capable of being. I would rather be dead.
I think you might enjoy it, since living, as an animal is your highest priority.
Lex wrote:
Thanks for the observations. Good thing I wasn't talking about "good" or "evil" or "bad" behavior. "Good natured" ? who said anything about that?
My mistake, boy. Your reaction tot those killings implied a moral angle. My bad.
So, why again did you abhor those deaths? Was it the hope those children represented to you, oh so far away from their abode? Was it the off-chance that one of them would have discovered the cure for cancer that angered you?
Lex wrote:
You got it wrong. When you speak of superior or inferior you enter the teleological discussion which is not part of the theory of evolution. Fitness isn't a purpose of gene evolution for genes to be "superior" or "inferior". Neither is intelligence.
How is superior/inferior, a comparison of degrees, teleological? How is intelligence teleological?
Did I say omniscience?
Lex wrote:
Your choosing is superfluous.
Dear boy, and so is your crying. I make it matter, boy.
Lex wrote:
Is that the only thing separating man from other animals? Maybe it was verbal behavior? Did you ever wonder about that?
Animals have no verbal behavior? Really? Is it language, boy? Is language a result of intelligence or is it the other way around?
Superior awareness? Did you invent the criterion for this as well?
Lex wrote:
"instinctual drive"? there are no instincts, since sex and hunger and even survival can be overriden by the organism, especially in humans.
And? Some can be trained to override their instinct to survive, is it not a drive?
Comparing apples with oranges, boy. Sexual drive is not at par with the drive to nourish one's self. One evolves later on, overcoming the flight/fight mechanism, and without any immediate dire consequences...although the psychological repercussions can be devastating depending on the force of the sexual drive in the particular individual.
A primitive organism has no concept of what hunger is, what role it plays and the idea to override it never even enters its simple mind...but it does in a human one, no? It simply acts on a need....and this is a drive.
Humans can be coerced to do it, albeit not all and not under all circumstances, with human intervention....mind-manipulation. I would say it involves manipulating one need, exaggerating it, stimulation into a state of paroxysm, so that it overwhelms the others, including the survival instinct. But nature has evolved ways to do this by inebriating the brain with hormones, for ages. It is how heterosexual replication si made possible.
Lex wrote:
By definitions instincts are automated responses, but how can they exist, if they there is possibility for overriding them? I do acknowledge that there are of course, reflexes, which I don't know if they can be overriden or not. But I don't think they fit the "classical" image of an " instinct ".
And what does it matter what you believe or do not believe?
Here you are being manipulated by using the very instincts you deny to make you buy into the bullshit that these modern systems depend upon: the tabula rasa. Man as free-agent. Man free of his past...totally given over to the current, the modern, the "progressive"...man void of limits.
When you have kids train them to not like salt or sugar or fats. Train them with your methods to dot succumb to that weakness. Train them to be homosexual whores, if you wish.
I sense a bit of resentment towards nature, given the energy you expend in denying it. Denial....yes....yes. I think those that deny their chains are the ones whoa are most enslaved by them.
Like those retards I come across, from time to time, claiming to not feel fear. There's a sense of shame attached to the emotion. It must be "overcome" in accordance to modern dogmas. Now, I'm not saying that there are not dysfunctions that leave a brain incapable of feeling one or more emotions, but to be proud of it, is a social and cultural effect. A bit of machismo from the emasculated.
Lex wrote:
What about random mutations? Seems to me like you are not taking them into account.
Really?
Lex wrote:
And why are you separating between physical and mental behavior?
Am I?
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Seems like our little friend has chosen another method.
Nevertheless, it is interesting how the term "reformer" can be used to imply something without actually doing so. I would say that Hitler was a reformer and so was Mao Zedong, but here Caesar - I'm assuming he is referring to Julius - is presented as the "great" reformer....and this is implied as being a Jewish trait.
Change is remarkably predictable, as it is the normal state of things. All changes whether you egg it on or not. What is often referred as "reforming", in a positive light, is a change with a particular direction.
We forget that progressives are really preaching about what occurs with no effort at all. Change is inevitable, whether there is a bleeding heart liberal there to cheer it on, or to quicken its entropic decays or not. So these "progressives" are really conservatives as they merely propose the status quo, which is endless change. Their contribution is that they wish to join this absolute nothingness, at the end of the line, by speeding up the entropic process and destroying all resistance that hopes to stand in its way.
They think it as communing with the absolute fabric of reality, a secular Deity of sorts.
You see it in its poor boys insinuation that you can raise a child to be a homosexual, because not even the sexual drive and instinct is permitted to stand in the way of total tabula rasa.
homosexuals claim to be "born that way"....and that they cannot help but be as they are, but this liberal contradicts them, claiming that even sex and its forms are but human inventions. All of nature made into a human contrivance to be remade and dismissed and reinvented with every birth, at will.
do you know I do not weep for those children, like this poor boy? Not because I have a cold heart and cannot empathize, but because they are already dead where it counts. Zombies, with no substance except the void they think they have free-will over. They dream of reinventing themselves every day. Waking up, every morning and deciding what they will be that day. Nothing of the past to weigh them down.
Ta, Ta,
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
apaosha Daeva
Gender : Posts : 1852 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 37 Location : Ireland
_________________ "I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
"Gianluca Casseri, who shot three Senegalese street-vendors in Florence on December 13, killing two of them, and then killed himself to avoid capture, is being described by some press reports as “the Italian Breivik.” Both were from the radical right, both were enthusiasts of fantasy literature, and both seem to have thought themselves fighting in an apocalyptic clash of civilizations.
There are important differences between Casseri and Breivik, however. Breivik dismissed [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], while Casseri was a Traditionalist. And while Breivik’s writings make his acceptance of the clash of civilizations narrative very clear, Casseri’s writings barely refer to Islam. For Casseri, the important clash seems to have been that between Tradition and Modernity. And the important narrative may have been that of the warrior, Casseri’s interest in whom may owe something to Evola. This may help to explain his actions, but it does not explain his targets.
Something of Casseri’s ideology may be reconstructed from the four publications that can be found relatively easily: one novel, one short essay, one extended essay, and one long non-fiction book. The short essay, from 2010, argues for finding the “roots of Europe” not in Christianity or the Enlightenment but in paganism, Indo-European religion and ultimately the Vedas. It bases itself largely on Sul problema d’una Tradizione Europea (On the problem of a European Tradition, 1973) of the Evolian Traditionalist Adriano Romualdi (1940-73), and thus ultimately on Evola.
The extended essay, from 2000, “Dracula, il guerriero di Wotan” (Dracula, the warrior of Wotan), deals at length with what Casseri sees as a central figure in this tradition: the berserker, the bearskin-clad super-warrior of Norse myth. Casseri seeks to demonstrate the relationship between the Dracula myth and the berserker, with careful footnoting and references to Eliade, C. G. Jung, and Georges Dumézil, among others. Eliade and Dumézil, of course, have their own relationship to Traditionalism. The basic idea of Casseri’s “Dracula,” however, seems to come from a book by a scholar at the University of Cagliari, Marinella Lorinczi, author of Dracula & Co. Il richiamo del Nord nei romanzi di Bram Stoker (Dracula & Co.: The call of the North in the novels of Bram Stoker, 1998).
Casseri's novel, La chiave del caos (The key of chaos, 2010, pictured) was co-written with Enrico Rulli (unidentified), and starts in Vienna at the end of the Second World War (a crucial point in Evola’s life). It then becomes a historical novel, taking the reader back to sixteenth-century Prague and the secrets of John Dee. In an introduction to this novel, Gianfranco de Turris, perhaps the most eminent follower of Evola in Italy today, wrote that the book “challenged the foundations of the society we live in” with “the mentality of the men of the sixteenth century, representatives of the perennial philosophy.”
The non-fiction book, I protocolli del savio di Alessandria (The protocols of the Learned Elder of Alessandia, 2011) refers to Umberto Eco, who was born in Alessandria (Piedmont, Italy), and challenges the version of the origins of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion given by Eco in his Il Cimitero di Praga (The Prague Cemetery, 2010). Part of Eco’s novel places the origins of the Protocols in Eco's own picaresque occult-tinged story. Current resources do not allow me to see what Casseri’s alternative version is.
Casseri, then, appears as an Evolian Traditionalist with a taste for fiction, and also as a member of Italy’s Evolian milieu. De Turris writes introductions to his books. “Dracula” was published on the website of the Centro Studi La Runa, a mainstream Evolian group dating from 1994. The essay on the pagan roots of Europe was first published on the website of a mainstream non-Traditionalist neo-Fascist group, the CasaPound, but the Centro Studi La Runa then republished it. Although a member of the Evolian milieu, Casseri was also read outside it: La chiave del caos was published by a small but mainstream publisher specializing in books on personal growth and related topics, and I protocolli del savio di Alessandria was also published by a non-Traditionalist publisher, though a rather smaller one.
If Casseri’s ideological profile is reasonably clear, the relationship between this and his actions is not clear. To judge from his writings, he had little interest in Islam, and neither does the Centro Studi La Runa, or even the neo-Fascist CasaPound. Casseri wrote against the Christian myth of Europe to which Breivik subscribed. Perhaps the extended essay on the berserker, the hunter and the beast-warrior explains something?
Even though some websites and Facebook groups are now hailing Casseri as a “patriot” and casting Dracula as a hero of European resistance against Islam (on the grounds that he fought Turks), Casseri seems very different from Breivik. In Breivik’s case, the connection between ideology and action was clear. In Casseri’s case, the connection is far from clear. Casseri was clearly a committed Traditionalist, but this seems to have nothing to do with the deaths in Florence. Normally, ideology is a key to understanding terrorism, but ion this case, the explanation evidently lies somewhere else." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Breivik was a Zionist. Like Wilders, he got co-opted.
_________________ "I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
A jewish socialist reformer before Jesus? 
