Modernity

Guest

Quote :: Girls, modernity is a product of masculinity, but it creates effete little girls as part of its stability.
A nation, for example, is a masculine construct, but it depends of effete women for internal stability.

then you should be happy, after all, it's trying to maintain control like a male would. that's what you want. but western society has so many different factions and differing or competing ideologies so it's not really being feminized as you define it. even liberalism is a rebellion against conformity on a deeper level, though unified only on the premise of tolerance/stalemate.

the video has nothing to do with the thread.

Subject: Re: Modernity Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:12 pm

eyesinthedark wrote:: Here's a few thoughts.

If civilized = feminized, then does it follow european males are more feminine than africans, native americans and australian aborigines?

Civilization:

Wikipedia wrote:: Civilization ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] civilisation)
is a sometimes controversial term that has been used in several related
ways. Primarily, the term has been used to refer to the material and
instrumental side of human [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that are complex in terms of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Such civilizations are generally [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. In a classical context, people were called "civilized" to set them apart from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], while in a modern-day context, "civilized peoples" have been contrasted with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] peoples.

There is a tendency to use the term in a less strict way, to mean approximately the same thing as "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]" and therefore, the term can more broadly refer to any important and clearly defined human [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].^{[[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]}
Still, even when used in this second sense, the word is often
restricted to apply only to societies that have attained a particular
level of advancement-especially the founding of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

The level of advancement of a civilization is often measured by its progress in agriculture, long-distance trade, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], a special governing class and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Aside from these core elements, a civilization is often marked by any
combination of a number of secondary elements, including a developed [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] system, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and (tort-based) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] systems, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], enhanced [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] understanding, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] structures, and an [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] understanding.

I'm talking about culture; personal cultivation finding a home amongst a common group with shared principles, methods, worldviews, attitudes, using shared techniques.
More this:

Wikipedia wrote:

Culture ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], lit. "cultivation")^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}
is a term that has many different inter-related meanings. However, the
word "culture" is most commonly used in three basic senses:

Excellence of taste in the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], also known as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
An integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that
depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning
The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization, or group

When the concept first emerged in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe, it connoted a process of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or improvement, as in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. In the nineteenth century, it came to refer first to the betterment or refinement of the individual, especially through [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and then to the fulfillment of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. In the mid-nineteenth century, some scientists used the term "culture" to refer to a universal human capacity. For the German [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], culture referred to "the cultivation of individuals through the agency of external forms which have been [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in the course of history".^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}

All social behavior necessitates a more feminine disposition, as there can only be one alpha with any group...perhaps two, as the Spartans had two kings just as this forum is governed by two administrators.
The key factor here is numbers, size. The larger the group the more expendable the members but also the more emasculation is required, the more non-distinctness...as all must be lowered to the lowest common denominator for the sake of internal peace and stability. Differences create conflicts.
But on the whole yes Negroes are more primal meaning that their sexuality is more pronounced and uncontrolled.

eyesinthedark wrote:: Your typical man is more adept at surviving in the wilderness than your typical girl, I mean, there will probably never be a show entitled survivorwoman, then does it follow females are more adept at surviving in civilization than males, particularly high civilization, and if so, will males go extinct?

Yes...that's what feminization is...the slow decline of masculinity. See the ants and bees and termites...how much masculinity is allowed there?
If the current environmental conditions persist then men are obsolete. They've been reinventing what it means to be male for a long time.
I would ay female sexual dissatisfaction they complaints about the absence of "real men" the growing infertility rates, the delcining participation of males in higher education, the increasing divorce rates and boys lost and looking for direction are all consequences of this.

eyesinthedark wrote:: Perhaps some of us will be kept around purely for the sake of reproduction, lest females find a way to reproduce without us. I think you may have already addressed this in your essay, it has been a while since I've read it.

No need. Technologies exist where they can extract DNA from a hair follicle...even a woman's.
The very technologies meant to give an advantage to one masculine bloodline are now eradicating all bloodlines...or are they?
If you listen to some conspiracy theorist or read Heisman's Suicide Note you might come to believe that all of this is simply a tactic to eradicate European, and other, bloodlines by a Semitic strain...one which must contradict its own priciples to achive this grand ploy.
Remember Trivers?...yes him again. Perhaps this tribe, out of the desert, must believe in their own bullshit to make it more successful as a lie. Perhaps the tactic depends upon compartmentalization where you can say one thing and act in a manner which contradicts it.

eyesinthedark wrote:: Can the word (inter)activity meaningfully = (inter)dependency?

Yes.

eyesinthedark wrote:: If so, males being the rebellious conservatives (but also ingenious?) are moving from disorder, interdependency, desire and to order, independency, satisfaction, and females being the complaisant progressives are moving from order, independency, satisfaction and to disorder, interdepency, desire.

Huh?
I see it this way: males are moving towards order...you might call this a turning back. This defines Traditionalism.
In other words they attempt to separate, distinguish themselves out of the (inter)activity to become wholly independent=God.
Women want to disappear in the flow, towards growing non-distinction. They simply want to belong to immerse themselves and become a part of the absolute.
Both these movements are nihilistic.

Balance consists in controlling the feminine without dismissing forgetting denying or erasing it.
The overman is the man who comes to terms with his own temporality. He does not resent it but considers it necessary to bring him about.
he does not wish to alter this for this would make him obsolete, but only wants to learn to deal with it...to embrace it: yes saying, to use Nietzschean terminology.

eyesinthedark wrote:: In other words, males try to deacrease interactivity (chaos) and interdependcy on people, places and things by deacreasing their desires and satisfying only their needs, where as females try to increase interactivity and interdependency on people, places and things by increasing their desires and satisfying their wants and their needs.

Yes...females are creatures of desire...nature personified.
They find their power by manipulating and being desirable, or as means to an end. This is why they speak about female emancipation but they do not go so far as to deny their feminine nature. if they really sought parity then sex would have to be eliminated as a factor...essentially their designation as females would not be relevant: total uniformity.
But they do not want that, as this would also eliminate their only source of power, their sexuality.
So, they simply propose a redefinition of what female means, accusing the opposition of being eugenicists, when they propose a social eugenics process like no other; They claim that sexual roles are fabrications, paternalistic remnants, when they are sexual roles applied within social contexts, meanwhile they propose an artificiality based on the "blank slate" mythology, essentially wanting to retrain, reeducate, men, and women, to repress and behave in "appropriate" for them ways.
This feminism is, itself, a male construct...a logical conclusion to Judeo-Christian doctrine. If follow further all appearances, empiricism, itself, would become inconsequential; animals would be equal to humans, as no distinction based on "superficial" appearances would be tolerated.

All this is a ploy...women are but instruments in a greater struggle.
They have no clue...they simply adopt and adjust to modernity, to whatever is most powerful within their immediate milieu...they follow trends and fashions.
As always females are fodder or the spoils of war. They go with whomever seems to be more powerful: popular, intelligent, strong, successful...with the most potential. This falls in with their natural sexual proclivities.

eyesinthedark wrote:: This would mean want fewer relationships with subjects and objects and to dominate, where as females want more relationships and to submit. This would make the upper classes of a global civilization, bull dykes and the lower classes of a global civilization, dykes.

I don't know where you get this from but whatever.
If anything it would make the "superior" male asexual.
But this is not what I am proposing. Control does not mean abstinence.

Fear is not absent it is controlled by the courageous man. The ignoramus or the sociopath is not courageous because he has no fear to contend with.

Discrimination means controlling need.
I control my need for drink when I refuse to drink piss but would rather die of thirst waiting for water.
Inferior wine will not do for the delicate, sensitive, aware, palate.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Guest

Quote :: All this is a ploy...women are but instruments in a greater struggle.
They have no clue...they simply adopt and adjust to modernity, to whatever is most powerful within their immediate milieu...they follow trends and fashions.
As always females are fodder or the spoils of war. They go with whomever seems to be more powerful: popular, intelligent, strong, successful...with the most potential. This falls in with their natural sexual proclivities.

it is not a ploy. males want autonomy and as a consequence, so do females. both no longer want to have to depend on eachother as even males don't want females depending on them. they want to come/go as they wish.

this is why both work to support themselves and both help raise children today or choose to be single parents.

Guest

yoohoo satyr (devil?)

this forum is just a white nationalist/supremacist forum. you should stop being pussies and just make it known like a banner instead of pretending to be some philosophy forum. it's no different than stormfront et al.

i can sum up your position and problem (as well as the prevailing philosophy here): i wanna live and work around white people in a white homeland and white men/women should stick with their own race, so we can preserve our culture, heritage etc.

all this 'conservative' mantra is just a veil for this. this is just a forum for complaining about the above.

Guest

Quote :: Indeed...now consider who makes the rules and who controls this "civilization".

AIPAC, Jewish banksters (Goldman Sachs, Kuhn Loeb, etc), big business (oil, pharmaceuticals, etc), military industrial complex.

Quote :: What principles govern this system?

Wealth, power... eugenocide.

Quote :: What kind of person do they produce?

Serfs.

Whatever power the people have, we relinquish it. Eventually we'll have no power.

Quote :: I also said males usurp power, in that they challenge the status quo or the one, or the many, who dominate.
Do I, or you, dominate?

No. I have challenged the status quo, and I'm not talking 'bout fashion or music.

Quote :: Originally, yes...do their children?
Does not the kingdom pass from father to son, or daughter?

Does a dog challenge it's master, do the sheep flee from the shepard? But we would not say the shepard or the farmer is less of a man, because he does not regularly routinely hunt, but we might question the dogs manhood for being a bitch. The king, noblemen and their progeny don't have to defend their titles and their property from the people very frequently, because the ones who challenged their authority died long ago, and with them their seed, where as the lives of those who did not resist were spared, so long as they pledged allegiance to the king, noblemen and payed their taxes, their servile seed was spared (eugenics). However, noblemen and mafia must frequently compete with and defend their property from other kings, noblemen and mafias, and from barbarians, raiders, policemen, threats from without and from within their ranks. Al Capone may have been living in a civilization, but he wasn't civilized. Civility is for the inferior.

Quote :: In nature, being born of a dominant pair does not guarantee you a place on the top...nor will the others be obliged to support you just because you were born from a high pair.

See above

Quote :: No, they are more homogenous, genetically speaking.
also in smaller groups nobody is expendable.

True.
I knew this already, but forgot.
The only reason ants, bees and termites are so cooperative and so symbiotic is because they're sisters. Symbiosis is rare in nature. We're multicellular animals, but our cells probably developed and originated from a single cell who's genetic code told it to grow bigger and become multicellular, not from genetically unrelated cells coming together to form one organism. The only two things that make civilization possible are one, reason and conscience, we give so we can get, reciprocal altruism, and two, government keeping everyone in line. People and governments trying to usurp each others property is inevitable, conscience only goes so far, and reason tells some of us that sometimes, crime pays.

Quote :: Nothing, if this is not guaranteed by a system of institution.

Nothing is guaranteed in life, not even the kings crown. He and his progeny must continually and vigilantly guard it, the law don't mean shit without brains and brawn, that's why the bill of rights and constitution aren't worth the paper they're printed on, today. The tree of liberty and the tree of authority must from time to time be watered with blood. If they grow fat, lazy, decadent and complaisant, commoner and aristocrat alike, they'll be overthrown. Civilization is an illusion, a ghost, a spook, to borrow Stirner's terminology. You can't just wave a magic wand, sign a piece of paper and then magically the Gods will protect you and yours.

Granted, some people believe in Gods and fairytales like King Arthur's Camelot or the American dream, but some don't, the spell won't work on them, they're too clever, they see right through the bullshit. These are the men the establishment fears, whether the establishment consists of democrats or oligarchs. The democrats had their time in the sun, the oligarchs are returning. I wouldn't worry 'bout 'Christian' Bob down the street, watching sports, stuffing his fat face and taking out another loan.. his time is almost up.

Guest

Quote :: All social behavior necessitates a more feminine disposition, as there can only be one alpha with any group...perhaps two, as the Spartans had two kings just as this forum is governed by two administrators.

You mean like the prime minister of Canada is our alpha? He's not really in power though, he's merely a puppet, but perhaps the social engineers are manipulating our primitive instincts. Maybe people would rebel if there was no figure head, and just a series of administrators and bureaucrats with equal power. So in small groups there's one alpha and a few omegas and in big groups there's one alpha with thousands, millions of omegas, increasing the overall femininity of the group. My counter argument is this- Stephen Harper isn't really in power, at least I don't think he is, and what about betas, why not hundreds or thousands of betas? Oh, also, perhaps human beings function more like bonobos than common chimps, which would change group dynamics, though we do seem more like common chimps in behavior and psychology.

Quote :: The key factor here is numbers, size. The larger the group the more expendable the members

Expendable to whom? To the alpha and the betas, maybe, but the omegas feel they're special, and are also taught to feel this way. Perhaps in ancient times the alpha could order omegas to their death, even so, I don't see how that would increase the overall femininity, whether they're sacrificing their lives or not, they're still kissing ass. In any case, it doesn't work that way in modern society, omegas now feel they're important, and in a sense, this has increased the overall masculinity, the omegas now demand a certain amount of respect, rights and freedoms. In this sense, masculinity has increased, the omegas have challenged the authority of the alpha, but none of them sought to become alphas themselves, rather they banded together to create a society of omegas, without an alpha and betas, where as a pack animal would only overthrow the alpha if he thought he could dispose of him himself, the omegas have banded together to take down the alpha and the betas and establish a democracy, they changed the rules of the game, making society more egalitarian and herd. Now there is no overt alpha, betas and omegas, we've culturally evolved into a herd culture.

Quote :: but also the more emasculation is required, the more non-distinctness...as all must be lowered to the lowest common denominator for the sake of internal peace and stability. Differences create conflicts.

We're the most socially stratified, poor choice of words, our society has the greatest disparity of wealth and power in the history of the world societies, if what you say is true, why haven't we rebelled? Of course we're all guaranteed equal opportunity by the state, but we're not communists by any stretch of the imagination, tremendous differences in wealth and power persist. We have the same political rights on paper, true, but you can take away someones rights for the right price.

I guess this particular point is partially true. Differences between races and cultures do create conflict, so in larger societies where there is more cultural and racial diversity, less emphasis has to be put on heritage and tradition for the sake of group cohesion, and this leveling, this making man more pliable feminizes him.

Society has to make it's members less distinct, and females as you've indicated, are chameleons, they shed their skins readily, so they'll thrive in such an environment.

Of course we have multiculturalism, not monoculturalism, but as society 'advances', we find a corresponding decline in culture and traditions, a sameness, an averaging occurring. Whether this is the result of government through education and the influence of mass media or a natural development is another matter. Probably as a result of both.

Subject: Re: Modernity Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:46 pm

ChinaGirl wrote:: it is not a ploy. males want autonomy and as a consequence, so do females. both no longer want to have to depend on eachother as even males don't want females depending on them. they want to come/go as they wish.

this is why both work to support themselves and both help raise children today or choose to be single parents.

China-Girl you are one hip modern girl.

This is why despite all your bravado and declarations of "knowing" you are still in the dark, my China-Girl:

ChinaGirl wrote:: this forum is just a white nationalist/supremacist forum.

You have no clue, do you girl?

Being "white" is no automatic entry into this club.

you should
stop being pussies and just make it known like a banner instead of
pretending to be some philosophy forum. it's no different than
stormfront et al.

ChinaGirl wrote:: i can sum up your position and problem (as
well as the prevailing philosophy here): i wanna live and work around
white people in a white homeland and white men/women should stick with
their own race, so we can preserve our culture, heritage etc.

Wow...what a simpleton you are.
You have this simple understanding of those who would say these things. You return to it because you can't make sense of what is being said here and you so desperately want to remain "current" and within the popular trends, like all girls do.

But no, this is not about separating the races or any establishment of a homeland.

ChinaGirl wrote:: all this 'conservative' mantra is just a veil for this. this is just a forum for complaining about the above.

If describing the world in a way which is not in agreement with your Hollywood, Disney World, childish "positivity" is considered "complaining" then I guess I can count myself amongst such thinkers as Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Evola, Guenon, Baudrillard, Postman and many others.

You remain "happy" in your conformity, China-Girl.
Man's world is exactly as it appears to be, you will take that to your grave.

And yes, I also want to kill all Negroes and be a God-King Rolling Eyes

sheesh what a douche-bag you are.
Am I promoting a healthier relationship between us by being so honest, China-Girl?

Ta, Ta,

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Guest

Subject: Re: Modernity Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:17 pm

eyesinthedark wrote:: You mean like the prime minister of Canada is our alpha?

When I say Modernity abstracts qualities I also mean that it reduces masculinity to an institution, such as the presidency, which can be occupied by man, woman or child.
The occupier is the representation of the institution's dominance.
Who really controls the institution is another issue.

eyesinthedark wrote:: Maybe people would rebel if there was no figure head, and just a series of administrators and bureaucrats with equal power. So in small groups there's one alpha and a few omegas and in big groups there's one alpha with thousands, millions of omegas, increasing the overall feminity of the group. My counter argument is this- Stephen Harper isn't really in power, at least I don't think he is, and what about betas, why not hundreds or thousands of betas? Oh, also, perhaps human beings function more like bonobos than common chimps, which would change group dynamics, though we do seem more like common chimps in behaviour and psychology.

Bonobo's are actually a good example of what happens when emasculation reaches a certain point and the internal structures become feminized or more maternalistic.
As was noted femininity is pure sexuality.....the earth...nature.
The group becomes hedonistic...or sex becomes the only way to relate or to regulate conflicts and internal stresses.
Everyone fucks everyone...promiscuity abounds. a huge orgy where even male on male mock copulation reinforces power relationships without letting them reach the level of aggression.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Guest

Take the Japanese during WW2 as prime example, the Japanese had a large society, yet they revered their emperor as a God king, take Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Communist Russia (they had an egalitarian society in theory, but not in practice). Larger societies don't necessarily entail egalitarianism in theory or in practice. Politically we (moderns) have a more/less egalitarian society, though are rights are in decline, but because of capitalism, corporatism, monetarism and corruption, gross inequalities go unchallenged, yet we live in socially harmonious times, here in the west. If the Germans or the Japanese had of won the war, rather than the slightly more egalitarian Americans with their crony capitalism, the whole world would've politically and economically stratified.

I don't think we can maintain that larger civilizations or societies necessitate material or spiritual leveling. Observe ancient Egypt and Babylon, as they increased in size, from protocivilizations to civilizations, they increased in stratification, the mass mediocrities were made to worship God kings and believe they were spiritually inferior to the upper classes. Cultural leveling, maybe. If one is going to integrate diverse tribes into one nation, then it helps to obliterate their cultures and unite them with a single culture or religion, like Christianity or Marxism. Women may have an easier time making this adjustment, as they lack ideals and a strong sense of identity. However, once again the state functions like the man, it creates this new culture for them, playing the role of the masculine, so it is unclear whether larger societies are more feminine by necessity, this democratic socialism and capitalism may have been mere coincidence.

Guest

I'm glad you introduced alphas, betas and omegas into this discussion, it may shed some light on things. Humans have a nature, but through culture we can partially adopt unnatural behavior traits and ways of arranging society, or encourage some instincts and talents and discourage others. It is sometimes difficult to ascertain what the original way of being and arranging society was, but we can look to savages, and are closest kin, chimpanzees for clues.

Yes, alpha, beta and omega, I have considered them before. Our current society, at least in theory, is supposed to be democratic, capitalist and socialist, therefore, it doesn't acknowledge an alpha, betas and omegas, it is a classless system.

In Pack (like a wolf pack) societies, the alpha rules the betas and the betas rule the omegas. These societies were prevalent up until the last century or two. In Herd (like a herd of gazelle) societies, the collective, the democracy, the majority functions as the alpha. In individualist societies, everyone is their own alpha. Some societies can be herd like politically (democracy) but Pack like economically (corporatism), so there is some overlap. Modern society seems Herd or individualist like on the surface of things.

Herd = democracy, communism, socialism, matriarchy, monism, pacifism, egalitarianism, pantheism, homogeneity.

Pack = monarchy, fascism, corporatism, patriarchy, dualism, aggressiveness, elitism, monotheism, hierarchy.

Both may be part of our biology. Different historic and personal circumstances could stimulate one or the other, as well as cultural programming. Different individuals and races may be prone to one or the other.

In Judaism, the Alpha existed outside of society, where as with the Egyptians and Babylonians, the Alpha was embodied in the king. I wonder what the significance of this is? Was this an act of rebellion, on the part of the Jews. They had kings at various times throughout their history, but they didn't equate them with God, or a God or a Demigod. Suddenly the king was reduced to a mere representative of God on earth, where as in Greece, Rome, Carthage, Phoenicia and parts of India, democracies and oligarchies (rule by betas) arose, mainly oligarchies. A worldwide rebellion was taking place. This rebellion took place metaphysically, socially, culturally, on all fronts. Does Satyr and his Yockey, Nietzsche and Evola want to take us back in time, reverse the sociopolitical clock?

Guest

In Judaism, no man, woman or child could be the Alpha, not even a Beta, only Jehovah could be the Alpha, all were reduced to omegas. However, Christianity leveled the playing field even further. In Judaism, the object was to out omega other omegas by being a bigger bitch. Good looks, wealth, power and intelligence weren't important, only bitchliness counted (Jew morality- don't lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit adultery, honor they father and mother, honor thy God, etc). This was in stark contrast to the Greeks, Romans and many other societies. The Zoroastrians had a similar outlook to the Jews. Then Christianity came along, and a further leveling occurred. Now, all omegas were equal, one couldn't even be a bigger bitch than another, all were failed bitches, and thus, no bitch had the right to punish another bitch, only God had the right, he chose to have mercy. This is the ultimate bitch religion. It is not necessarily a Herd religion, per say, though there are affinities, nor is it a Pack religion, though there are affinities with it as well. They separated the Alpha from the carnal, they were a society without an Alpha, they wanted an Alpha, but because they were so feminine, they could only imagine an Alpha as something remote and otherworldly.

Guest

Well, what the Jews did was separate God from King. This meant the king was no longer the absolute authority, even he was subject to a law, so this was an act of rebellion against the status quo of the time, which was slavery. Now, the king and the aristocracy were under divine law, reducing their power (constitutional monarchy). The law was no longer survival of the fittest, like it was in the old days, the Egyptian and Mesopotamian Gods and kings were callous and cruel, now the king was supposed to be a 'good' king, a gentle giant, and here we can see the beginnings of a rebellion against the upper classes, the alpha and the betas. They kept the notion of a highly stratified society, but the king had to be a righteous king, in other words, he had to be looking out for the interests of the whole, otherwise he could be disposed of by the whole, and he wasn't necessarily superior to anyone, it was his task to maintain the law and order, to look after his sheeple, to make sure they didn't harm one another, to make sure no one else harmed them, including himself and his men, for the sake of his subjects first and secondly for his own sake. Yes the morality was in transition between the old code, winner take all, to the victor go the spoils, and the new code, altruism, all human beings have value so long as they believed and behaved as if everyone had equal value. Such were the beginnings of altruism, humanism, etc. Then Jesus went further. For him (or rather his mythographers), all human beings were equal, even if some of them didn't believe and behave as if everyone was equal, even if they lied, cheated, stole, etc. We can see rebellions taking place during the axial age, all over the world. Suddenly, the Gods gave a fuck about human affairs, where as before they were largely indifferent, even hostile, occasionally they could be bribed with sacrifices, but there was no immortality or divine plan. These religions were for poor, miserly souls, weak and weary, like Nietzsche said. I'm not sure if large civilization entails this sort of outlook though, perhaps we could be more discriminating, the minority could enslave the majority. I don't think either society is good in the absolute sense either, it just depends on what sort of animal you are.

Guest

Well, tell me what you think of this-- do large, hedonistic, materialistic, unsustainable civilizations coincide with democracy, egalitarianism, communism and socialism? Does it all fit together like one giant puzzle? These human beings come together, in these large, commercial and industrial civilizations, giving up their heritage and traditions in the process, because they're greedy, because they can only produce this giant surplus in a cosmopolitan, globalist society. A small society is incapable of producing such a surplus, and we're destroying ourselves and the resources (pragmatic environmentalism) we're dependent on in the process, by feeding and clothing everyone, no matter how useless they are, I mean, what does all this add up to, am I seeing connections that aren't there? Socialism, communism, hedonism, materialism, commerce, industry, are all of these things like a cancer?

What do you think of this, does the warrior priest caste of old, keep the masses and their greed and their folly (spirit in service of flesh) in check? That's how the Babylonians viewed their role, they believed they had a duty to sacrifice the masses in orgies of blood, to quell the population. That's how the new world order sees themselves, like they're restoring this equilibrium, they're antihumanists, they believe the masses are scum, because they're stupid, all they do is eat, shit, consume and have ten, twenty kids, and it is their self appointed duty to thin the herd, like Agent Smith from the Matrix, do you see yourself like that, do you want to kill these motherfuckers, are you a Malthusian? Yes, in the end. that is what this is about. Nevermind niggers, you'd love nothing more than to exterminate 99% of the people you see and hear walking down the street.

Quote :: No need. Technologies exist where they can extract DNA from a hair follicle...even a woman's.
The very technologies meant to give an advantage to one masculine bloodline are now eradicating all bloodlines...or are they?
If you listen to some conspiracy theorist or read Heisman's Suicide Note you might come to believe that all of this is simply a tactic to eradicate European, and other, bloodlines by a Semitic strain...one which must contradict its own principles to achive this grand ploy.
Remember Trivers?...yes him again. Perhaps this tribe, out of the desert, must believe in their own bullshit to make it more successful as a lie. Perhaps the tactic depends upon compartmentalization where you can say one thing and act in a manner which contradicts it.

I'll have to start reading all these people you keep suggesting, Evola, Guenon, Spengler, Yockey, etc (lot of grim looking faces in this crowd, notice many of them don't live very long). You don't hear these philosophers names, naturally. Heisman's suicide note.. sounds provocative. So you too have noticed Jews say one thing (multiculturalism, peace, love, communism, etc) and do another (fierce tribalism, war, hate, crony capitalism).

Quote :: Huh?
I see it this way: males are moving towards order...you might call this a turning back. This defines Traditionalism.
In other words they attempt to separate, distinguish themselves out of the (inter)activity to become wholly independent=God.
Women want to disappear in the flow, towards growing non-distinction. They simply want to belong to immerse themselves and become a part of the absolute.
Both these movements are nihilistic.

Balance consists in controlling the feminine without dismissing forgetting denying or erasing it.
The overman is the man who comes to terms with his own temporality. He does not resent it but considers it necessary to bring him about.
he does not wish to alter this for this would make him obsolete, but only wants to learn to deal with it...to embrace it: yes saying, to use Nietzschean terminology.

Right, males are moving toward inactivity, mental, physical and emotional independence (self sufficiency, why males are adept at surviving in small civilizations), females are moving toward interactivity, interdependence (why females are adept at surviving in big civilizations). Two survival strategies, both sexes have needs (natural, necessary desires), but females are needier than males, in addition to having more wants (unnatural, unnecessary desires). Also, females are less able to say no to their desires, as their flesh rules their spirit. Females tend to maximize desire (quantity), trying to satisfy as many as possible (hence their hedonism, materialism, altruism, etc), males tend to minimize their desire (quality), trying to satisfy as few as possible (hence their asceticism, minimalism, egoism, etc). Females maximize their interactions and (inter)dependencies, males minimize their interactions and (inter)dependencies, and thus, if females and the feminine classes (merchants, artisans and scientists, as opposed to knights, farmers and philosophers) are left unchecked, they'll interact themselves into oblivion.

I'm not saying males are or should be without desire (an absolute), rather, like you, I believe in mitigated asceticism.

I think males are more interactive upstairs, in the brains. Females are more inactive here, and males, that is, males who haven't been feminized, have a tendency to think themselves into oblivion, and that is why they require females to keep them grounded in the world. Neither is good or evil or self creative or self destructive in the absolute sense, what we require is a balance between energies.

Fuck this is getting really abstract, sometimes I wonder if I'm actually saying.. anything.

Quote :: Yes...females are creatures of desire...nature personified.
They find their power by manipulating and being desirable, or as means to an end. This is why they speak about female emancipation but they do not go so far as to deny their feminine nature. if they really sought parity then sex would have to be eliminated as a factor...essentially their designation as females would not be relevant: total uniformity.
But they do not want that, as this would also eliminate their only source of power, their sexuality.
So, they simply propose a redefinition of what female means, accusing the opposition of being eugenicists, when they propose a social eugenics process like no other; They claim that sexual roles are fabrications, paternalistic remnants, when they are sexual roles applied within social contexts, meanwhile they propose an artificiality based on the "blank slate" mythology, essentially wanting to retrain, reeducate, men, and women, to repress and behave in "appropriate" for them ways.
This feminism is, itself, a male construct...a logical conclusion to Judeo-Christian doctrine. If follow further all appearances, empiricism, itself, would become inconsequential; animals would be equal to humans, as no distinction based on "superficial" appearances would be tolerated.

All this is a ploy...women are but instruments in a greater struggle.
They have no clue...they simply adopt and adjust to modernity, to whatever is most powerful within their immediate milieu...they follow trends and fashions.
As always females are fodder or the spoils of war. They go with whomever seems to be more powerful: popular, intelligent, strong, successful...with the most potential. This falls in with their natural sexual proclivities.

So in other words, the egalitarians aren't really in control, unbeknownst to them, the feminists and others are unwittingly serving a hidden agenda. What is this agenda, and who is pulling the strings? Is it the new world order, the Jews? Are they trying to feminize us, nigger us, make us soft?

Quote :: I don't know where you get this from but whatever.
If anything it would make the "superior" male asexual.
But this is not what I am proposing. Control does not mean abstinence.

Fear is not absent it is controlled by the courageous man. The ignoramus or the sociopath is not courageous because he has no fear to contend with.

Discrimination means controlling need.
I control my need for drink when I refuse to drink piss but would rather die of thirst waiting for water.
Inferior wine will not do for the delicate, sensitive, aware, palate.

Males discriminate, our feminine society does not. If male tendencies were extrapolated, they would consume nothing, and interact with no one, if female tendencies were extrapolated, they would consume everything (hedonism, materialism), and interact with everyone (egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, communism, collectivism, altruism, progressivism, globalism).

Subject: Re: Modernity Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:29 pm

eyesinthedark wrote:: Well, tell me what you think of this-- do large, hedonistic, materialistic, unsustainable civilizations coincide with democracy, egalitarianism, communism and socialism?

Yes, but then even capitalism is largely socialist.
Pure capitalism is "natural selection" or anarchy.
Anarchists do not get that their views are in keeping with capitalistic morals.
Capitalists simply add a caveat, inheritance, ownership, to make theirs less natural, but still more so than socialism.
Capitalism succeeds because it is closer to the wild. It demands little of its minions except to be as they always were.

The debate between Keynsean and Hayekean economics is mostly a debate over degree rather than substance: quantity rather than quality.

On the one hand we have a system built around Jewish usury - see why Hitler really "hated" the Jews - and on on other hand we have one which proposed, via another Jew, a different, a more Christian type of population control.
This was mostly a Jewish conflict: different variants of the same virus struggling for supremacy.
Socialism, and Communism, wanted to capitalize on the success of its founding dogma, Christianity.
Capitalism has a more sophisticated approach, albeit it manipulates some very primal forces - it represents the height in human domestication (taming, farming, cultivating).

Going back to your previous comments on "freedom" and such, I will say that "freedom", or Democracy, in the west has been mostly symbolic.
The illusion of freedom had to be maintained so as to defeat Communism. Your so called "rights" are being eroded because their lie is no longer necessary.
The Middle Class has been, for the most part, a fabrication...a buffer between the rich and the poor but also a cushion of contentment to keep the cattle happy within the barn until the storm blew over.
Well, the storm is over...and look what happened a few years afterward.
Capitalism let loose; the powers that be went wild.
But they must be cautious.

This "New World Order" is this pulling back the social "rights" and the socialist social net most got used to, and it is also a rearrangement of global alliances.
Look what's happening in Europe...the old allies Germany Vichy France, Italy and the sattelite states using economic means in an economic era. No more "hot" wars, except for some skirmishes here and there.
These wars are fought on an abstract level with small explosions of physical warfare breaking out from time to time, as part of its method.
Europe is no longer a trusted ally, because theya re no longer needed to contain the ex-Soviet Union. The European experiment, a joint venture of France and Germany, supported by a few loyal allies, (Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Austria,) gathering around them the lost remnants of past empires, mostly that of the old Roman Empire, face the opposition, in the backdoor chambers, of the U.S. who use Britain and a few others, along wiht the Banking system they set-up, the Jewish banking system to sabotage the unification.
The United states is the New Jerusalem, masking as the New Rome. Did not Christianity, the Jewish inl[quote="eyesinthedark"]ct Rome from the bottom up and did it not then set-up a Holy Roman Empire to pretend ti was a direct decedent of the original?
Did not the Byzantium follow suit with my namesake, Constantine the Great, becoming the first Byzantine emperor to accept Christianity as the official religion of the Empire?

This war has been raging for centuries in the west. It is mostly an anti-viral war, as the body is fighting off the disease of Judeo-Christianity and dying slowly in the process.
I simply offer my "two cents" on the side I relate to and consider noble.
My participation on these forums can be understood as such...and my style and insults can be justified as me fighting off brain-dead zombies who should not have been born and who, once born, are the infection personified.
I may be fighting a lost cause but I do not care. I find honor in simply belonging to this clan.

eyesinthedark wrote:: Does it all fit together like one giant puzzle?

It must, or else you must explain why it does not and then you must make adjustments or discard it.
Compartmentalization just does not work for me. i cannot hold a different set of rules in one area, metaphysics, let's say, and then totally contradict them in physics.
I cannot claim to hold onto one set of rules in one area and then act and behave in ways that are antithetical to them.
If I cannot justify why I do this then I am a hypocrite and a liar or delusional and retarded.

For instance, you can't claim that sexual characteristics are superficial and all are equal and then cling unto the label of female when it suits you.
You can't say appearances do not matter and then judge something based on nothing more than its appearance.
You can't say in public that discrimination is wrong and then in private discriminate with such vehemence that it makes you even worse than those that do so openly and honestly.

If looks are superficial then empiricism is wrong...and using "size" as an excuse is ludicrous. Who decides how much difference matter or when ti does matter and when it does not?

If you claim to be a nature lover and against eugenics then you can't propose ideas that contradict nature and offer methods of "correcting" her ways.
This is fuckin' hypocrisy...worse this is blatant stupidity.
Am I supposed to tolerate this level of duplicity, knowing that it is this shit that makes things worse than they ought to be?

eyesinthedark wrote:: These human beings come together, in these large, commercial and industrial civilizations, giving up their heritage and traditions in the process, because they're greedy, because they can only produce this giant surplus in a cosmopolitan, globalist society.

No, not simply greedy...they are weak.
Take a short man.
He feels "wronged" by nature. He cannot change the past and so he prefers to dismiss it, forget it and call it too small to matter, ironically.
Instead he grabs onto money to compensate...he earns millions to make those females that would never give him a second look, because of his genes, a blowjob because of his means...his memes.
For him the monetary system is amazing. How else could he have so easily overcome his past inadequacies than by servicing the system who then offers him rewards...the "right" to buy pride and genetic vitality and masculine appeal etc.

Such a man will become a Fausty....a defender of the meek and weak, because he associates himself with them; he relates though he will not admit it openly, privately showing scorn towards those whoa re beneath even him. Would not such a duochebag not prefer to tolerate those below him, feeling superior but not daring to show it openly, rather than risk being exposed to those above him, showing him his true essence...forcing him to either come to terms with himself and his heritage or do something about it?

eyesinthedark wrote:: A small society is incapable of producing such a surplus, and we're destroying ourselves and the resources (pragmatic environmentalism) we're dependent on in the process, by feeding and clothing everyone, no matter how useless they are, I mean, what does all this add up to, am I seeing connections that aren't there? Socialism, communism, hedonism, materialism, commerce, industry, are all of these things like a cancer?

Yes, anything that promotes uniformity as part of its own stabiltiy and well-being, is a cancer.
In the past a family was about a continuum. There was homogeneity in the unity.
The beta wolf defends the cubs of the alpha pair because it shares genes with them. He is protecting himself, in them, even if he did not manage to be dominant.

A family had a spiritual content. Today it's some fuckin' bullshit arrangement built around the dominant pair's copulation preferences.
Sex and sexuality has lost all spiritual content...it has reverted to animal lust, base and basic fornication with no human element.
Why are niggers so popular these days, particularly amongst the "slutty" young, modern girls?

eyesinthedark wrote:: What do you think of this, does the warrior priest caste of old, keep the masses and their greed and their folly (spirit in service of flesh) in check?

It keeps them in their natural place.
People today think that by pretending the other is not a retard, or tolerating his stupidity, that this benefits the whole; that this is some kind of noble act.
This is not the case....tolerating stupidity reinforces it, makes it feel confident.
Look at all those morons on ILP who are tolerated and can then discuss stupidities in a forum titled "I Love Philosophy".
It looks like this "love" is as profound as any other amongst these lowest of the low.

eyesinthedark wrote:: That's how the Babylonians viewed their role, they believed they had a duty to sacrifice the masses in orgies of blood, to quell the population. That's how the new world order sees themselves, like they're restoring this equilibrium, they're antihumanists, they believe the masses are scum, because they're stupid, all they do is eat, shit, consume and have ten, twenty kids, and it is their self appointed duty to thin the herd, like Agent Smith from the Matrix, do you see yourself like that, do you want to kill these motherfuckers, are you a Malthusian? Yes, in the end. that is what this is about. Nevermind niggers, you'd love nothing more than to exterminate 99% of the people you see and hear walking down the street.

Yes...thin the herd.

eyesinthedark wrote:: I'll have to start reading all these people you keep suggesting, Evola, Guenon, Spengler, Yockey, etc (lot of grim looking faces in this crowd, notice many of them don't live very long). You don't hear these philosophers names, naturally. Heisman's suicide note.. sounds provocative. So you too have noticed Jews say one thing (multiculturalism, peace, love, communism, etc) and do another (fierce tribalism, war, hate, crony capitalism).

Read Heisman's Suicide Note and you'll see why.
There is competition going on...that this tribe of slaves developed a method like that is both admirable and logical.
Question is: Are you going to buy into it and become another victim of their tactic?

The Greeks considered someone Greek, as I've said many times before, the one who spoke Greek, thought like a Greek, had Greek pedagogy.
Consider your own education and morals...are they Greek of Jewish?
But the Jews are not important...they are simply the form the virus had when it infected the body, the Roman spirit. It could have been another tribe, but at that moment, in that palce, the Roman Empire was ripe for infection. It was weak and old and decadent.
Same shit happened in the east only there another way was found to infect the body. Their disease has been running for a longer time, and this is why for them the Jewish issue is something they care little about.
The Jews were simply the medium through which these eastern diseases entered the western body.

eyesinthedark wrote:: Right, males are moving toward inactivity, mental, physical and emotional independence (self sufficiency, why males are adept at surviving in small civilizations), females are moving toward interactivity, interdependence (why females are adept at surviving in big civilizations). Two survival strategies, both sexes have needs (natural, necessary desires), but females are needier than males, in addition to having more wants (unnatural, unnecessary desires). Also, females are less able to say no to their desires, as their flesh rules their spirit. Females tend to maximize desire (quantity), trying to satisfy as many as possible (hence their hedonism, materialism, altruism, etc), males tend to minimize their desire (quality), trying to satisfy as few as possible (hence their asceticism, minimalism, egoism, etc). Females maximize their interactions and (inter)dependencies, males minimize their interactions and (inter)dependencies, and thus, if females and the feminine classes (merchants, artisans and scientists, as opposed to knights, farmers and philosophers) are left unchecked, they'll interact themselves into oblivion.

Now consider that both males and females, biologically speaking, have both attitudes within them.
Which one dominates determines their femininity or masculinity.
Also, super-organisms follow similar paths, as they are reflections of the organisms that comprise them.

eyesinthedark wrote:: Fuck this is getting really abstract, sometimes I wonder if I'm actually saying.. anything.

Maybe you are now uniting the metnal and the spiritual...the physical and the metaphysical... the mind and the body.

Maybe you are waking up to the bigger picture that includes materialism and spirituality; maybe the world is coalescing into a coherent model.

You must wake up to a more complete awareness to see the bullshit that surrounds you...will you take the red pill or the blue pill?
There is no easy path...much of this will lead you down ways of sexual and material depravity making you wonder what life is this and why is it worth living.

But you must change perspective.
Many of these retards telling you about universal love and unity and human values are exposing you to a truth, but they do not know it.

Are you human, as they mean it, as they define it, as they are?
If not, then why would their love, their understanding, their sexual favors, their friendship matter to you?
Do you seek those of your kind, if, as they say, human nature is a fallacy?

How much value do you place upon your love, your friendship, your compassion your tolerance?
If all "deserve" it because they are, then not much, I would think. If you are not permitted to discriminate, then your choices mean nothing...not even to the one who is chosen by you.

Look at the China-Girl she known nothing yet, in her own mind, she knows it all; she's heard these words before; she's heard them mentioned in a similar context.
She knows...this is old shit for her, yet she concludes in accordance to the herd, to the many, to the popular. what she knows is that she's heard or read these terms being used and had ready-made responses to them.

For example: racism, sexism, hate, compensating...she has a slew of replies as these were taught to her over the years..she knows, and she knows how to defend her crutches. This is all she knows, because when pushed she falls back, reiterates, reinvents, rewrites.
"Honesty" she said, "is the best option.' guided, presumably, by the currents and the currency.
Then she corrected herself, no honesty under certain circumstances...evoking the ideal circumstance to construct, only in her feeble mind, the ideal relationship.

Everything is dependent on ideals, in other words on what is not real or yet to be real. It is always a future event, something which is possible and is coming if we all work together.
Look as Fausty's confidence in pluralism:
If we all gather, young and old, maimed and whole, stupid and smart, and type incessantly for years something grand will finally come about...something magical. Until then we msut endure, toelrate, listen to inanities from the inane and pretend they deserve something other than scorn.
This from a "master" logician.

This is a tactic utilized by the primal organism: divide, replicate self, accepting what slight mutations occur during replication and under the effects of environment...persists, year after year and hope that when things change the outcome will be up to the challenge.
Unfortunately for him, and his douche-bag, friends, nature chose a different path: natural selection.
Cruelty, violence, discrimination, intolerance, efficiency...and here he is, this weakling, surviving under the umbrella he now worships and patches up, offspring us the same old shit as if it were a "progress".

eyesinthedark wrote:: in other words, the egalitarians aren't really in control, unbeknownst to them, the feminists and others are unwittingly serving a hidden agenda. What is this agenda, and who is pulling the strings? Is it the new world order, the Jews? Are they trying to feminize us, nigger us, make us soft?

I will only tell you this:
The "conspiracy" is not as awe inspiring as it sounds.
This tendency is natural; one brought about by natural selection itself.
Take human intelligence...it breeds the circumstances of its own obsolescence. There is no plan, only nature.

Now, allow me to describe my conception of "conspiracies". That they are all-powerful and behind every event, and that every cloud in the sky and every light in the night is them observing and overpowering us, is false.
Here is how it works:
Take a river flowing down a hillside.
This flowing downward is natural, there is no will behind it. what does man do? what does a will do?
It comes up with ways to use this naturally occurring phenomenon. It might build a dam; it might build dykes to redirect the flow....and so on.

So what is occurring in the context of what is being discussed?
It's been already stated that all social interactions entail a certain degree of emasculation. A male wolf experiences a drop in testosterone when it is included into a pack dominated by another male. none of this is directed by an external will...it is merely survival at work.

Now, suppose someone knew of this and wanted to use it to his own advantage. He might even declare that such things were primal and ridiculous, wanting to keep this information for himself.
Would he not by using a naturally occurring phenomenon try to direct and use it to his own advantage? He need not be behind the phenomenon itself, but only be a intervention upon it.

I would say that the game of natural selection and bloodlines has not ended...it has simply acquired more sophisticated means.
What could be more sophisticated than to convince your rival that he is already defeated, that violence is bad, that females, through which his kind is propagated, are free, that fornicating indiscriminately is good and valuable and an indication of "free-will", that the past is overcome and irrelevant...or inferior to the present and to what promises to come?

How powerful a method that would be, utilizing something that is occurring: overpopulation, resource and spatial limitations.
How effective it could be by merely manipulating already existent fears and hopes and desires and needs.

Look at marketing, read Bernays and how he utilized his uncle Freud's insights to create modern marketing and politics...then read how Freud is considered "overcome" and passe and old and a has-been.
Does marketing create need out of thin air or does it take a need, already existing, and redirect it, manipulate it, suppress and enhance it?
Men are no Gods...they are manipulators of matter and energy and circumstances.

Men did not invent gender differences, they simply took naturally concurring sexual differences and applied them, manipulated them.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Subject: Re: Modernity Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:40 pm

Modern Art

Pinker, Steven wrote:: Modern (post-modern) Art:

Visual Art –
without beauty

Literature – without narrative plot

Poetry
– without rhyme

Architecture and Planning – without ornament, human
scale, green space, natural light

Music – without melody or rhythm

Criticism – without clarity, attention to aesthetics, and insight into
human condition.

This is where we've plummeted.

Now a common imbecile can splatter paint on a canvas and have it be called "genius".
Later monkeys and elephants will replicate the "technique".

See Jackson Pollock....See Andy Warhol...

Now anybody can sling together word-associations without even the effort required to make it rhyme or make sense, and call it poetry.

Now noise is called music and some Negro talking about how great he is and how many botches he's banged is considered culture.

See Jazz...See Rap...

All that is required now is that you get the right publicist and the right marketing agent to sell your crap as "brilliant", forcing your intended audience to squint trying to find the messages and the meanings....submitting to peer pressure, the power of suggestion and the need to not seem like a fool, they project upon the "art" everything they keep hidden inside of them, suddenly realizing how "talented" the artist really is.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Guest

Quote :: Yes, but then even capitalism is largely socialist.

Pure capitalism is "natural selection" or anarchy.
Anarchists do not get that their views are in keeping with capitalistic morals.
Capitalists simply add a caveat, inheritance, ownership, to make theirs less natural, but still more so than socialism.
Capitalism succeeds because it is closer to the wild. It demands little of its minions except to be as they always were.

Yes, capitalism is lack of government intervention in economics, anarchism is lack of government intervention, period.

I'm not sure if capitalism 'succeeds' more than socialism (does it follow anarchism would succeed more than capitalism, and by capitalism and anarchism, do you mean the competitive or cooperative varieties (competitive instincts do tend to overpower and outweigh cooperative instincts in large groups of humans)? I think anarchism and capitalism can only be temporary forms of government (or lack thereof), inevitably leading to a form of government (oligarchy, kratocracy) and to intervention in economic affairs (oligarchy, plutocracy), as quality (homo sapiens over animals, homo sapiens sapiens over homo sapiens (to a lesser extent) tends to trump quantity, intelligence tends to monopolization, but then, all governments are temporary, as we both agree the universe is perpetually changing, interactive, though I endow this interactivity with a more/less cyclical, fractal flow, you endow it with nothing, apparently).

Personally, I don't care whether the government intervenes or not, I'll adapt.

Quote :: The debate between Keynsean and Hayekean economics is mostly a debate over degree rather than substance: quantity rather than quality.

This is true. What would a debate over substance look like? Communism vs Fascism, Zionism and affirmative action vs Nazism?

Quote :: On the one hand we have a system built around Jewish usury - see why Hitler really "hated" the Jews - and on on other hand we have one which proposed, via another Jew, a different, a more Christian type of population control.
This was mostly a Jewish conflict: different variants of the same virus struggling for supremacy.
Socialism, and Communism, wanted to capitalize on the success of its founding dogma, Christianity.

This sounds like Jewish conspiracism.

Perhaps the Jews (being cowardly, weak, and possessing no soil) invented Christianity, capitalism and socialism (as you apparently charge), for they couldn't survive under social Darwinism... anarchism, natures form of government, where no one and no thing is eternally in charge, for rights, natural or divine, don't exist in the absolute, but democrats, oligarchs, Jews (especially Jews) and Gentiles alike, each like to convince the other they have the 'right' to rule, like nature or the divine gives a shit. Nature and if it exists, the divine, are on the side of the strong, but the strong must continually prove themselves. In addition, the Jews claim to be on 'humanities' side, when in fact, some of them are on their own side, but they trick us, and this is their only weapon against us, womanly deceit.

Granted, Jews, or at least a Jew invented Communism (or at least the dominant variant or strain, as many communist utopias had been previously proposed by gentiles). In addition, Jewish bankers and and some American corporations funded communism, and many prominent politicians and communist revolutionaries (Lenin, Trotsky, etc) were Jewish, though eventually gentiles (Stalin, Gorbachev) gained control over the Soviet Union, in part.

It is true Christianity is a Jewish religion. Communism may have been a Jewish conspiracy, but some Jewish communists may have genuinely wanted to aid the proletariat. However, it seems to have turned into a movement for Jews, by Jews (Zionist deceit). Capitalism is a different story. Capitalism was conceived of by European Gentiles such as John Locke and Adam Smith. It was first fully put into practice by the founding fathers of the United States, though elements of it existed in other countries prior. Many of the founding fathers were anti-Jewites, so I'm not sure capitalism was a Jewish conspiracy (though, they did invent Christianity, and Christianity may have indirectly lead to the notion of, first, the divine right of kings, and second, human rights). The Jews infected the United Sates with their federal reverse golem in 1913, and this allowed them to play both capitalist America and communist Russia off one another by loaning to both sides. The Jews want to come across as the heroes, champions of the poor and the weak with their Christianity, crony capitalism and communism, but then they use their movements to their advantage (even if their sentiments are genuine, they're weakness will be overlooked in an egalitarian society, not taken advantage of). They talk of internationalism and communism, feminism and an end to 'discrimination' and racism, but much of it is talk, meant to tame the lion. Some of them believe it, some of them don't, especially those in charge of the movement (Rothschilds), they use the wealth and power they gain from their movements to strengthen Israel, a state that has more than a few things in common with Nazi Germany.

Quote :: Capitalism has a more sophisticated approach, albeit it manipulates some very primal forces - it represents the height in human domestication (taming, farming, cultivating).

Well, if we're talking about domesticating nature, that's somewhat separate from capitalism, though the two were born together, and seem to fit together for some reason. I think when man puts morality, wisdom, metaphysics, religion and politics aside, he can devote himself solely to the carnal, to knowledge, physics, science and economics, and that's why we see this correlation between less government intervention in human affairs, and more human intervention in nature (also, when humans cease fighting each other, they can quadruple their efforts and gang rape mother nature). The question is, do we want to be a material society, or a spiritual one? Do we want to focus on culture, quality, as you might put it, or civilization, quantity? Communism is a form of class conflict and therefore, it is a materialistic philosophy, at it's core, so too is capitalism and corporatism (anarchism is the ultimate form of materialism). Fascism is a form of class collaboration, and this is what makes it more spiritual in nature. Collaboration, altruism and collectivism are higher than their respective antonyms, the higher in man ruling the lower. The higher faculties and functions of man, aren't necessarily masculine or feminine, females have some tendencies that are higher and lower, and likewise with men.

Man may be moving from a more material civilization to a spiritual one.

Quote :: Going back to your previous comments on "freedom" and such, I will say that "freedom", or Democracy, in the west has been mostly symbolic.

But rights came a long time before communism, in Canada and the United States, and Britain, they can trace their ancestry back to the Magna Carta, 800 years ago. Human beings aren't, 'perfect', we will always violate each others 'rights', but we've made 'progress' in the last 800 years. I don't think the last 800 years have been a complete and utter lie, a Goy or Jewish lie, maybe communism has been, and this monetarist infiltration of capitalism is, giving way to crony capitalism and corporatism. I also think some gentiles play a role in this conspiracy to usurp our wealth, power and rights.

Theoretically, communism could 'work' (not eternally and perfectly, but for a while at least) for the masses, though Jews have historically used it as a weapon against the ones they promised to 'liberate'.

Quote :: The illusion of freedom had to be maintained so as to defeat Communism. Your so called "rights" are being eroded because their lie is no longer necessary.

At times yes and at times no. If you got caught stealing a several hundred years ago, or if you were suspected of it, and the people or the government just didn't like you much, they may have legally cut off your hand, without giving you a fair trial, or indefinitely detain you. I think we have made some significant 'progress' in terms of freedom, but our freedoms are being eroded. I'm basically free to say and believe as I wish. I can't be detained indefinitely without a trial.. lest I'm suspected of terrorism, that is.

The age of matter sees the rise of all these philosophies, capitalism, anarchism, corporatism and communism, little or no government intervention, or intervention on behalf of a particular, largely selfish group or segment of society, to the detriment of the other parts, but fascism promotes harmony between classes.. at least in theory.

Quote :: The Middle Class has been, for the most part, a fabrication...a buffer between the rich and the poor but also a cushion of contentment to keep the cattle happy within the barn until the storm blew over.
Well, the storm is
over...and look what happened a few years afterward.
Capitalism let loose; the powers that be went wild.
But they must be cautious.

Well, it seems the dumb humans can't compete with the smart humans, with or without government. When government intervenes, it tends toward corporatism rather than communism, when it doesn't intervene, the rich tend to get richer through free and (un)fair trade, it doesn't seem to matter, societies tend toward oligarchy, for you can have this- we're all created equal nonsense on paper, but in the real world it does not matter, nature discriminates, the strong and wise tend to enslave or kill the meek, mild and foolish.

Jews are closest to women and animals, for Christianity and Communism protect the weakest of the weak. When they're not busy feminizing us and making us more agreeable and hospitable to them, they dumb us down, they turn us into animals via the media. Animals are easy to manipulate.

This age of spirit I speak of, may be an illusion, I'm not sure. History may be a war of all against all, and it seems that Jews with their fake, crony Christianity, Communism and Capitalism, are master of these false ideals man aspires to, and thus he, the Jew, may be winning . Not to say, wealthy gentiles don't also play a role with their corporations and their corporatism.

Quote :: This "New World Order" is this pulling back the social "rights" and the socialist social net most got used to, and it is also a rearrangement of global alliances.
Look what's happening in Europe...the old allies Germany Vichy France, Italy and the sattelite states using economic means in an economic era. No more "hot" wars, except for some skirmishes here and there.

Yeah, no more dicking around anymore, the elites are accelerating our descent into plutocracy. Their fake 'war on terror' (we've been neo-conned, neo-cons, another Jewish org), their manipulation of markets, not to mention some of what happened to the masses wasn't their own doing, through their own greed, short sightedness and stupidity. The New World Order are these European and Jewish elites, banning together to create this utopia for themselves, exterminate 99% of us and enslave the remainder, seize our guns, rights and freedoms.

Who knows, maybe it is just these Jews. They believe their messiah is coming and shall usher in a thousand years of peace for them and hell for us, and then they'll have their revenge, and their God will have kept it's promise. No doubt there will be this idea to sell the new world order as a good thing, and this is what i meant by the age of spirit, which is why I'd only accept such a thing, if i was one of the ones in charge of it. Rome began as a monarchy, then a more/less capitalist/socialist republic (optimates/populares), then dictatorship (with the cult of the emperor, the old trinity (Jupiter, Juno and Minerva) and Stoicism, then the new trinity (Jehovah, Mary and Jesus) and Platonism as its religions).

A new religion may emerge, classes, individuals and races working together for the common good, a brotherhood of man, it may be communist, though I would prefer it to be fascist, with an occult, neopagan or new age spirituality (imagine an international Platonism + the Capitoline Triad, updated and upgraded for modern times, with a more/less meritocratic aristocracy, rights replaced with privileges).

Quote :: These wars are fought on an abstract level with small explosions of physical warfare breaking out from time to time, as part of its method.
Europe is no longer a trusted ally, because theya re no longer needed to contain the ex-Soviet Union. The European experiment, a joint venture of France and Germany, supported by a few loyal allies, (Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Austria,) gathering around them the lost remnants of past empires, mostly that of the old Roman Empire, face the opposition, in the backdoor chambers, of the U.S. who use Britain and a few others, along wiht the Banking system they set-up, the Jewish banking system to sabotage the unification.
The United states is the New Jerusalem, masking as the New Rome. Did not Christianity, the Jewish Rome from the bottom up and did it not then set-up a Holy Roman Empire to pretend ti was a direct decedent of the original?
Did not the Byzantium follow suit with my namesake, Constantine the Great, becoming the first Byzantine emperor to accept Christianity as the official religion of the Empire?

Yes, the Jews are masters of the lie, they trick us all into believing in these grand ideals- Christianity and communism, this is their weapon, because they lack weapons, they lack the land we have, the power and the creativity, so they must use cunning to lure us into a trap, or lower reduce us to women or animals with their subversive religions and philosophies.

Quote :: This war has been raging for centuries in the west. It is mostly an anti-viral war, as the body is fighting off the disease of Judeo-Christianity and dying slowly in the process.
I simply offer my "two cents" on the side I relate to and consider noble.
My participation on these forums can be understood as such...and my style and insults can be justified as me fighting off brain-dead zombies who should not have been born and who, once born, are the infection personified.
I may be fighting a lost cause but I do not care. I find honor in simply belonging to this clan.

If history is a nothing but a struggle for survival, and mankind isn't moving towards anything more noble, than certainly the individual must look out for himself, and secondly, a distant second, his race, ethnicity and class, nevermind species, it would be kill Jews, kill niggers, kill your enemy. I'm not so certain though.. this is something I'm torn over, i mean, at one time, tribes warred against tribes, but tribes no longer war against tribes, we no longer even think in such terms, at least in the west, though familial love and selfishness is still strong. Perhaps man is evolving as a species. This is struggle going on in all of us, some more than others (Realism vs Idealism). Are we destined for something greater, or is all an illusion? That's why i wouldn't buy into any spiritual idea fully unless I was one of the ones in charge, to make sure I'm not duped. That way if selfishness (not that I'm against selfishness per say, rather, conditional or selective humanism may be one way of preserving the self), and we aren't going to the stars, then at least I'll get to.. nevermind. Besides, I feel I am a visionary, if anyone should lead, it should be me.

What I am proposing in my age of spirit is not anarchy, capitalism, communism or corporatism, but an artificial selection, where individuals would have to continually prove themselves worthy to the state, and even the state would have to continually prove itself worthy to the state (they would be judged from a moral standpoint, from a productivity standpoint, from an intellectual standpoint, from multiple standpoints), if found unworthy, they would not be taken care of, or they could even be destroyed, or banished, and this I think would serve the species, but perhaps the species itself is an illusion, and all that really exists are individuals, I'm not certain. When I'm in a positive mood, I am for the state, and conversely, I'm for, not the individual, but myself, fuck everyone else. One way of ensuring individual survival would be through a strong, cooperative state, and then perhaps humanity could spread its biological and cultural code throughout the cosmos. Do you ever dream such dreams, or do you think this is childish, utopian and, Jewish?

Guest

The government and society I describe, could be democratically elected, and it could exist alongside other parties, like a libertarian party that would balance it out.

But alas, humanity may not be ready for such a society, we may never be ready for such a society, biologically or culturally. No humanism, no progress, a war of all against all, until the sun explodes one day and ends it.

I guess the civilization I speak of, being very large (globalist), would make it very effete, though it would be on the masculine side of femininity, since it would be rational, philosophical and selective, discriminating.

Still, far from your traditionalism.

Do you see your traditionalism as being closer to anarchy, closer to the wild than what we have today? I guess it is. You see this increase in interactivity, rapid liberal progression and interdependency as a form of disorder, no that different from pure savagery. A chasing after absolutes. Maybe you'd've been happier if the French and American revolutions never occurred, of course you wouldn't've existed if they never occurred. You'd've been happier if Greece stuck with paganism. This idealism, utopias, high civilization (Hellenistic civilization as opposed to classical, you prefer classical and archaic to Hellenistic and Roman Greece, right?), is antithetical to life, for you.

You see in some ways, I get that, yet I have trouble letting go of my vision, because it flatters me, it is my creature, it could change the world, even if it changes it for the worse, and we destroy ourselves in the process. I like the wild, I like nature too, a dilemma it is, for me, for many.

Subject: Re: Modernity Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:20 am

eyesinthedark wrote:: This is true. What would a debate over substance look like? Communism vs Fascism, Zionism and affirmative action vs Nazism?

Nature versus any form of human nurturing.

eyesinthedark wrote:: This sounds like Jewish conspiracism.

The Jews simply adapted to the circumstances. Their worldview is attractive to the lowest of the low, and so they infect those who are at the bottom or feel wronged by nature: the disenfranchised and the feeble...which is the vast majority - ergo quantity versus quality.

You should read-up on what role land played to the ancients, the Aryan ancestors.
The Jews are the landless...and up until recently they were the world's wandering clan.
As such they came up with insights, as all outsiders do, as t how to survive within otherwise hostile or alien to them populations.

eyesinthedark wrote:: What I am proposing in my age of spirit is not anarchy, capitalism, communism or corporatism, but an artificial selection, where individuals would have to continually prove themselves worthy to the state, and even the state would have to continually prove itself worthy to the state (they would be judged from a moral standpoint, from a productivity standpoint, from an intellectual standpoint, from multiple standpoints), if found unworthy, they would not be taken care of, or they could even be destroyed, or banished, and this I think would serve the species, but perhaps the species itself is an illusion, and all that really exists are individuals, I'm not certain. When I'm in a positive mood, I am for the state, and conversely, I'm for, not the individual, but myself, fuck everyone else. One way of ensuring individual survival would be through a strong, cooperative state, and then perhaps humanity could spread its biological and cultural code throughout the cosmos. Do you ever dream such dreams, or do you think this is childish, utopian and, Jewish?

You should study ancient Greek and ancient Aryan social structures, their paternalistic inheritance, what a family was and what role the hearth played in their spirituality.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Guest

Quote :: Nature versus any form of human nurturing.

Well, for me, nature means being lazy and stealing.

I'm only an advocate of culture and nurture, if I'm the one doing the cultivating and the nurturing, know what I mean?

Such is the masculine attitude.

Quote :: The Jews simply adapted to the circumstances. Their worldview is attractive to the lowest of the low, and so they infect those who are at the bottom or feel wronged by nature: the disenfranchised and the feeble...which is the vast majority - ergo quantity versus quality.

You should read-up on what role land played to the ancients, the Aryan ancestors.
The Jews are the landless...and up until recently they were the world's wandering clan.
As such they came up with insights, as all outsiders do, as t how to survive within otherwise hostile or alien to them populations.

I like Jews, because they understand human nature.

I like human nature.

Subject: Re: Modernity Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:38 pm

eyesinthedark wrote:: Well, for me, nature means being lazy and stealing.

Why are your ideals so general?
When you kill a lamb to eat do you feel guilty?
If not, then why not?

eyesinthedark wrote:: I'm only an advocate of culture and nurture, if I'm the one doing the cultivating and the nurturing, know what I mean?

but the circumstances of you being a god-king are extraordinary, no?
Particularly in this time period and in this space, no?

So what now, for you?
Do you surrender?
Do you have a plan-B?

eyesinthedark wrote:: Such is the masculine attitude.

The "masculine attitude" as I've described it at least, is also adaptive and more discriminating.
This may be a hard thing for you to do but try it: Are all humans beings, as these have been defined to you and for you, actually so?

What, for you, defines a human from an ape or another beast, given that, according to Evolution Theory we are sop alike and only differ in small degrees, such as 0.3% or more?
What, for you, designates "human"?
Are you simply born into it, as these liberal fags claim?

Quote :: The Jews simply adapted to the circumstances. Their worldview is attractive to the lowest of the low, and so they infect those who are at the bottom or feel wronged by nature: the disenfranchised and the feeble...which is the vast majority - ergo quantity versus quality.

You should read-up on what role land played to the ancients, the Aryan ancestors.
The Jews are the landless...and up until recently they were the world's wandering clan.
As such they came up with insights, as all outsiders do, as t how to survive within otherwise hostile or alien to them populations.

I like Jews, because they understand human nature.

I like human nature.[/quote]Do you like and admire your enemy when, even after understanding what you do, they offer something which opposes it?

Jews manipulate human nature, using it to accomplish a task...a task contrary to yours, perchance, are you going to accept this?

Admiring, honoring, your enemies is part of the noble code.
Do you use this as a terms for surrender?

A native Indian kills Buffalo, and then pays homage to them, is this a term of capitulation?
Does this hunter surrender to its prey on the grounds that they are all alike? When a man makes a female surrender is he offering himself as a sacriice?

If I honor a mountain, because it despite itself, offers me water and prey and other things because it is in its nature to do no other, am I submitting to the mountain, or am I, simply, paying homage to it for what it offers despite itself?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Guest

Quote :: Why are your ideals so general?
When you kill a lamb to eat do you feel guilty?
If not, then why not?

I meant for me personally, my nature is to work soft and steal. My nature is antisocial, asocial and social, my nurture is more social. Sometimes I follow my nature, sometimes I follow my programming. I'd say I follow my nature more than most. This is because I am a man, free thinking, free feeling and independent.

I never said I feel guilty about stealing, I've robbed people and never once felt guilty, never physically injured my victims though. Guilt can be natural as well as unnatural. I think we've evolved some social feelings because social animals sometimes do better than asocial and antisocial animals, win win exchanges can be better (for individuals as well as the species) than win lose exchanges. I've never killed a lamb before, I've ate many a lamb, I've killed fish, and felt exhilarated, I even tortured a fish once, it was thrilling.

Quote :: but the circumstances of you being a god-king are extraordinary, no?
Particularly in this time period and in this space, no?

Yes, I don't foresee it occurring anytime soon, at this rate probably never, perhaps I'll write a book that will inspire future intellectuals to carry out some of my ordinances.

Quote :: So what now, for you?
Do you surrender?
Do you have a plan-B?

My plan b is to devote myself to my hobbies (the arts, philosophy) and live on the fringes of society. I've also thought of being a hobo, maybe keeping a diary of my thoughts and experiences, maybe doing a little investigative journalism, on the occult, on various subcultures and religions. I just get by in this world, I'm barely a part of the system, I am like a ghost, a phantom, if I left this world, few would notice or care. I was never a good slave.

Quote :: The "masculine attitude" as I've described it at least, is also adaptive and more discriminating.
This may be a hard thing for you to do but try it: Are all humans beings, as these have been defined to you and for you, actually so?

What, for you, defines a human from an ape or another beast, given that, according to Evolution Theory we are sop alike and only differ in small degrees, such as 0.3% or more?
What, for you, designates "human"?
Are you simply born into it, as these liberal fags claim?

Scientifically speaking, we're all human, I'm not sure if I have a personal definition or criteria for human. I guess brain dead vegetables aren't really human. Fetuses aren't really human. Are autistic and down syndrome folk human.. I'd say they're subhuman. I think many pure bred niggers are subhuman, as are many pure bred Australian Aborigines and Native Americans. People with below 70 IQs are subhuman, maybe even below 90.

I don't really engage the general public much, so sometimes I forget what they're like. I'd say there are degrees of human. I would consider the general public somewhat a part of my tribe, as I feel very estranged from them, in many ways. Are they deserving of my compassion, and my moral consideration? Well, maybe a little, as I offer some compassion and moral consideration to dogs and cats. I don't hate them, but I put myself first, and I put my own first. Who are my own? People who are intelligent, who respect me and my property, who do not try to forcefully control others. People who are not hateful and disrespectful, people who are easy going, not pacifists or cowards either. Minimalists, artists, thinkers, bohemian types I guess. Wild, free, rebellious, libertine (but not too wild). People who can stand to be alone for more than an hour, a day, or a month. People who aren't career oriented, or money oriented, people with imagination, creativity, people with dreams, poetic souls, who stand out in a crowd. I don't usually ask myself these questions, so my responses are as mysterious to me as I'm sure they are to you.

Quote :: Do you like and admire your enemy when, even after understanding what you do, they offer something which opposes it?

Actually, after reading about all that stuff they've done to us, and are planning on doing, I'd like to fucking kill motherfucking Jews. I hate them, I think Israel is a good thing, let them all move there, send them there by the millions, let the Arabs deal with them.

Quote :: Jews manipulate human nature, using it to accomplish a task...a task contrary to yours, perchance, are you going to accept this?

Admiring, honoring, your enemies is part of the noble code.
Do you use this as a terms for surrender?

No, I hate Jews, I like Larry David though, he's funny. I admire some of their traits, but the one who wants to kill me is my enemy, and I would gladly eat his children. I'm not sure if all Jews are out to get us, I had a couple Jewish acquaintences, and although one dabbled in the occult and witchcraft (he was a Rosicrucian), he didn't seem hell bent on taking my race over, it's probably only a minority aware of what what's going on, a sizable minority. I wouldn't advocate what Hitler supposedly advocated (well, maybe I would for the Rothschilds and co), they want land, give them land, send them all to Israel, I don't trust them, and there are some qualities about them I despise, like their incessant whining about the holocaust, their self righteous hypocrisy and their materialism, but I admire their intelligence, their existentialism, and how they see very deeply into the human condition. They are an interesting species, but not my own. I hope someone like David Duke gets elected in America, I'm not even sure who is advocating his kind of politics in Canada, but I'd probably vote for them, if they were for freedom and not fascism.

Quote :: A native Indian kills Buffalo, and then pays homage to them, is this a term of capitulation?
Does this hunter surrender to its prey on the grounds that they are all alike? When a man makes a female surrender is he offering himself as a sacrifice?

If I honor a mountain, because it despite itself, offers me water and prey and other things because it is in its nature to do no other, am I submitting to the mountain, or am I, simply, paying homage to it for what it offers despite itself?

Of course you're not submitting to the mountain or the buffalo.

Subject: Re: Modernity Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:39 pm

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

Jew Paradox

The Jewish paradox is a complex issue, one which demands a bit of mind-twisting openness to ideas which are, today, considered prejudice and “evil”.
To best explore the issue we will allow Jewish intellectuals to expose it for themselves, before we dare to comment on it, at the risk of being accused of “hate” and closed-minded primitive thinking.
Friedman was a well-known U.S. economist; an advocate of capitalism and an adviser to Ronald Reagan, Margaret thatcher and Menachem Begin; he was also, until his death, a staunch Zionist and a proud Jew.
Here is how he summed up the paradox:

Friedman, Milton wrote:: Here are two propositions. Each of them are validated by evidence yet they are both incompatible one with the other…there are few peoples in any in the world who owe so great a debt to free enterprise and competitive capitalism as the Jews…there are few peoples or any in the world who have done so much to undermine the intellectual foundation of capitalism as the Jews.

He continues:

Friedman, Milton wrote:: Jews have flourished most in countries in which competitive capitalism had the greatest scope: Holland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Britain and the U.S. in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Here is Friedman expressing his perplexity in regards to Jewish anti-capitalistic sentiments given the advantages Jews enjoy within capitalistic economic systems:

Friedman, Milton wrote:: Jews have been a stronghold of anti-capitalist sentiment. From Karl Marx through Leon Trotsky to Herbert Marcuse, a sizable fraction of the revolutionary anti-capitalist literature has been authored by Jews.

A more contemporary Jew, Gilad Atzmon, has this to say on the matter:

Gilad Atzmon wrote:: How could that be, Friedman wonders? Why is it that, despite the historical record of the benefits of competitive capitalism to the Jews; despite the intellectual explanation of this phenomenon that is implicit or explicit in much liberal literature from at least Adam Smith onwards, the Jews have been disproportionately anti-capitalist?

Friedman considers some answers –

Rather often we hear from Jews on the left that their affinity to humanitarian issues is driven by their ‘Jewish humanist heritage’. More than once I myself have commented that this is an utter lie. There is no such a Jewish heritage. Driven by tribal precepts, both Judaism and 'Jewish ideology' are devoid of universal ethics. If there are some remote patches of humanism in Jewish culture, these are certainly far from being universal.
Friedman, however, offered a further take on the subject: In direct reference to Lawrence Fuchs who argues that the anti-capitalism of the Jews is a ’direct reflection of values derived from the Jewish religion and culture,’ Friedman wonders -- if Jewish culture is, indeed, inherently anti-capitalist (as Fuchs suggests) how is it then, that Jews failed to successfully combat Capitalism and free markets throughout their history? Friedman analyses that whilst ‘Jewish religion and culture date back over two millennia; the Jewish opposition to capitalism and attachment to socialism, is at the most, less than two centuries.’

Friedman, Milton wrote:: Beginning with the era of the French revolution, the European political spectrum became divided into a ‘Left’ and a ‘Right’ along an axis that involved the issue of secularism. The Right (conservative, Monarchical, “clerical”) maintained that there must be a place for the church in the public order; the left (democratic, liberal, radical) held that there can be no Church at all . . .
The axis separating left from right also formed a natural boundary for the pale of Jewish political participation. It was the left, with its new secular concept of citizenship, that had accomplished the Emancipation, and it was only the left that could see a place for the Jews in public life.

In regards to this Atzmon responds:

Atzmon, Gilad wrote:: Such a reasoning, then, views Jewish affiliation with the left as a politically opportunistic move instead of a form of ‘moral awakening’.
Such a reading of the 'Jewish left' reaffirms my own critical assessment. It also explains why some Jews join the left -- they support cosmopolitanism, solidarity, an international working class; and yet, they themselves often seem to prefer to operate within ‘Jews only’ racially orientated cells such as the Bund, Jewish Socialists or even Jews For Boycott of Israeli Goods. Friedman’s reasoning might also explain why so many Jews who had their roots in the so- called ‘left’, ended up preaching moral interventionism and Neo Conservatism.
Friedman argues also, that Jewish affiliation with the left might be better understood as an attempt to disown some anti-Semitic stereotypes of the Jew as being “a merchant or moneylender who put commercial interests ahead of human values.”
According to Friedman, the Jewish anti-capitalist is there to prove that, far from being money-grabbing, selfish and heartless, Jews are really public spirited, generous, and concerned with ideals rather than material goods. ‘How better to do so than to attack the market with its reliance on monetary values and impersonal transactions and to glorify the political process, to take as an ideal a state run by well-meaning people for the benefit of their fellow men?’
And yet, in Friedman's logic then, it is not a ‘moral awakening’ that moves the Jew to the left; it is neither humanism, nor solidarity and nor is it kindness, but, instead, it seems to be a desperate attempt to replace or amend the Jewish image.

It seems to me that the message Kuper conveyed was pretty clear: Rather than being driven entirely by a genuine care for the Palestinians in Gaza, the Jewish boat was also engaged in a symbolic exchange. It was also there to save the image of the Jews rather than solely providing humanitarian support. This fact alone may explain why the Jewish boat hardly carried any humanitarian aid for the Gazans. Rather than a ‘humanitarian aid mission for the Palestinians,’ it was probably also an ‘image rescue for the Jews’.
Seemingly then, Friedman managed to resolve the paradox between his two initial propositions (Jews being the benefactors capitalism vs. Jews being profoundly anti-capitalist) by offering an historical and political explanation: Jews or Jewish intellectuals are not really against capitalism; it was just the “special circumstances of nineteenth-century that drove Jews to the left, and the subconscious attempts by Jews to demonstrate to themselves and the world the fallacy of the anti-Semitic stereotype.” It was neither ideology nor ethics.
This interpretation explains why left Zionism was doomed to disappear. During his talks, Friedman reviewed the right/left political division in Israel. He noticed that two opposing traditions were at work in the Jewish State: “an ancient one--going back nearly two thousand years-- of finding ways around governmental restrictions (and) a modern one-- going back a century-- of belief in “democratic socialism” and “central planning.” Friedman was clever enough to gather already in 1972 that it is the “Jewish tradition”, rather than ‘socialism’, that would prevail. Friedman noticed already in the 1970’s that Israel was capitalist to the bone. He predicted that the short phase of Zionist ‘pseudo socialism’ was foreign to Jewish culture.
Yet. It isn’t just Israeli left that was doomed to die. Friedman's reading of Jewish culture also explains why the Bund died; it didn’t really spread to the West; it also explains why the legendary Mazpen and other Jewish tribal anti-Zionist revolutionary groups have never attracted the Jewish masses.

Another Jew, Mitchel Heisman puts an organic slant on the Semitic “internal” debate:

Heisman, Mitchel wrote:: The view that Bernays and his nemesis, Chomsky, are consciously united in some Jewish national conspiracy is comparable to the belief that blacks have consciously organized to take over world basketball. While the extent of Jewish media influence can easily be exaggerated, the inordinate concentration of Jews in highly influential media positions does require an evolutionary explanation.
Jews may have an inclination to control human behavior with words and other media forms because Jews owe their very existence to their ancestor’s ability to control Jewish behavior with the media technology commonly known as the Bible. Modern Jewish media control is only an extension of ancient Jewish media self-control. Jews may have a genetic ability to influence human behavior with “nurture” because first, foremost, and fundamentally, Judaism was founded through the nurturist ability to overpower their own genetically maladaptive tendencies.
Jews exist because they embody this paradox of a genetic inclination to correct genetic inclination with “nurture”, i.e. the laws of Moses.

And more:

Heisman, Mitchel wrote:: The Jewish kinship paradox meant that this entire model was utterly improbable, if not impossible, for Jews. The Jewish kinship paradox meant that pure sociobiological naturalism was self-defeating.
To survive, Jews could only rest their faith in the post-biological corrective of Mosaic Law.
To survive, Jews could only look forward from the premise of the goodness of overcoming pure biological naturalism. There was no going back to nature, and this led the evolution of the Bible towards prophetic speculations about the full implications of overcoming biology in God.

The modern Western political left evolved as a direct extension of this original Biblical revolt against biology.

What is occurring is an internal Jewish affair having to do with the methodology used to inhibit resistance to their “dis-ease” and to assure their own ascent, in essence completing the nihilistic reversal of hierarchies their survival depends upon.

Look at what is occurring in Greece, and in Europe, in general.
Populations seeped in Judeo-Christian ethos, and the natural byproduct of humanism with its accompanying abstractions of materialism and hedonism is taking back what concessions had to be made during the "heat" of their Cold War internal struggles.
This internal struggle was brought about after the last challenge to Jewish "philosophical" authority had been dealt with: a fight over the spoils.

The entire thing was masked under the pretenses of "rights" and "freedoms" and "love"...and let us not forget, "Democracy" and "peace"...and, of course the obvious, anti-naturalism...ideas shared by both sides....all of it remaining on a mostly subconscious level making it, in this way, all the more effective a hypocrisy.

Consider it a battle between two strains of the same virus, infecting one body.

Here's [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] livid over having this fight going mainstream.
He reintroduces into the debate a Jewish form of censorship: shame; shame and all those catchphrases supposed to cause an emotional reaction: racism, sexism, holocaust...etc.

Dershowitz uses lawyer methods and instead of admitting that there is a de facto form of censorship on university campuses he chooses to call it by its more archaic name: taboo.

Here's another Jew, Noam Chomsky, exposing the true character of Dershowitz

The basic issue of the Jewish Paradox can be summed up as the paradox produced when an ideal fails to replace the real, causing a slight divergence, like a “splinter in the mind’s eye”.
The lie heavily depends on self-induced paroxysm; a type of schizophrenic state that never manages to remain convincing or hidden.
With the Jewish version of nihilism the world is turned on its head.
To achieve this feat not only must the mind endure early mind-cleansing, but must also be kept under supervision, a form of overseeing, but also it must be trained to self-censor, as in feel shamed or self-conscious about certain types of thinking.
This produces a lot of internal conflict.
The suicides of Weininger and Heisman can be considered as the end result of this internal strife, reaching the level of madness.
Obviously, there is no paradox in nature, but there are plenty of paradoxes produced when the human brain tries to impose a static model upon a fluid environment; or construct borders upon existence.

Once the fundamental workings of nature are dismantled and put together by a human mind with its own purposes and reasons reality goes out of whack.
The Jews, wanting to overturn the odds against them, but not appear to be doing so openly – for fear of reprisals – chose the more feminine method of guile, motherly attentiveness, manipulation, seduction, with the usual accompanying love/hate, envy, shame, and so on, techniques; if they were the bottom, in every social system, then how lese to reach the top in one stroke than to overturn all conceptions of right and wrong?

Judeo-Christian moralizing is this total dismissal of the world and its methods of establishing hierarchies and domination.
Their methodology depends upon maintaining the illusion that their struggle for power is not so, but that they denounce power as a form of weakness, to make it undesirable to the gentile and the infidel pagan.
Their methodology is about denying their own motives, the burning desire in their bosom, so as to make it all the more effective.

It is, in fact, a form of self-delusion, which denies natural selection and Evolution Theory so as to better take advantage of the environment.

Trivers, Robert wrote:: If…deceit is fundamental to animal communication, then there must be strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn to select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as to not betray – by the subtle signs of self-knowledge – the deception being practiced. Thus, the conventional view that natural selection favors nervous systems which produce ever more accurate images of the world must be a very naïve view of mental evolution.

I mean, can anyone imagine of a more arrogant proposition than to claim that you are one of God’s “chosen people”, and this from the most humble of the humble?
If Christianity became necessary in the spread of the virus it was because of this blatant exclusionary position.
Jewish “universality” is no more than an adaptation to current circumstances: a modernization of their primordial, original attitude.
There’s nothing more endearing than a humble man offering the Gardens of Eden and the milk and honey of a loving God.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Subject: Re: Modernity Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:43 pm

It should not be considered coincidental that the Jewish peoples acquired a homeland of their own after the end of the Second World War, nor that the internal conflict between segments of their elites resulted in what was later called the Cold War.
This “settling” down can be seen as an attempt to return to a more pagan lifestyle.
The home, the hearth it was built around, as well as the land it was built upon was an integral part of pagan life and paganistic rituals and self-identifications.

A virus, after all, acquires some traits form the body it infects, so as to better infect it and remain a viable parasitic element within it.
The more “masculine” members of the tribe saw in the end of the war an opportunity to come out of hiding, if you will. The game of deferring and lying and squirreling away their wealth was coming to an end with the establishment of Israel and the elimination of any centralized challenge to their ways.
What happened later was that all concessions made during this internal strife were taken back, bit by bit.

These were, and are, the conservative elements in Judaism – Judeo-Christianity.
Once the danger was over, first from the Nazi Germans and their pagan ways, and then from their own ranks, those that proposed a different variant to the Judeo-Christian methodology, there was a brief but in instructive free-for-all: to the victor go the spoils of war.

The liberal segment, having lived with the lie for so long and having associated it with their personal identity, was unable to reconcile with the notion that after so many thousands of years the truth about Jewishness and the tactics it had created to survive within socially and culturally hostile environments were all antithetical to their beliefs.
If liberalism finds some of its staunchest and most combative defenders within the secular Jewish community it is because it is these Jews who cannot deal with the reality of their kind’ duplicity and guileless. The truth of the situation represents an affront to their sense of self.

The label of “race” should not be used in its purely biological definition when discussing the Jews…or the Greeks; interesting that both these designations indicate a western attitude towards life and living.

If anything what the Jews taught the world was that they were “above nature” or any genetic designation.
They were God’s children, His chosen people, and they, being representatives of his un-earthly stature were beyond and above any king and any human hierarchy.
Their standing was on the spiritual realm; an abstraction they could pass on not via sexual intercourse but through oral traditions: memes.

Heisman, Mitchel wrote:: Judaism began with a belief in the power of nurture to overcome nature, a belief in mind over matter. It is the belief that the sociobiological logic represented by ancient Egypt is not the only way, and that by learning a people can survive otherwise. Gods, such as the sun god, rooted in observable nature, represent extensions of probable beliefs.
God, superior to the laws of nature, represents the utmost possibilities of belief.
Unity with God could transcend pagan unity with nature.
When one follows God’s laws over man’s (biologically ground) laws, one is literally overriding one’s own biological nature, and hence performing a perfectly “secular” miracle of non-biology transcending biological nature.

As representatives of God their ideas and ideals are God’s Will: a divine meme usurping all genetic considerations.

As such, the label of “race” takes on a more Hellenic definition, where paideia {παιδεια}, training, a shared mimetic infrastructure becomes the shared racial element.
To be “a Jew” is to think and believe, and reflect what the Jewish tradition teaches: to embody the Jewish, values as divine.
What advantages were to be gained were to be at the “End of Times” where God’s rule would be made obvious and all that served His will would receive their just rewards. Until then all infidels, all goyams are to be considered less than “divine” and, therefore, not deserving of the same consideration as the true Jew is.

The distinction is exemplified by the attitude religious Jews have towards interfaith marriages. Their resistance to other faiths, although never stated outright, consists in a kind of innate sense of superiority; a kind which cannot be admitted for this would challenge the identity of being God’s children: those chosen to suffer because of this eminence.
The Jews were “chosen” because all other peoples had refused God; they were the ones humble enough to surrender, since their entire history was about humility and humiliations; pride was rescued in the midst of disgraces. There is an element of retribution in Hebrew nihilism.
The Jews are “special” because they were the meekest of the meek, and they shall inherit an existence far greater than this earthly one. Jewish arrogance is expressed through a feigned humility.
Their privileged cosmic status consists in being the “chosen people; the ones who shall suffer far more than any other people as an indication and a test of their faith.
Through them mankind, as a whole, will be redeemed.

Anti-Semitism
To fall into the emotional trap of “hate” and calling one’s self an anti-Semite is to fall within the Semitic paradigm. At once the “hater” casts the other as the “lover”; the eternal victim of his love.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Subject: Re: Modernity Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:40 am

Satyr > I will only tell you this:
The "conspiracy" is not as awe inspiring as it sounds.
This tendency is natural; one brought about by natural selection itself.
Take human intelligence...it breeds the circumstances of its own obsolescence. There is no plan, only nature.
Now, allow me to describe my conception of "conspiracies". That they are all-powerful and behind every event, and that every cloud in the sky and every light in the night is them observing and overpowering us, is false.
Here is how it works:
Take a river flowing down a hillside.
This flowing downward is natural, there is no will behind it. what does man do? what does a will do?
It comes up with ways to use this naturally occurring phenomenon. It might build a dam; it might build dykes to redirect the flow....and so on.
So what is occurring in the context of what is being discussed?
It's been already stated that all social interactions entail a certain degree of emasculation. A male wolf experiences a drop in testosterone when it is included into a pack dominated by another male. none of this is directed by an external will...it is merely survival at work.
Now, suppose someone knew of this and wanted to use it to his own advantage. He might even declare that such things were primal and ridiculous, wanting to keep this information for himself.
Would he not by using a naturally occurring phenomenon try to direct and use it to his own advantage? He need not be behind the phenomenon itself, but only be a intervention upon it.
I would say that the game of natural selection and bloodlines has not ended...it has simply acquired more sophisticated means.
What could be more sophisticated than to convince your rival that he is already defeated, that violence is bad, that females, through which his kind is propagated, are free, that fornicating indiscriminately is good and valuable and an indication of "free-will", that the past is overcome and irrelevant...or inferior to the present and to what promises to come?
How powerful a method that would be, utilizing something that is occurring: overpopulation, resource and spatial limitations.
How effective it could be by merely manipulating already existent fears and hopes and desires and needs.
Look at marketing, read Bernays and how he utilized his uncle Freud's insights to create modern marketing and politics...then read how Freud is considered "overcome" and passe and old and a has-been.
Does marketing create need out of thin air or does it take a need, already existing, and redirect it, manipulate it, suppress and enhance it?
Men are no Gods...they are manipulators of matter and energy and circumstances.
Men did not invent gender differences, they simply took naturally concurring sexual differences and applied them, manipulated them.
The Jews simply adapted to the circumstances. Their worldview is attractive to the lowest of the low, and so they infect those who are at the bottom or feel wronged by nature: the disenfranchised and the feeble...which is the vast majority - ergo quantity versus quality.
The Jews are the landless...and up until recently they were the world's wandering clan.
As such they came up with insights, as all outsiders do, as t how to survive within otherwise hostile or alien to them populations.

Yes, the blame game and looking for scapegoats is useless.

But is there a difference between the Jewish claim of Hitler's Conspiracy to take over the world, and Hitler's claim of Jewish Conspiracy to destroy all noble culture?

Yes; it is the difference between possessing a natural or innate advantage and manufacturing an advantage.
Jewish Conspiracy is a synonym for a castrated male using feminine and beautiful seduction to deflect the eyes from its castrated condition, while announcing, "our cunning ways of operating chameleonically is Successful, such methods are sure way to Victory, watch how we have Prevailed, watch How our God's Revelation is Coming True"... this is the biggest Seduction. What is Convincing does not on that account have to be necessarily True. N. pointed out Jews are Logical people because when you lack all reasons, you secure by Compelling; logic compels. Its like you bury a treasure under an x-spot and then announce to people, discovering that treasure is sign of our victory and our right to everything else from now on. You first sow seeds of what is a Good cause, and then you make 'God's' Goodness come true. Liberalism first claims every individual is Unique and therefore it "invents" Inequality, and then founds and legitimates itself as the Good cause that Abhors all Inequality! So the real 'conspiracy' is not how they have prevailed, but how they defer and deflect their void by manufacturing the terms for what "to prevail" means.

_________________
[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.*

Subject: Re: Modernity Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:22 pm

Viagrification of the Modern World:

"Viagra has socio-cultural implications not limited to sexuality, but concerns various parts of our cultural landscape. Being relatively convincing in terms of bio-medical efficiency, criticism of Viagra has so far mainly been expressed in the (often feminist) "Liberal Arts" camp where Pfizer (the maker of Viagra) is reproached for its profit-oriented negation of any psychological, social, emotional, and relational components involved in impotency. Further criticism ridicules Viagra's mechanical imagery of a "techno-fix" not only intensifying the medicalization of impotency current since the early 1980s, but also making "sex into a medical function like digestion" (Tiefer 2003) and the fact that Viagra renders masculinity as a mere problem of chemical engineering, plumbing, and hydraulics." [Bronstein]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Subject: Re: Modernity Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:55 am

Modernity on display.
No matter what a brilliant mind says, it is equal to what this stupid bitch thinks, ergo both perspectives cancel themselves out and we are left with nothing; nothing, that is, but the final judge: our feelings.

Notice how ignorance, the "you can't know for sure" or "you don't know", becomes an argument to believe in just about anything.

Is there an alien spirit living in my skull controlling me?
Well, I can't ever really know, therefor it is possible.
Conclusion?
It's a topic worth considering and discussing seriously.

The equalizing force of absence: the nihilists greatest weapon.

If absolute 1 is impossible to prove, then this absolute 0 is evidence enough that anything is possible, including what most soothes us and comforts us....final end reached; a justification to remain as stupid as we like, particularly when ti has no immediate effect upon our survival given that stupidity is preferred and promoted as a means for social cohesion and stability.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Subject: Re: Modernity Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:37 pm

"I do believe that there is a spiritual or soulful element to humans that our science hasn't even come close to cracking."

"I believe there's something more out there and I'm entitled to that belief."

In a world of women, it sure is hard to find spirit in a physical form, eh? Empiricism isn't bringing you the fulfillment you want and to see reality as it is would be too debilitating to your inner perception where women are given the infinite promise of fulfillment that never comes.

She believes there's something more out there - just like every other young beautiful woman in the world until their beauty starts fading. That's when the state steps in and they start complaining to it that they were oppressed by men?

Interesting thought for myself.

Subject: Re: Modernity Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:54 pm

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

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

"The defining symptom of the modern time is a fixation on surface traits, and a denial of the underlying structure that is less obvious.

In order to have equality all words, concepts and communications must be exoteric, or accessible to every person in the group with a single step.

This in turn means they will be one one-dimensional, or represent a look at reality where face value becomes a universal, absolute, true and permanent condition which is an attribute of the object itself.

The resulting denial of cause-effect relationships, the passage of time and the fact that most properties arise from interaction instead of belonging to objects themselves, as a modern symptom, creates a kind of blindness that can even infect science.

But it is popular because it extends to all and every one the approval they need to join in society; for this reason, the individual does not feel threatened or compelled, and likes this state.

Unfortunately for them, challenges from life are how we grow. Even more, connections to other people including obligations are how we find meaning. We work together toward goals and others appreciate what we do.

However in a modern time that knowledge is covert wisdom, meaning that it can only be transmitted between those who have accepted the risk of breaking the taboo line.

The contrary idea, which is that all truths are immediately apprehended as a single property, remains very popular and expresses itself through many attitudes.

The worst perhaps of these is book worship — a weird fetish that idolizes the instruments of learning in lieu of the learning itself — because it substitutes fake knowledge for real.

Pretending that going to college makes us smarter, or buying books makes us wiser, is a modern conceit. Anyone can do those things and thus, if we’ve done them we feel no guilt, and if we’re good at them feel justified in being proud of that.

The fetishism of books and education is like all modern things a surrogate for actual knowledge. The learning process is not knowledge, nor are the books, nor the attendance of schools itself. Knowledge and wisdom are internal traits created by a compulsion to learn, and not just learn anything, but learn abilities which requires a study of reality.

If that were a widely distributed trait, humanity would be in a much different place. Since it is not, we fetishize books and other accoutrements of the educated, and pretend it makes us all equally wise and powerful."

_________________
[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.*

Subject: Re: Modernity Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:52 pm

You can see that the modern man's dismissal of appearances is because his own understanding and perception of appearances is so superficial and literal.

Appearance is essence, but you have to have an eye for detail and the ability to analyze what appears.

This is also evident in their obsession with minimizing racial designations to that of skin pigmentation.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

» Modernity
» Modernity
» Specimens, Modern Degenerates and Decadence - Genetic Filth...everywhere...
» Spengler: Riding the Tiger of Modernity
» Primal Masculinity vs Modernity's Feminzation