Depression East/West

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!

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.

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!

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.

reasonvemotion wrote:

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

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

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.]

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.