Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Depression East/West

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
AuthorMessage
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:18 pm

Quote :
What posts do you disapprove of where I responded and shouldn't have?

The one's you hide behind other people's avatars.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:21 pm

My last post, I wonder if you are brave enough to leave it posted.

The very" ordinariness" both withhold from themselves will be their very own tragedies. We're never the stars of our youthful dreams, and it hurts like hell to admit it, doesn't it?



Hey, my thread has been great for your ratings, just see how fast they will plummet back to Sad Sack level.



Let me get this straight. One lives in a council flat, with the kids. Fish and chips for dinner every Friday night, cos their "good Catholicks", the other spewing half-truths, lies, and self-deceit, an employee of a Funeral Home in Montreal. Such accomplishments










Last edited by reasonvemotion on Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14985
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:21 pm

We have a volunteer, dear gir...boy.

In no time you'll see what "paying half" truly means.

The fact that you still think in modernistic terms, makes you all the more adorable: all doe eyed and fluffy tailed.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14985
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:24 pm

reasonvemotion wrote:
Quote :
What posts do you disapprove of where I responded and shouldn't have?

The one's you hide behind other people's avatars.

Ha!!!
Such paranoia.

You see me everywhere.
I'll say this once, and you can believe it or not, I am only using, and have only used for the past three years, the moniker Satyr.
Do ya think I'm Lyssa?

Really?
Was she that superior to you?

You know I am all about popularity.
I am a Sad Sack, after all.
It's all about the numbers...Democracy, High-school contests.
Majority Wins.

How old are you again?

Sad...indeed.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:30 pm

Ffffffuuuuuuuck off, is that how you say it on this Forum I love you




Quote :
How old are you again?


40. How old are you? Your sure as hell not 46.

I'll out live you, cos your half dead already.



Last edited by reasonvemotion on Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14985
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:34 pm

Oh my...my virgin ears...all four hundred of them.
You know, this forum is 50% me.

I am all these characters.
I am talking to myself here.

I am also sad, and miserably...really...really....REALLY depressed.

Know why?
I have no friends and nobody loves me...and, I am not popular.

Let's vote on reality!!!

All in favor of immortality say YAY!!!!!
All sad, pessimistic, cynics, say Boo-Hoo!!!!!

The Yays, have it.
We live forever....

Hip-Hip...HURRAH!!!!!!

Ta, Ta,

p.s. Bring us bagels next time.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14985
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:41 pm

Lyssa, would you be so kind, for the sake of the children, and tone down your intellect a bit.
It's scaring away the retards...sending them back to the MENSA Factories they were created in.

You know how much we're all about quantities and not qualities here; it's all about the numbers.
We need more...and more.
We'll take anything: garbage, degenerates, imbeciles, retards, genetic feces, pedophiles, sluts, children....anyone, and make them our own.

But who am I kidding here...I am putting on an act, a-la-Satyr-style, and talking to myself...AGAIN!

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:04 pm




Satyr:

I'll say this once, and you can believe it or not, I am only using, and have only used for the past three years, the moniker Satyr.
Do ya think I'm Lyssa?




and then this................





Satyr:

The funniest thing about getting banned from PN is that Lyssa had given me access to her account there, "Outsider", and I had posted using it a few times, just for fun.






Like I said spews out half truths and lies.






Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14985
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:24 am

I AM Lyssa, and half the members here.

But half of that is true.
I just want to be liked.

I am Lyssa, so how could I have used her account "a few times for fun"?
There is no Lyssa person. This is another of my dozen or so monikers.
How else could an intelligence woman exist saying such evil things?

I am also a WOMAN...Surprise!!!!
The YouTube crap?
My boyfriend.

I am anything and anyone you want me to be; I am the Satyr.
You don't think I actually believe the shit I post here, do you?
Who, in his right mind, would believe such things?

It's all an elaborate hoax.
Oh...I am also a Troll....and my purpose is to be the biggest asshole out there.
Alas, I fail even at that.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:07 am

Laconian wrote:
I started studying the MRM (mens rights movement) in about late summer/early fall of 2011. I studied them until I discovered Manhood Academy and later Satyr, who in their ways also dealt with that, in December 2011 and spring 2012.

So in 2011, I mainly listened to Pinegrove33's videos, Barbarossaaaa and later Girlwriteswhat. And I read the sites: Avoiceformen and little later MGTOW Forums.

So I know what the MRM is all about.

HA! This is what I call a Metrouflage.
In other words, only in 2011, Laconian finds his justification for his ideal of his feminine because till then he didn't know how to explain and defend his metrosexual views.
Till then he didn't know how to defend his emasculation.
Till then he didn't know how to defend his passionate anti-Slavism.
Till then he didn't know how to defend his puritanical views of hedonism. To him, a woman enslaved to the patriarchal idea of motherhood and undergoing labour-pains prob. appears as a masochist! What a squeamish cripple.

Lets continue with what the twatdangle says.


[quote]I just very recently started researching and reading some New Right and Traditionalism articles on Counter-Currents. And where I was very opposed to the MRM (especially avoiceformen and Paul Elam) and their liberal mindset early 2012, I am now beginning to realize that Paul is right.

Paul Elam? Ah yes. The one wrote Patriarchy for Dummies, and whose forums as someone summarized it, leave another Pauline legacy of Man's Victimhood, teaching him how to cope with
performing anal rape,
the merits of underage sex,
pedophilia,
performing columbine style massacres,
stoning women,
shooting women,
shooting cops,
blowing up cop stations,
pulling your gun out on women,
fucking fleshlights,
fucking animals,
fucking holes in the toilet door,
fucking your pillow,
fucking the toilet roll,
posting violent content,
celebrating violence as the way forward,
whine about not being able to get laid,
give advice on stealing cars,
give advice on credit card fraud,
give advice on mortgage fraud,
give advice on breaking into peoples' homes
advise on how to avoid paying taxes,
wish death on women who told you to "fuck off" when you made inappropriate advances, [hmm sounds familiar?]
name and shame ex GFs,
threats to fellow forum members,
illegal file sharing links
placing women in a vat of boiling water,
twisted sexual fantasies,
methods of using Facebook as a way get back at your ex,
use the forums as a soap box to attack any fuck you don't like

HA
What is Patriarchy for Dummies - sexual impotency making a rage-thesis for male exploitation by women, unable to say,
"I am Self, I am Master, all the rest is other — outside, below, underneath, subservient. I own, I use, I explore, I exploit, I control. What I do is what matters. What I want is what matter is for. I am that I am, and the rest is women and wilderness, to be used as I see fit." [U. le guin]

Quote :
"What’s worse is that within some traditionalist or conservative religious communities – female surrender of adult agency, and the transference of any possible responsibility, choice, and agency onto a man is praised by men and women within those communities. Unfortunately, this model of female non agency, and male hyper agency, when coupled with social enforcement of conformity and expressed masculine protective instinct turns men into slaves."
"A woman who surrenders her agency to a man is the very worst tyrant, because she exploits his instinct to protect her as if she is an infant while retaining her."

What a sad Twerp. I can't even call him a Cumbag!

The Twerp doesn't even understand the true meaning of Property:

"And, lastly, this fact of an innate superiority has become intensified, not only outwards, with respect to the light-world and its endless distances, but also inwards, as regards the sort of soul that the strong animals possess. The soul — this enigmatic something which we feel when we hear the word used, but of which the essence baffles all science, the divine spark in this living body which in this divinely cruel, divinely indifferent world has either to rule or to submit — is the counter-pole of the light-world about us, and hence man’s thought and feeling are very ready to assume the existence of a world-soul in it. The more solitary the being and the more resolute it is in forming its own world against all other conjunctures of worlds in the environment, the more definite and strong the cast of its soul. What is the opposite of the soul of a lion? The soul of a cow. For strength of individual soul the herbivores substitute numbers, the herd, the common feeling and doing of masses. But the less one needs others, the more powerful one is. A beast of prey is everyone’s foe. Never does he tolerate an equal in his den. Here we are at the root of the truly royal idea of property. Property is the domain in which one exercises unlimited power, the power that one has gained in battling, defended against one’s peers, victoriously upheld. It is not a right to mere having, but the sovereign right to do as one will with one’s own.
Once this is understood, we see that there are carnivore and there are herbivore ethics. It is beyond anyone’s power to alter this. It pertains to the inward form, meaning, and tactics of all life. It is simply a fact. We can annihilate life, but we cannot alter it in kind. A beast of prey tamed and in captivity — every zoological garden can furnish examples — is mutilated, world-sick, inwardly dead. Some of them voluntarily hunger-strike when they are captured. Herbivores give up nothing in being domesticated.
Such is the difference between the destiny of herbivores and that of the beast of prey. The one destiny only menaces, the other enhances as well. The former depresses, makes mean and cowardly, while the latter elevates through power and victory, pride and hate. The former is a destiny that is imposed on one, the latter a destiny that is identical with oneself. And the fight of nature-within against nature without is thus seen to be, not misery, as Schopenhauer and as Darwin’s “struggle for existence” regard it, but a grand meaning that ennobles life, the amnor fati of Nietzsche. And it is to this kind and not the other that Man belongs.
He lives by attacking and killing and destroying. He wills, and has willed ever since he existed, to be master."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

We continue with the twat;

Quote :
"What’s worse is that in a community in which feminine surrendered agency is viewed positively, men trapped in such relationship have no way to protest, since such protest is seen as victimization of the most helpless – the women whose social posture is that of a volition free child. Such a man, attempting to assert himself as a human with his own needs – he will forced back into his role of protector through social censure, including violence from other complying males. In fact, his identity as a human being of any social worth at all is totally tied to his conformance to be the actuator and the active agent of whatever his wife needs or wants. If her submission to his is more pronounced, she might not even communicate what her needs are, and he is left with a social requirement to figure out what she wants, with his validity as a worthwhile human hanging on getting it right, and always the threat of violence done to his person by other males if he ever deviates – because in this model, self expression, self actualization in any mode except service to his woman is perceived as attack on her. And brother, you don’t attack a woman."
"And here’s the kicker, he cant even see it. A man given primacy in this social context – in which he is placed over his wife – and she is totally subservient to him – he cannot develop the social cognizance to even understand how he is both exploited and threatened at the level of eradication of his male identity in any deviation of his behavior. He is effectively blinded and silenced, because in this system of value – where he is the patriarch, and assigned agency over himself and his wife. His socialization does not include self reflection. He is enslaved in his own mind.

What does it mean to have Property? What does it mean to be a Master?

To be Master, means Self-Possession First.
The Desire to Appropriate Yourself as Property to Yourself. Heidegger calls this Dasein - Being means coming into what's Proper-ly One's Own.

F--- Elam. Lets explore the I.E. history of this notion. What is Patriarchy?

"pot-, which signifies “master,” so that the literal sense of hospes is “the guest-master.” This is a rather peculiar designation. In order to understand it better we must analyze the two elements *potis and hostis separately and study their etymological connections.
The term *potis first merits a brief explanation in its own right. It presents itself in its simple aspect in Sanskrit pátiḥ ‘master’ and ‘husband’ and in Greek posís ‘husband’, or in composition as in despótēs.
As for Gr. posís, a poetical word for “husband,” it is distinct from despótēs, where the sense “master of the house” is no longer felt; despótēs is solely an expression of power, whereas the feminine déspoina conveys the idea of “mistress,” a title of majesty.

The Greek term despótēs, like the Sanskrit correspondent dám pátiḥ, belongs with a group of ancient compound words, each of which had as its first element the name of a social unit of variable extension:
dám pátiḥ (master of the house)
viś „ (master of the clan)
jās „ (master of the “lineage”)
Apart from despótēs and dám pátiḥ, the only one attested in a number of languages is the compound which is in Sanskrit viś-pátiḥ and in Lithuanian vë̃š-pats ‘clan chief’.

In Latin an extensive word family is organized around the word *potis either as a free form or in composition. Apart from hospes it forms the adjectives impos, compos ‘who is not…’ or ‘who is master of himself, of his senses’ and the verb *potire, the perfect of which, potui, survives incorporated into the conjugation of the verb meaning “be able,” possum, which itself is formed from the adjective potis in a predicative use: potis sum, pote est, an expression which is simplified to possum, potest.

In Lithuanian it provides the adjective pats ‘himself’ and also the substantive pats ‘master’ (in composition vë̃š-pats). Parallel to this, we find in Iranian the compound adjective x u aē-paiθya ‘one’s own’, ‘of oneself’, which is used without distinction of person: “mine, yours, his”; “one’s own.” xuaē is an Iranian form of the ancient reflexive pronoun *swe, *se, literally “of oneself,” and -paiθya derived from the ancient *poti-.

Under what conditions can a word denoting “master” end up signifying identity? The primary sense of *potis is well defined, and it had a strong force: “master,” whence in marriage “husband,” or in social terminology the “chief of some unit, whether house, clan, or tribe.” But the sense “oneself” is also well attested. While it is difficult to see how a word meaning “the master” could become so weakened in force as to signify “himself,” it is easy to understand how an adjective denoting the identity of a person, signifying “himself,” could acquire the sense of master. This process, which illustrates the formation of an institutional concept, can be corroborated elsewhere: several languages have come to designate “the master” by a term meaning “himself.”

In spoken Latin, in Plautus, ipsissimus indicates the “master (mistress), the patron,” the (personage) himself, the only one who is important. In Russian, in peasant speech, sam ‘himself’ refers to the “lord.” Among a restricted but important community, the Pythagoreans, the formula autòs éphā (ἀυτὸς ἔφα) ‘he himself has said it’, with autós referred to the “master” par excellence, Pythagoras, was used to specify a dictum as authentic. In Danish, han sjølv ‘er selbst’ has the same meaning.
For an adjective meaning “himself” to develop into the meaning “master” there is one necessary condition: there must be a circle of persons subordinated to a central personage who assumes the personality and complete identity of the group to such an extent that he is its summation: in his own person he is its incarnation.

This is exactly the development we find in the compound *dem-pot(i)- ‘master of the house’. The role of the person so named is not to give orders but to assume a representation which gives him authority over the family as a whole with which he is identified.
A verb derived from *poti-, like Skt. pátyate, Lat. potior ‘to have power over something, have something at one’s disposal’, already marks the appearance of a sense of “to be able to.” With this may be compared the Latin verb possidēre ‘possess’, stemming from *pot-sedēre, which describes the “possessor” as somebody who is established on something. The same figurative expression has passed into the German word besitzen. Again, in Latin we have the adjective compos ‘he who is master, who has command of himself’.
The notion of “power” (theoretical) is thus constituted and it receives its verbal form from the predicative expression pote est, contracted to potest, which gives rise to the conjugation possum, potest ‘I am capable, I can’.


It is worthwhile pausing for a moment to consider a peculiar fact: as against Skt. dam pati and Gr. despótēs, Latin has formed from the same root an equivalent expression, but by a different procedure: this is dominus, a secondary derivative which belongs to a series of expressions for “chief.” Thus tribunus ‘chief of the tribe’, in Gothic kindins (< *genti-nos) ‘chief of the gens’; *druhtins (OHG truhtin) ‘chief of the body’; þiudans < *teuta-nos ‘king, chief of the people’. This morphological process, whereby *-nos is suffixed to the name of a social unit, has furnished in Latin and Germanic expressions for chiefs of political and military groups. Thus, by independent paths, the two series link up: on the one hand by means of a suffix, on the other by a compound word, the term for the master has been coined from the social unit which he represents.

Because of this Latin coined a new name for “guest”: *hosti-pet-, which may perhaps be interpreted as arising from an abstract noun hosti “hospitality” and consequently meaning “he who predominantly personifies hospitality, the one who is hospitality itself.”


Another word for “guest” in modern Iranian, ērmān < aryaman, links up with a very special kind of “hospitality” within a group of the Arya, one of the forms of which is reception by marriage.

This image of the king as provider created in Old English the name of the “lord.” The English term lord goes back to an ancient compound hlāford, the first element of which is hlāf ‘loaf’. Hlāford is traced to an original form *hlāf-weard ‘guardian of the loaf’. He is an “alimentary” lord, one who provides sustenance, “the master of the loaf.” Similarly lady in Old English is hlæf-dīge ‘the loaf kneader’. The subjects of the lord, those who are under his authority, are called “the eaters of bread.” In the medieval economy the petty English “lord” played within his domain the same role as the Homeric “king” according to Indo-European conceptions.
With this we may contrast the definition of Aristotle (Politics I, p. 1259): “The king has the same relation to his subjects as the head of the family has to his children.” In brief, he is a despótēs in the etymological sense of the word, the master of the house, certainly an absolute master but not a god.

Arí is “the stranger, friend or enemy.” Based on arí, the derivative arya would signify “he who has a connection with a stranger,” hence “protector of the stranger, German gastlich ‘hospitable’,” and also “master of the household.” Finally, from arya- the secondary derivative ārya would literally mean “belonging to the guests”; hence “hospitable.” The ārya called themselves “the hospitable ones,” thus contrasting their humanity with the barbarism of the people who surrounded them.
Following this study, there appeared from 1941 on a number of works by M. Dumézil, who proposed other interpretations which tend to establish the social sense and then the ethnic sense of this family.
Arya, which signifies “people” (= my people) in Indic and was the source of the name of Iran ( < aryānām) is the common ancient designation of the “Indo-Iranians.” Isolated in Iranian, arya can be analyzed in Sanskrit as a derivative from arí; the latter seems to designate, in contrast to the stranger, the man of my people; perhaps more precisely, the relation by marriage, the member of the other exogamic moiety." [[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]


So, this clears the nexus of Patriarchy in terms of "I am capable, I am Able", starting from Proper-ty to Hospitality, marriage being an extension of this.


Quote :
And his wife, subservient, without her own visible agency or exercised volition – she owns him, and owns no accountability. This is power, without any check, or thwart, hidden from those it controls expressed behind a veil of helplessness.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how Patriarchy works."

Accountability twerp? Another one of your Audit mentality?

In other words, Laconian wants "Feedback" from his "independent" woman to "en"able his socialization... Pathetic!

If you are Self-Possessed, who can Possess you?! Fool, Submission need not be a passive resignation. Fool, Mastery and enslaving and possessing of the other is not a weakness. Lust, and the Lust to Rule and Dominate is not some "horrible passion" that makes one a victim. How Xt. of you!

"The diversity of men is revealed not only in the diversity of their tables of what they find good, that is to say in the fact that they regard diverse goods worth striving for and also differ as to what is more or less valuable, as to the order of rank of the goods they all recognize ‑ it is revealed even more in what they regard as actually having and possessing what they find good. In regard to a woman, for example, the more modest man.counts the simple disposal of her body and sexual gratification as a sufficient and satisfactory sign of having, of possession; another, with a more jealous and demanding thirst for possession, sees the `question‑mark', the merely apparent quality of such a having and requires subtler tests, above all in order to know whether the woman not only gives herself to him but also gives up for his sake what she has or would like to have ‑ : only thus does she count to him as `possessed'. A third, however, is not done with jealousy and desire for having even then; he asks himself whether, when the woman gives up everything for him, she does not perhaps do so for a phantom of him: he demands that she know him to the very heart before she is able to love him at all, he dares to let himself be unravelled ‑ . He feels that his beloved is fully in his possession only when she no longer deceives herself about him but loves him as much for his devilry and hidden insatiability as she does for his goodness, patience and spirituality. One would like to possess a people: and all the higher arts of a Cagliostro and Catiline seem to him right for that end. Another, with a more refined thirst for possession, says to himself‑ `one may not deceive where one wants to possess' ‑ he is irritated and dissatisfied at the idea that it is a mask of him which rules the hearts of the people: 'so I must let myself be known and, first of all, know myself!'
... at the bottom of her heart no mother doubts that in her child she has borne a piece of property, no father disputes his right to subject it to his concepts and values. Indeed, in former times (among the ancient Germans, for instance) it seemed proper for fathers to possess power of life or death over the newborn and to use it as they thought fit. And as formerly the father, so still today the teacher, the class, the priest, the prince unhesitatingly see in every new human being an opportunity for a new possession. From which it follows . . ." [N., BGE, 194]

From which it follows, the more Spiritualized form of the desire to possess also demands one possess what is good more and more completely.
The Highest Man is the Master who would have made a woman submit to him for who he is in his utter nakedness, the starkest reality of his being. And the Highest Woman is one who would desire to see Man in his max. perfection as an artist sculpting at himself, and at the world, at right to whatever women, whatever material or means he chooses... "Love" gifts the world itself as an ornament...


Quote :
"Women, for their part did not chose this behavioral model, this is the natural expression of our prehistoric hominid programming. This programming served our species very well when we averaged a 30 year life-span, regularly died of starvation, or during childbirth, and when the dark was full of predators, giving us a real reason for our fear of it. This primitive hominid programming, when its still being expressed in a modern environment of abundant food, shelter and safety doesn’t serve us quite so well anymore – and is being exacerbated and amplified in the form of a modern popular ideology of gender. You know, the one starting with F."

"But here is the real definition of patriarchy – this is the operational definition that has always been relevant, but has been until now hidden behind the muddy thinking and self-serving dogma of infantalized adults with the power of not just communities of compliant males behind them, but the full deadly remote control power of violence of the modern state.

Patriarchy is a system of social cohesion which uses masculine agency, exploiting adult protective instincts towards infants to serve the reproductive benefits of females. This system is based on the masculine instinct to protect women, and maximizes the perception of male agency in service of this goal."

"The lust of property, and love: what different associations each of these ideas evoke! and yet it might be the same impulse twice named: on the one occasion disparaged from the standpoint of those already possessing (in whom the impulse has attained something of repose, who are now apprehensive for the safety of their "possession"); on the other occasion viewed from the standpoint of the unsatisfied and thirsty, and therefore glorified as "good." Our love of our neighbour, is it not a striving after new property? And similarly our love of knowledge, of truth; and in general all the striving after novelties? We gradually become satiated with the old and securely possessed, and again stretch out our hands; even the finest landscape in which we live for three months is no longer certain of our love, and any kind of more distant coast excites our covetousness: the possession for the most part becomes smaller through possessing. Our pleasure in ourselves seeks to maintain itself by always transforming something new into ourselves, that is just possessing. To become satiated with a possession, that is to become satiated with ourselves.

The love of the sexes, however, betrays itself most plainly as the striving after possession: the lover wants the unconditioned, sole possession of the person longed for by him; he wants just as absolute power over her soul as over the body; he wants to be loved solely, and to dwell and rule in the other soul as what is highest and most to be desired. When one considers that this means precisely to exclude all the world from a precious possession, a happiness, and an enjoyment; when one considers that the lover has in view the impoverishment and privation of all other rivals, and would like to become the dragon of his golden hoard, as the most inconsiderate and selfish of all "conquerors "and exploiters; when one considers finally that to the lover himself, the whole world besides appears indifferent, colourless, and worthless, and that he is ready to make every sacrifice, disturb every arrangement, and put every other interest behind his own, one is verily surprised that this ferocious lust of property and injustice of sexual love should have been glorified and deified to such an extent at all times; yea, that out of this love the conception of love as the antithesis of egoism should have been derived, when it is perhaps precisely the most un qualified expression of egoism.

Here, evidently, the non-possessors and desirers have determined the usage of language, there were, of course, always too many of them. Those who have been favoured with much possession and satiety, have, to be sure, dropped a word now and then about the "raging demon," as, for instance, the most lovable and most beloved of all the Athenians Sophocles; but Eros always laughed at such revilers, they were always his greatest favourites. There is, of course, here and there on this terrestrial sphere a kind of sequel to love, in which that covetous longing of two persons for one another has yielded to a new desire and covetousness, to a common, higher thirst for a superior ideal standing above them: but who knows this love? Who has experienced it? Its right name - friendship." [N., Joyful Wisdom, 14]

Patriarchy is about Self-possession. It is about Appropriating Oneself Again and Again through another, all of which appear as Instruments.
The Desire to be possessed is As Egoistic as the desire to possess. It is Covetous.
What does N. say? "One ultimately loves one's own desire, not what is desired." [BGE, 175]
And if this desire, this vision, this covetous longing is the same in both hearts, happens to be common, you call that Lust, Lust-full Friendship.


Quote :
"Even more ironically, modern day feminism traces its roots to Islamic culture. In brief, here’s how: Minstrels accompanying the Christian Crusaders returned with Muslim stories, like The Arabian Nights. Remember Shahrazad? Christian culture at that time did not put women on a pedestal, but Islamic idealism did, in theory though not in practice."

This is Laughable! Now I know why you called me a Feminist. LOL
Such a dim twat.
Might as well call Penelope a Feminist and how modern Feminism began from Homer, because she cheats time to cleverly stall the grooms.
How wicked of her!
No, no, to a hedonist, maybe she's a submissive masochist, foolishly passively waiting for her lost husband. How UnAffordable she is! to a modern day Man.

Feminine Idealism begins with Islam?! You sure, that the Jewish self-definition through matrilineal descent and how Taqwa originated from the Jewess Hagar, etc. present no origins?

Quote :

I am more modern than traditionalists. Jonathan Bowden is my link to the New Right. Nietzsche. Evola maybe. But not Guenon, not Spengler. I don't praise the past above all. And that we come from a state of order and going towards entropy alone. There are some progresses. Real progresses. Womens Lib was one of them, till it turned out of hand and into misandry and a main contributing factor to the Feminization of Mankind. I love real strong women. That stand behind their man, but also have their own individuality.

The moment there are two things, two beings involved, there is already Politic. The relation is instantly going to be hierarchical - Now would you want woman to dominate man?! You are either on top or you're topped.
What a moron.

Doesn't Zarathustra introduce the Sun, the great Star as what it would be, as a nothing if there weren't Man to give it meaning and appreciate it? Does this mean the Sun is valueless on its own?

What could all the jewels and money and independence a woman wears mean anything when there is no Man to "give" her value?
Man is a woman's true ornament. Wouldn't she then safeguard him and keep him shining always? - Does it make her "valueless dependent slave" like the Sun?

I laugh and weep.


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:11 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:07 am

Laconian wrote:
I think this whole master/slave thing might be off. And I said someone very much LIKE my mother and that you are NOT a guru to me.
Details. I don't look for a girlfriend online. I know enough women. It's a matter of giving in. A matter of weakness, so far I have been able to resist the messy pets. So a mother: no. A female master: no. But: a female who masters her own life and is not only WILLING to but actually pays for her own half.

What a shameful display of effeteness. I want to hide my face somewhere.

A strong submissive woman would Gladly go to work and earn for her husband also and let him enjoy life if needs be. Silly twit.
Its not about Money. It should be about Attitude.

And one could say a Mate is a Mother for Man's Hopes; she gives birth to his dreams. She makes him pregnant "With" himself. While a biological Mother just gives birth to him.

Quote :
Like Tom Leykis, I search a feminist. An actual feminist, who REALLY believes in being equal to men and not just picks out the parts she likes and still expects chivalry and all the female-benefits anyway. A pretty tough woman. Aries. Or someone more light, Libra. Or a creative Aquarius-woman. Those would be good matches for me.

Are we actually talking about women? I can't believe this shit is happening. I feel like in high-school all over again. Funny.

Really Laconian? You can't believe it? What a fibber.

Did you not Tease Rev to Stay with your song?

Do you not secretly Desire her - she's just right your alley - Strong, Respect, Independence, Family Memories, Libran...

How are you going to get her if you feign childish games of disinterest? Twerp, can you Hold a whip? Just Pose?

Nevermind. You just dedicate her a song. loLzz
She's relieved there's someone like you to support her views. Her begging for your attention should make things go smoothly for you. Rev it up!


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:08 am

reasonvemotion wrote:
Quote :
I think this whole master/slave thing might be off. And I said someone very much LIKE my mother and that you are NOT a guru to me.
Details. I don't look for a girlfriend online. I know enough women. It's a matter of giving in. A matter of weakness, so far I have been able to resist the messy pets. So a mother: no. A female master: no. But: a female who masters her own life and is not only WILLING to but actually pays for her own half.


Fuck. This is amazing.......... thank God you have seen the light.


I knew you were a Sucker.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:09 am

reasonvemotion wrote:
Quote :
What posts do you disapprove of where I responded and shouldn't have?

The one's you hide behind other people's avatars.


Like you hide behind Spheres of Balls, the chivalrous martial artist calling women bitches, but other guys shouldn't.

Why are you so tight and stiff? Why do you come alone? Why do you not bring SOB here? All's well dear - you getting enough respect from him or....?
Can you get him to apologize on your behalf? Such a "Strong" man should be enough to fill in for a lady.. mmm Fetch him to me!

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:09 am

reasonvemotion wrote:


Hey, my thread has been great for your ratings, just see how fast they will plummet back to Sad Sack level.


Are you sure its you, and not my Sheriff pic. that did the ratings?

You think men care for prudes? Laconian is an exception.


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:10 am

reasonvemotion wrote:
Ffffffuuuuuuuck off, is that how you say it on this Forum I love you

I also say 68 for short.
It means you're a F--ker and I owe you one. Wink



_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:56 pm

Continuing my reply to Laconian on the topic of Self-Possession, 'am copy-pasting my exchange with Eyes on ILP, not to boast, but to preserve this excerpt from Coulanges, and in case anyone wants to object/debate what I had to say:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Paganism "reflects" pure altruism, because it is in itself pure egoism, pure Self-ishness. Paganism as an attitude towards the world and existence did not evolve as subsidization, a boost to kin-'welfare', but as initially an Imperialistic attitude towards Sovereignty - Self as Self-possession foremost. Self-possession as a re-presence of the essence and spirit of your blood-forefathers. You presence the entire chain and linkages of what made YOU possible; you re-presence the *whole* Self-ishness of what you are. Paganism [which btw., I am only using for convenience here, as it is a derogatory word used initially by the Xts. to demarcate the heathens] Is Kin-Selective Altruism - *because* one esteemed one's Self. And because one esteemed one's self, one esteemed one's kin as an extension of oneself. And by this I mean, the "body" of the Pagan-Individual ex-tended backwards to his forefathers as much as forwards to his representatives. When one said "self", it denoted the whole chain of genetic-memetic complex of continuity. It is NOT a "collectivity", but a "continuity". The Ego is NOT a Unit, but a chain.

The Self-ishness of the Pagan Individual appropriates and affirms the whole complex past of Becoming, everything that made it possible.
The Selfish-ness of the Libertarian individual depreciates itself from any past or continuity because its exhausted inheritance cannot afford to affirm any more than that.
Self-ishness is a Health; suffering does not count as an objection; whereas,
Selfish-ness is an Exhaustion seeking comfort, pleasure, certainty, anything that does not cause it to suffer.

In libertarianism, when one says "self", or "individual", it denotes the atomic body of the individual and ends there, like a free radical. Because libertarianism is negative reciprocal altruism [positive reciprocal egoism], one's liberty and sense of self-sovereignty become relegated, disposed off as a function of random collectivity. There is no sense of self-possession because one's 'ego' is functionally/hedonistically locked as an interchangeable equal domain amongst strangers: what's pain for you is pain for me too. Self becomes a collective-contractual abstraction. It defnitely is an extension of Judeo-Xt. which posited a 'god', a universality from which height and whose view, every ego took on equal, reciprocal value. Love thy neighbour. If Xt. is positive reciprocal altruism, Libertarianism just expresses the same in negative terms, in terms of displeasure.
Libertarianism is a clinging to the self; Paganism is possession/mastery/domination of the self. Atthet knowingly or unknowingly said Paganism is Imperialism; and the guy is banned. What a pretentious and intolerant board!!! Anyways, point being, Paganism Is an Imperialism.

Paganism - as kin-selective 'altruism' is Discriminate love that puts duty above rights; Libertarianism - as reciprocal 'altruism' is a Universal love [Secular Humanism in place of J-Xt. God] that puts rights above duties. As the Letter to the Hebrews says, Christ is a sacrifice to end sacrifice, and he has died once for all. Christ’s purpose was not "to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year after year with blood that is not his own; for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself" (9:25-26)."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What is Xt. - nothing but the artificial hyper-inflation of the ego to the point where it can say "the individual is to be beyond any sacrifice". Every soul is of equal worth before 'God' and therefore none ought to be sacrificed. - This in theory.
Libertarianism repeats the same. Every individual is of equal worth with equal rights before common-law, and should there by any "injustice", an eye for an eye...
Libertarianism is Xt. minimalism of the same selfish "ego-less egoism". It is more humanistic, materialistic.

There's altruism from excess [releasing of useless material that would otherwise have overwhelmed and threatened an organism's well-being/sense of self - an overflow of excess energy at disposal], - Paganism, and then,
There's altruism from hunger [ a parasitic socialism of the impoverished ] - Libertarianism.

Paganism is a spiritualization of politics [kin and outsider], a Self-ish egoism that has the worship of its dead ancestors evolving into the idea of Self-Possession and Self-possession into Property, and Property into Imperium. Coulanges elaborates;

"Greek and Roman civilization is shown to have been based upon the worship of men's dead ancestors ; from which worship, and not so much from the right of labour, were derived the idea of property and the old laws of succession.
In point of fact, it was religion inspired the idea of property, as it had constituted the family ; and those three. things were inseparable ; the altar with its sacred fire, the family who erected it, and the soil on which it was built. The altar and the tomb connected the family with the soil, and the soil was only conceived of as appropriated because there the dead were interred, and there the living made offerings to their shades.

That religion first gave rise to the possession of property is proved by another circumstance. According to the belief of the ancients, each hearth represented divinities so distinct that a marriage between two of their descendants did not at all bind these families together. Moreover, neither these gods nor their worshippers on the occasion of any feast could look upon the face of a stranger without profanation. Hence an enclosure of some sort, whether a hedge, a partition of wood, or a stone wall, was absolutely necessary for privacy, as well as to mark out each several domain. From this sacred enclosure, which it was deemed impious to pass over, the deity who protected it, and who was screened by it, received the name god of the precinct. No houses in the present day possess any sign or symbol of appropriation nearly so sure and reliable as this enclosure thus marked out and protected by religion.
This was the meaning of that saying of the Greeks that the fire on the hearth had taught men to build houses. The tent and the waggon would not suffice for families that were to inhabit successively the same abode. The wooden hut was followed by the house of stone, and this was not intended to endure for one life alone, but for generations.

From the tomb the idea of property extended to the whole fields in which the tomb was placed. The Italian labourer prayed that the Manes would watch over his field, keep off the robber, and bestow a good harvest. The form of this prayer is found in Cato. Thus the souls of the departed extended their tutelary influence, and with it the right of property to the limits of the domain. Burial had established an indissoluble connexion of the family with the soil ; in fact, had constituted property.
In fact, the ancient religion of the Greeks and Italians could not have dispensed with the right of property. Without it the hearth-fire would have had no fixed place, families would have been mixed up, and the dead neglected. By this religion, then, were surmounted the first difficulties in the way of civilization, and the path of progress was entered upon. Men were not slow to labour on the land to which they felt they had a right ; and in improving the soil, their own habits and character, and condition were ameliorated also.
In fact, in the earliest times it was not the law which guaranteed the right of property, but religion ; and this is proved by the way in which each family's possessions were marked off. Each separate property was surrounded by a strip of land, some feet in width, which was held sacred and must remain uncultivated. On certain days, the father of the family walked all round his field, following the sacred line. Victims were driven before him ; he sang hymns, and sacrifices were offered to arouse the benevolence of his gods, and to mark out the inviolable boundary of his land.

Further, at certain distances along this line, certain great stones or trunks of trees were placed, called termini. "What these were, may be seen from the manner in which they were deposited in the earth. "After a hole had been dug, the Terminus was raised on the brink, and crowned with garlands. Then a victim was slaughtered in such a way that the blood ran into the hole. Embers (perhaps from the sacred fire) were thrown in, and cakes and fruit, with honey and wine ; after which the block of wood or, the stone was fixed in the hole." It is evident that the ceremony was intended to constitute the Terminus a representative of the domestic worship. The sacred act was renewed every year, with libations and prayers ; and the religion thus implanted in the soil attested for ever what was the family property.
Afterwards, by dint of imagination and poetry, the Terminus became a god.
The use of sacred land-marks, being derived from a very early period, had been spread by the Aryan race into all lands. The Hindoo ceremonies differed little from those we have described, and the Etruscans and Sabines had termini before Rome existed.

When a Terminus had once been planted according to the rites, no power in the world could displace it. It was to remain there to all eternity. Hence the legend at Rome that, when Jupiter wished for a place on the Capitol, he could not displace the god Terminus.
This tradition proves, at all events, the sacredness of property, and the inviolable character of the right to the soil.
It became sacrilege to move a landmark. At Rome the man and the oxen that had touched a Terminus were devoted to
death ; and the Etruscan laws cursed such a transgressor as follows : — " His house shall disappear, and his race be extinguished ; his land shall produce no fruit ; his harvest shall be destroyed by hail, mildew, and drought ; and his limbs shall be covered with sores, and wither away." The few remaining words of the Athenian law, " Pass not the land-mark," are filled up by Plato, who completes the legislators' thought : " Let no one move the stone which separates friendship from enmity, and which a man's oath obliges him to respect.' It seems evident from all these practices and laws that it was the domestic religion of the ancients which taught them to appropriate land and maintain their right to portions of the soil. And it will not be hard to understand that the right to property thus conceived and established was much more complete and absolute in its effects than it can be in modern society, where it is founded upon other principles. The land of a family was so intimately connected with its religious worship, that its members could no more give up one than the other.

Everything inclines one to believe that in ancient times property was inalienable. Plato, in his treatise on laws, is not inventing any novelty, but only recalling an old law, when he forbids the landowner to sell his land ; for we know that it was unlawful at Sparta to do so, and the same prohibition held good at Locri and Leucas. Phidon, of Corinth, in the ninth century before Christ, ordained that no alteration should be made in the number of families and properties. And it is evident this prescription could only be observed so long as the sale of land, and even its partition was forbidden." [Coulanges, Aryan Civilization]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:28 pm

The Selfish-ness of the Libertarian individual depreciates itself from any past or continuity because its exhausted inheritance cannot afford to affirm any more than that.

Correct.

Self-ishness is a Health; suffering does not count as an objection; whereas,
Selfish-ness is an Exhaustion seeking comfort, pleasure, certainty, anything that does not cause it to suffer.

Correct too.

Paganism Is an Imperialism.

Yes. I agree.

Libertarianism is Xt. minimalism of the same selfish "ego-less egoism". It is more humanistic, materialistic.


I agree, too.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Depression East/West

Back to top Go down
 
Depression East/West
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
 Similar topics
-
» Claude Dalenberg - just saw this obituary from a few years ago.....
» Movement of East German Family to the West by Royal Navy
» East-Asian Planet Search Network expands
» Inbreeding Depression Quantified
» Lukoil and Shell to Replace Exxon at West Qurna 1?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: