Ted Kaczunski was cool dude, if his brother hadn't exposed him, he probably could have had some cultural change on the enviromentalist movemen away from liberalism.
Anyway Primal Rage, I hope to childishly shame you away from humanism by calling you a chicken.
Oh, yes, go on! Continue to accuse me of being a Leftist even when I openly deny it. I must automatically be a Leftist because I want to help some unfortunate souls out. Oh, yes! And a weasel must, automatically, be a professional hockey player because it moved a hockey puck. Brilliant F-- logic, no?
Life is cruel.
Elliot Rodger knew this. He couldn't handle it. Can you?
Some advice, because you seem to be cracking up and all your heartfelt sentiments and facades seem to be dissolving away.
Try some solitude. Learn something. Something tangible.
Ted Kaczunski was cool dude, if his brother hadn't exposed him, he probably could have had some cultural change on the enviromentalist movemen away from liberalism.
Anyway Primal Rage, I hope to childishly shame you away from humanism by calling you a chicken.
I'm not a humanist - I have some humanitarian desires, but that's about it. Or maybe I should just say to myself, " Fuck those goddamn little orphaned bastards - let them rot and suffer in silence. I'm going to go and do something better like blow up some random federal agents. Yeah, that's noble ".
Oh, yes, go on! Continue to accuse me of being a Leftist even when I openly deny it. I must automatically be a Leftist because I want to help some unfortunate souls out. Oh, yes! And a weasel must, automatically, be a professional hockey player because it moved a hockey puck. Brilliant F-- logic, no?
Life is cruel.
Elliot Rodger knew this. He couldn't handle it. Can you?
Some advice, because you seem to be cracking up and all your heartfelt sentiments and facades seem to be dissolving away.
Try some solitude. Learn something. Something tangible.
Elliot was a feeble-minded, spoiled, delusional boy.
I'm not cracking up. I'm just getting tired of people accusing me of things I am not. And your statements just prove that you have no clue what you are talking about. I extend my kindness to those who merit it. I never said I was going to become some push-over to a bunch of miserable neocons who neurotically imagine me to be some bleeding heart liberal.
Some advice: Don't jump to conclusions right away; you end up by making an ass of yourself.
Dude, you're too simple-minded to pick up on any patterns of what is actually going on in this sophomoric thread of yours. And you're just boring me.
Maybe i'll see ya around sometime, or on the news.
Ah, yes. Boring because you posted numerous times on this thread. You and many others have been trying so hard to turn this into a heated altercation, trying to get a rise out of me.
Maybe you will see me on the news like your buddy Teddy the " Unabomber". Who knows, we will just have to wait and see.
Just trying to figure things out, and mabey help along the way baby. In heinsight some of my long past former comments probably seem more plausable to you now then at first. No?
Just trying to figure things out, and mabey help along the way baby. In heinsight some of my long past former comments probably seem more plausable to you now then at first. No?
In which case:
Yeah, they do seem more plausible now. I guess you were right about many things. I'm evolving, baby.
perpetualburn
Gender : Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-04 Location : MA
Don't tell me that you admire the bastard too.... I find it very concerning that people of supposed nobility and classiness would not immediately be weary of a man who went around making bombs to murder people. All this talk of modern degeneracy yet how they admire a degenerate...ironic, no? Disturbing.
Quote :
Anfang, I looked up this...guy....Teddy. I've, actually, heard of him before, but via the name " Unabomber". He is trash, omega scum-bag, a serial killer. The lowest of the low. Why should I take anything he says seriously? And he critiqued Leftism - I'm NOT a leftist. His opinions, to me, are in the same ball park as that moron Charles Manson.
There's a tendency to echo the popular sentiment whenever certain key names are mentioned. A way of not feeling "too out there" no matter how "controversial" a person thinks they are. It's almost a safety net in a way. You can always fall back on the collective moral cushion... e.g., a person can feel OK talking about Nietzsche and any controversy this creates with the establishment, but if he dares to seriously entertain someone like Hitler, he suddenly finds himself in a very lonely position. People also have this shameless, effeminate way of having to "qualify" everything they say that could be considered controversial. Like the way some people have to make sure we don't misinterpret Nietzsche as an anti-semite or a misogynist. This could just be a political move but it's still a less than desirable way of speaking.
How "low" is Hitler, Primal?
_________________ And here we always meet, at the station of our heart / Looking at each other as if we were in a dream /Seeing for the first time different eyes so supreme / That bright flames burst into vision, keeping us apart.
Don't tell me that you admire the bastard too.... I find it very concerning that people of supposed nobility and classiness would not immediately be weary of a man who went around making bombs to murder people. All this talk of modern degeneracy yet how they admire a degenerate...ironic, no? Disturbing.
Quote :
Anfang, I looked up this...guy....Teddy. I've, actually, heard of him before, but via the name " Unabomber". He is trash, omega scum-bag, a serial killer. The lowest of the low. Why should I take anything he says seriously? And he critiqued Leftism - I'm NOT a leftist. His opinions, to me, are in the same ball park as that moron Charles Manson.
There's a tendency to echo the popular sentiment whenever certain key names are mentioned. A way of not feeling "too out there" no matter how "controversial" a person thinks they are. It's almost a safety net in a way. You can always fall back on the collective moral cushion... e.g., a person can feel OK talking about Nietzsche and any controversy this creates with the establishment, but if he dares to seriously entertain someone like Hitler, he suddenly finds himself in a very lonely position. People also have this shameless, effeminate way of having to "qualify" everything they say that could be considered controversial. Like the way some people have to make sure we don't misinterpret Nietzsche as an anti-semite or a misogynist. This could just be a political move but it's still a less than desirable way of speaking.
How "low" is Hitler, Primal?
I understand that there are certain conditioned ' knee jerk ' reactions to people like Hitler. But I've learned much about who he was, and I understand his initial anger to what was happening to Germany. But that doesn't mean I agree with what he did, to the Jews. What the Jews endured under his wrath was sadistic and ' F-- up ' even to most people's standards on KTS.
A sentimental person thinks he's feeling. There is a difference.
I know you don't want to help just anyone. The emphasis was on the heart part. The heart doesn't care about statistics and orphans who are only an abstraction for you as of yet, without a personal encounter. Humanitarians are usually sentimental - so not about the heart.
It is not everyone he wants to help. It is those he sees as most vulnerable. A child with no parents. Having felt vulnerable, powerless, and to have com back from it, has given him the ability to empathize with the vulnerable and powerless.
perpetualburn
Gender : Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-04 Location : MA
I understand that there are certain conditioned ' knee jerk ' reactions to people like Hitler. But I've learned much about who he was, and I understand his initial anger to what was happening to Germany. But that doesn't mean I agree with what he did, to the Jews. What the Jews endured under his wrath was sadistic and ' F-- up ' even to most people's standards on KTS.
Isn't this just more safe moralizing though? Aren't you presuming a familiarity with KTS member standards (i.e. "even" the most fringe KTS member couldn't possibly "agree" with the actions of Hitler... this is a given(is the blanket feeling) )...Can one empathize with something terrible while keeping one's distance? As a test, speak about Hitler(or some other branded name) with close friends or family in the most objective, non-committal way possible, and even then, you'll feel an incredible tension in the air... Once you start speaking(about anything) with your friends and family they immediately start to empathize with your words because they know you so well. So when you speak about something as "evil" as Hitler(doesn't matter if they believe in evil or not) everyone becomes leery and quiet, the mood is in jeopardy, a chasm develops because as you speak you're putting the balance and familiarity they have with you at risk(they'll even resent you for making them feel ill towards you)... the only way to save the situation is with a joke... laughter brings everyone back into that safe, stable familiar place. Few people understand that brutal honesty doesn't make you a brute. The situation isn't just confined to close friends/family as the move now is towards "one big family" called "humanity." Loyalties become convoluted and mushy (people aren't sure what they're loyal to, except to certain gut feelings and convenient loves... but they "know" that "we"(humanity) has made too much "progress" to "go back now"... the "good" feelings have become ingrained... even talking about these "evil" things(no matter the approach) is seen as uncivil...the irony)
Edit: Didn't notice the picture in your post before... Isn't it funny how those that use shock value to win an argument are so easily "shocked"("how DARE you") when someone says something morally offensive?
_________________ And here we always meet, at the station of our heart / Looking at each other as if we were in a dream /Seeing for the first time different eyes so supreme / That bright flames burst into vision, keeping us apart.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
A sentimental person thinks he's feeling. There is a difference.
I know you don't want to help just anyone. The emphasis was on the heart part. The heart doesn't care about statistics and orphans who are only an abstraction for you as of yet, without a personal encounter. Humanitarians are usually sentimental - so not about the heart.
It is not everyone he wants to help. It is those he sees as most vulnerable. A child with no parents. Having felt vulnerable, powerless, and to have com back from it, has given him the ability to empathize with the vulnerable and powerless.
What are you even talking about? Where does it say anything about wanting to help everyone? What an aggravating.....
I understand that there are certain conditioned ' knee jerk ' reactions to people like Hitler. But I've learned much about who he was, and I understand his initial anger to what was happening to Germany. But that doesn't mean I agree with what he did, to the Jews. What the Jews endured under his wrath was sadistic and ' F-- up ' even to most people's standards on KTS.
Isn't this just more safe moralizing though? Aren't you presuming a familiarity with KTS member standards (i.e. "even" the most fringe KTS member couldn't possibly "agree" with the actions of Hitler... this is a given(is the blanket feeling) )...Can one empathize with something terrible while keeping one's distance? As a test, speak about Hitler(or some other branded name) with close friends or family in the most objective, non-committal way possible, and even then, you'll feel an incredible tension in the air... Once you start speaking(about anything) with your friends and family they immediately start to empathize with your words because they know you so well. So when you speak about something as "evil" as Hitler(doesn't matter if they believe in evil or not) everyone becomes leery and quiet, the mood is in jeopardy, a chasm develops because as you speak you're putting the balance and familiarity they have with you at risk(they'll even resent you for making them feel ill towards you)... the only way to save the situation is with a joke... laughter brings everyone back into that safe, stable familiar place. Few people understand that brutal honesty doesn't make you a brute. The situation isn't just confined to close friends/family as the move now is towards "one big family" called "humanity." Loyalties become convoluted and mushy (people aren't sure what they're loyal to, except to certain gut feelings and convenient loves... but they "know" that "we"(humanity) has made too much "progress" to "go back now"... the "good" feelings have become ingrained... even talking about these "evil" things(no matter the approach) is seen as uncivil...the irony)
Edit: Didn't notice the picture in your post before... Isn't it funny how those that use shock value to win an argument are so easily "shocked"("how DARE you") when someone says something morally offensive?
Of course there would be tension in the air if I were to discuss Hitler with my family just like if I were to discuss the intellectual merits of a chainsaw murdering cannibal. That's normal and to be expected. I can look past the evil deeds of a given person for the sake of intellectualism, but it's always in the back of my mind that person X is a psychopath. A certain amount of credibility is lost whether consciously or sub.
perpetualburn
Gender : Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-04 Location : MA
Of course there would be tension in the air if I were to discuss Hitler with my family just like if I were to discuss the intellectual merits of a chainsaw murdering cannibal. That's normal and to be expected.
Treating the "tension" as "normal and to be expected" is the issue, more moral justification.
Quote :
I can look past the evil deeds of a given person for the sake of intellectualism, but it's always in the back of my mind that person X is a psychopath. A certain amount of credibility is lost whether consciously or sub.
A "certain amount of credibility" is lost by even entertaining an evil idea because you already know(in the back of [your] mind) that a certain person is evil( "a psychopath")? Credibility is lost by thinking about things you know which are wrong?
_________________ And here we always meet, at the station of our heart / Looking at each other as if we were in a dream /Seeing for the first time different eyes so supreme / That bright flames burst into vision, keeping us apart.
To Stargazer, I'm not a liberal nor do I plan on becoming one. But I do see how one might misconstrue me as one.
You do? If I see a book with a title "organic gardening" should i assume that gardening has nothing to do with it because the word 'organic' was included? That you are projecting an altruistic outlook to anonymous people who you haven't even considered might not give a dam about your true spiritual quest, says that you do not know why you suddenly feel drawn to philanthropy. You are intuiting from a shallow perspective and submitting to an aimless mentality because on some level you fear reason, or you fear the cost that comes with being loyal to certain principles, the cost of self-knowledge.
Your encounter with your mortality, was simply the catalyst, nothing more.
You are reacting as impulsively as he is.
This is nothing but a new found motivation. I don't think that he has gone out and spent his life savings feeding little children just yet.
The fact that he is here asking for your opinion/criticism shows an interest to investigate what is behind this motivation. That you perceive it as shallow and aimless is a result of him not having these answers which he is here, asking you to help him find.
So how about you stop throwing rocks at him, from your own prejudice, and give him some actual constructive criticism that he can absorb?
Nope, I took my time with my short response. Now you make me wanna stomp my foot on the ground and get all angry and upset about your silly misinterpretation of my posts. Little Anfang is really mad now... Imagine what you like, barbie girl.
But nice try in playing me off against Primal. You remind me of those southern belles, trying to garner a few suitors around them and to enjoy the drama.
Does this come natural to you? Did you have to train a lot for it or is it a gift by nature?
Then you have such a narrow and rigid view of leftism.
Any psychology that favours the protection and preservation of an alien because it weak is a starting degree of leftism.
Preservation of alien because it is weak is a leftism. Preservation of a weak alien because ....??? ... may be a leftism, but may not. We don't know yet.
We know that a motivation exists. We don't know the source.
Nope, I took my time with my short response. Now you make me wanna stomp my foot on the ground and get all angry and upset about your silly misinterpretation of my posts. Little Anfang is really mad now... Imagine what you like, barbie girl.
But nice try in playing me off against Primal. You remind me of those southern belles, trying to garner a few suitors around them and to enjoy the drama.
Does this come natural to you? Did you have to train a lot for it or is it a gift by nature?
Anfang, as you can see from what I quoted, that was meant for stargazer.
Now you've made yourself look like you're eager to pick up a fight with me, didn't you? Dos this come natural to YOU?
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
I understand that there are certain conditioned ' knee jerk ' reactions to people like Hitler. But I've learned much about who he was, and I understand his initial anger to what was happening to Germany. But that doesn't mean I agree with what he did, to the Jews. What the Jews endured under his wrath was sadistic and ' F-- up ' even to most people's standards on KTS.
Isn't this just more safe moralizing though? Aren't you presuming a familiarity with KTS member standards (i.e. "even" the most fringe KTS member couldn't possibly "agree" with the actions of Hitler... this is a given(is the blanket feeling) )...Can one empathize with something terrible while keeping one's distance? As a test, speak about Hitler(or some other branded name) with close friends or family in the most objective, non-committal way possible, and even then, you'll feel an incredible tension in the air... Once you start speaking(about anything) with your friends and family they immediately start to empathize with your words because they know you so well. So when you speak about something as "evil" as Hitler(doesn't matter if they believe in evil or not) everyone becomes leery and quiet, the mood is in jeopardy, a chasm develops because as you speak you're putting the balance and familiarity they have with you at risk(they'll even resent you for making them feel ill towards you)... the only way to save the situation is with a joke... laughter brings everyone back into that safe, stable familiar place. Few people understand that brutal honesty doesn't make you a brute. The situation isn't just confined to close friends/family as the move now is towards "one big family" called "humanity." Loyalties become convoluted and mushy (people aren't sure what they're loyal to, except to certain gut feelings and convenient loves... but they "know" that "we"(humanity) has made too much "progress" to "go back now"... the "good" feelings have become ingrained... even talking about these "evil" things(no matter the approach) is seen as uncivil...the irony)
Edit: Didn't notice the picture in your post before... Isn't it funny how those that use shock value to win an argument are so easily "shocked"("how DARE you") when someone says something morally offensive?
I posted the image because it's potent, an image that reminds sane people of how much of a piece of shit Hitler, really, was.
Let me ask you in return, what do you think of Hitler? How " high " in esteem do you hold him?
A sentimental person thinks he's feeling. There is a difference.
I know you don't want to help just anyone. The emphasis was on the heart part. The heart doesn't care about statistics and orphans who are only an abstraction for you as of yet, without a personal encounter. Humanitarians are usually sentimental - so not about the heart.
It is not everyone he wants to help. It is those he sees as most vulnerable. A child with no parents. Having felt vulnerable, powerless, and to have com back from it, has given him the ability to empathize with the vulnerable and powerless.
What are you even talking about? Where does it say anything about wanting to help everyone? What an aggravating.....
But then again -
I'm going to ignore your mockery, you silly bean.
The gist of your post is that his motivation is sentimental, and thus not from the heart. (????) I skipped through your poor use of word and went to address the heart part.
That he is only thinking that he is feeling, and not really feeling. As I see, his motivation is driven from empathy, which is a harmonization of a feeling between the self and the other.
As to your poor usage of word, if you mean it as something that is not guided by heart, by emotion, by feeling, why would you use "sentimental"?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37106 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Try to question the 6 million number of the holocaust, or mention how a bigger genocide was perpetrated against the native Americans, or that the Turks massacred just as many Armenians and that all people have suffered; dare to mention that the Jews had "declared war on Germany" way before the Second World War began, proposing and pressuring , politically, for a boycott of German products; say anything remotely contrary to the official narrative about blacks, women, homosexuals; try to admit that Nazism had a philosophical framework and that Hitler was not mad...see how far it gets you.
It's called social censorship...one of its titles is political-correctness. No bullies, no names like "bossy, fag, homo, retard, cripple, nigger, stupid, bitch", not a hint of a derogatory remark, because if you mention the negative you are complaining, and not simply making a factual statement...
If you don't want to be looked at sideways, whispered about in private, or considered a whiner, just pretend all is fine and whatever the majority believes is true is true, crack a joke, have fun, make money, get laid...otherwise you put your sanity, your sexual virility, your social status your genetic potential into doubt.
Smile and nod.... Do not frown...they might call you sad, and bitter, and mad. Smiiile....like a goofball. Laugh often, to pretend you are funny, if you are not. Have a drink, eat, fuck, it might help put that smile on your face.
Never think. Memorize words and the definitions, and repeat....and one and two, and one and two... aaaand dance...and sway, and dip, and bob, and bow, and roll, and again... and jete, plie, and prance... and for god's sake love one another.
Good luck with that. Keep me posted.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:46 pm; edited 2 times in total
The one bringing emotions in to this post yet again now is You. You have an OM symbol in your signature in a contextual thread dealing with benevolence and love and altriusm and ego-death, and I speak of the "matter", the "content".... and what do you do?
You try to insert your vengeance and bitterness out of no reason getting into matters of my location...
Your attention wandered. This is a FACT.
If you feel ashamed, that is for your sensation, not my intention.
Is this how you saw it?
He said you must know about OM because you're from India. The only way I could ever see that as an attempt at bitter vengeance, was if I considered to be from India something insulting. We know you're proud of your roots... so what gives?
Besides, to say you must know about OM would be like someone saying I must know about samba and futebol because I'm from Brazil. Wouldn't always be correct, but a pretty good guess, wouldn't you say?
Why must it all be an invitation to take the gloves off? You are paranoid. I think you should take your own advice:
Quote :
Say Shanti Shanti Shantiiiiii OM. And you'll feel the sensation of natural overflowingness.
If you don't want to be looked at sideways, whispered about in private, or considered a whiner, just pretend all is fine and whatever the majority believes is true is true, crack a joke, have fun, make money, get laid...otherwise you put your sanity, your sexual virility, your social status your genetic potential into doubt.
Smile and nod.... Do not frown...they might call you sad, and bitter, and mad. Smiiile....like a goofball. Laugh often, to pretend you are funny, if you are not. Have a drink, eat, fuck, it might help put that smile on your face.
Never think. Memorize words and the definitions, and repeat....and one and two, and one and two... aaaand dance...and sway, and dip, and bob, and bow, and roll, and again... and jete, plie, and prance... and for god's sake love one another.
Good luck with that. Keep me posted.
haha...I love it when the Satyr emits his flute. undeniable truth with unbridled artistic flare.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
That he is only thinking that he is feeling, and not really feeling. As I see, his motivation is driven from empathy, which is a harmonization of a feeling between the self and the other.
Since you have an issue with my use of the word sentimentality -
Jung wrote:
Atrophy of feeling is a characteristic of modern man and always shows itself as a reaction when there is too much feeling around, and in particular too much false feeling. From the lack of feeling in “Ulysses” we may infer a hideous sentimentality in the age that produced it. But are we really so sentimental today?…there is a good deal of evidence to show that we actually are involved in a sentimentality hoax of gigantic proportions. Think of the lamentable role of popular sentiment in wartime! Think of our so-called humanitarianism! The psychiatrist knows only too well how each of us becomes the helpless but not pitiable victim of his own sentiments. Sentimentality is the superstructure erected upon brutality.
A humanitarian can't be heartbroken about anyone he helps - how else can he keep on doing what he does? Sentimentality is something originating from the thinking function not the feeling function.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37106 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Let's face it....nothing "negative" should be spoken out-loud...because you know why? No, not just because; no, not a spontaneous reaction; no, in this case it's because you are a loser, and a bitter, sad, lonely, man, complaining because you have a bad lot in life.
In this case it is permitted to go beyond the 'just because'...and the 'spontaneity'.
No critique, unless it is positive, or offers a solution, to leave us in high spirits.
Right there!! The end of man. No thinking, no critiquing, no reasoning....no just enjoying the spectacle of existence.
When being raped, why don't women just smile and enjoy it? Why complain and go crying to the cops? It's all good. Just give in to the pleasure...you know you feel it.
Allow me to demonstrate...
I kiss you, and/or hug you. "Hey! what gives?" you complain. "Just because" I shrug. you smile
Now... I punch you in the face. "Hey!" what gives?" you complain. "Just because" I shrug...
What do you do? "What a fuckin' loser...are you insane?!!! You scream.
See the double standard?
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
".
