In the same way rejection does not mean hatred, affirmation does not mean love.
Those without a home, without safety, will be forced to these extremities because they have no place which would shelter them from the inevitably unsafe world.
What safety is left for them, then? They are always on their second wind. They are doggish, always, to the point of trusting nothing else. All their houses would be destroyed or taken, so they do not build for themselves.
They are always, at base, equal to each other. Their most basic nature is what defines them. Every time they must labor, they recoil in pain. No wonder, then, they call for everyone to "share" and everyone to labor. All must equally suffer if they are to affirm a natural world with an absent God.
The ultimate theoretical affirmer of life would be God. It then becomes the task of God to affirm Satan.
"Satanic deception: to reject him and his ways is to hate him." Here the contradiction in scripture develops which says to Christians they must love everyone.
There is no home for Satan in the righteous. Jews could live among Pagans but not rule over them. So, a hybrid of their religions with with the replacement of Pagan Gods with the Semitic God happened.
Christ affirms Satan with His resurrection - by sacrificing and martyring himself. The suffering of christ as "bad" flies in the face of the Jewish "taking joy" in suffering.
In actuality, there are two ideas ideas of what must happen for the Jewish messiah to come: Either suffering must be so great that the messiah decides to come or the Jewish people's must have enormous success in worship or prosperity before the Messiah comes. Which branch of theology dominates, evolutionarily speaking? The one promoting success. However, the ones who must have suffer can invert this now: they then begin to suffer their own success because it makes the messiah further away from coming. With their success, their suffering then increases. Logically, they must only speak against the success of Jews. To practically in any other way try to hurt the efforts of pro-Jews would would be to work for their own success, which is against their active suffering. [There is only one option left for the Jew whom believes that suffering is when the messiah comes: Always radically be for their ethnic-interests in all possible ways. Under the idea that the suffering must be authentic.] -- The Orthodox Israel Rabbi says that a Jewish boys fingernail is worth the lives of 1000 gentiles. The New Testament says for Christians to "suffer for Christ". -- Apotheosis To raise a mortal to divine status. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
In the apotheosis traditions, the mortal becomes a god. The way that looks is that either the body is taken up or the body remains and a divine body goes to the gods. What is in common is that dwelling with the gods is the point of the whole affair and it happened immediately at death. You do not see the heroes or emperors walking around earth. The apotheosis is accepted solely on faith or a decree by the senate.
How do the Gospel accounts fit with this? Mark likely ended his Gospel at Mark 16:8. While Mark does not give an actual resurrection appearance, the Gospel ends not with Jesus in heaven but in Galilee. Matthew has a much fuller resurrection narrative, but like Mark, Jesus is left in Galilee and not in heaven. The Gospel of John ends with Jesus having breakfast at the seaside with his disciples. Luke alone of the evangelists describes Jesus’ ascension (Luke 24:51). However, even here Luke puts much more emphasis on the resurrection appearances on earth than anything that happens in heaven and in fact the ascension is remarkable in the brevity of its description.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Demigod: The term demigod or demi-god can refer to a minor deity, a mortal who is the offspring of a god and a human being, or a figure who has attained divine status after death. In popular culture:
In popular culture, the movie 300, we see the Persian king is described as a God. "Gods do not bleed." -- Monogamy was the "settling" of the lower classes in Rome. To limit sexual relationships to that of monogamy, the more intelligent and noble classes become thinned out. Christianity promoted this equality between classes through a practice of monogamy.
In theory, nothing should have changed due to Christian doctrine - the rising up of the slaves should never have happened according to actual doctrine which promotes martyring themselves to speak the Word of God, but in practice the lowly are never satisfied with just that. The suffering of their brethren made them rise up against the state, which was their sin against God's wishes that they remain obedient. So there it is, hiding behind religious theory, they can ask for forgiveness after having risen up like they did. The excuse of the most base, the lower classes. The lower classes which are required to keep as soldiers against foreign enemies. Once the lower classes have converted, there is nothing a king may do.
Last edited by Slaughtz on Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:32 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : [Ju=Extremism])
The ultimate theoretical affirmer of life would be God. It then becomes the task of God to affirm Satan.
The Christian cultured Pagan is faced with a choice: Be powerless in all Earthly things as the bible commands or Be rich in Earthly things but face the criticism of "Satan" that they are not God but their desire for power (showcased by riches) demonstrates a desire to be like God. The Pagan must then struggle against the eternal yowling of Satan that he is a fraud who does not affirm him, as the "real God" does. Accusations against the Pagan that the Pagan hates "Satan" for rejecting him, continue eternally.
The death of God cannot be a tragedy because the death of God is the death of tragedy.
I recently argued academically that kindness is an affirming behavior (a la Nietzsche). One who has sympathy and helps with kindness (taking responsibility for something of which there would be no cost to them otherwise), is striving to continue saying "yes" in a noble manner. To take full responsibility for their own compassion, but also for the plight of other.
[Tanget: Here we can see how a charlatan would twist this sentiment: They would say to the kind person that to be kind actually helps the kind person themselves - that is, it helps them achieve their noble and affirmative goals. Here is where SJW stuff comes from: the assertion that to help another is to automatically help oneself. Here a benefactor may set themselves up as the eternally needy and reap maximum benefit.]
Obvious to KTS, an affirmer is who says "Yes" to being responsible for themselves fully, for their inheritance. Academically, I argued/connected the former "sympathetic" nobility (not the tangent) to this same behavior. The nobility of kindness is also the same nobility with which someone fully accepts responsibility for their own inheritance.
I wonder what sort of cognitive dissonance this connection would cause in the more capable thinkers, committed to the abolishment of "genetic injustice" - how a born amputee is owed nothing for his disease, but only human intervention thinks so. "To be noble is to be human." says the one who lives comfortably, who is the utmost privileged.
Is it better to be evil yet "selfless" or good yet "selfish"? For example a successful farmer provides an excess of food and resources. He may want to give away extra food, Abundance, for the mere reason that he has too much for himself to consume. His selflessness is not "for the good" of another, explicitly. He may even give food away to people he despises, cannot tolerate, or would otherwise see dead (a foreign tribe). And so his selflessness is not necessarily 'good' while his personage and character can be construed as 'evil', not truly nor honestly caring about those who feed from his excess.
Yet then there is the "good" social worker who gives food and loose change to the homeless, to "feel better" about him/herself or to impress others around. And while a person may gain a social reputation as "good", the motives are truly selfish and self-centered.
Actually this scenario perfectly matches the attitude and political climate of today. For example, to many liberals-leftists, President Trump can "do no good". And so although his surpluses and successes may benefit some people (his sycophants first), he will never be deemed 'good' for donating his excess, even to those who despise him (a portion of the "American people").
There is a point to be made. In today's Modern world, if you go against the grain of modern nihilism, then no matter how actually 'good', selfless, or giving you are may redeem your "wrong ideas" or "wrong mindset" or metaphysics. Ne'er do well, in such a political climate more extreme measures must be taken when the opposing side never allows for the smallest win by an opponent, and tries to capitalize on every small defeat. I notice this in comment sections of news articles on the internet and internet videos. When there is a shooting, murder, or death, even when accidental, then it provides an opportunity for opining "gun control" or other issues and topics. The political motivations 'trump' all other (moral) concerns.
Thus selfishness/selflessness, which is actually a measure of Parasitism/Excess, can be amoral, nothing to do with a judgment of individual/social "good and evil".
I never wondered about things like what is love or what is soul or what is the purpose of life. What did eventually matter was understanding how other people think and what drives them. How men are different from women and how different kinds of man are different from one another.
How other people try to get through life, seeing how they try to get by as an inspiration for myself on how to maybe do things differently.
Not overly eager to systemise everything into oblivion.
* * *
Isn't this systemising, this tearing everything apart to the lowest single atomised component actually more about language than about understanding? I can understand how something works without necessarily deconstructing it into the smallest pieces. But, if I could tear it all apart and construct a grand unified theory for everything then that would make it teachable to everybody and anybody, as long as they have enough endurance and are capable of the most basic logical operations. Maybe the goal of all this is not so much understanding but universalising the worldview so that really everybody, intelligent or not and with different innate approaches to the world, with enough endurance can be on par with everybody else.
1. Systematization and Objectivity for me, in the above context, is what I'd call Quality control. But as in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], robustness for ascertaining optimal output in proportion to input is reduction of waste or errors, so that every time you key in x, you are certain of getting y… Standardizations are useful - as means, that enable us to build something upon such regularity; we wouldn't have weather forecasts without it, to use a metaphor… Like well-springs you can count on... Becoming an ends in itself would be a backfire. Also, a robustness that cannot allow for the view that errors are valuable in the larger economy of things maybe a progress in establishing truths, but can be a setback in founding knowledge.
2. If language is seen as a tool, then with regard to understanding and communication, the thought to mull over is, is one saying, "You are only as good as your instruments" or "Are your instruments only as good as you?"
3. If getting to the root of things is motivated only by the urge to communicate, then one has arrived at Wittgenstein's utilitarian world of language games.
To the Modern Woman: You make excuses for the nationalist elements of other groups, excusing them, because you say that you know some less nationalist people from the same group. Then, you grant the extension of this to say that most are not nationalist or that most will stop being so nationalist. But, I look at it from the other side. I see the nationalist and radical elements. I see them and, in the same manner you extend your perception of "niceness" onto the whole of the other group, I extend the nationalist and the violent. At base, when the chips are down, I see others in the group all becoming just as nasty as their worst nationalists. It becomes a choice, for them.
But, you propose to me that we can be peaceful. Under what conditions are you asserting this? You are the majority in your country. You have a military complex that can protect you from domestic and foreign enemies. You are still the most represented in this country. When you are the minority, do you think their nationalist elements will become even louder or more silent? Do you think the niceness you experience from them now is genuine noble kindness, when you are and have been for your whole life, in the advantaged position over them? Any regular scumbag will be kind for the sake of not experiencing the wrath of the most powerful group in their area. If they weren't, they would quickly find themselves in the bottom end of a trash bin.
Instead, you have to observe these people when there are no costs. How do they behave when they don't experience some potential cost? Watch them quickly justify their violence with accusations of "racist" against some fellow. Watch the Trump voter pulled from his car by a group of thugs because they had the advantage and they thought they were justified. You might say that these people were clearly not bright because it's not acceptable. However, that just means you completely lack any serious empathy. The issue is not whether you think it is acceptable, but whether they believe it is.
But, perhaps, you think you would never (ever) be nationalist and you project this onto the ones you know and, subsequently, onto everyone of their group. I call that naive. If every other group were nationalist to your exclusion, you would quickly warm up to the nationalists of your kind which you assert you despise. My task is not to act as if things are or were the worst, but instead to prepare for if things were ever to become the worst. If I did any different, I would actually be lazy in fulfilling the duty of what love I have for myself and my people. It is this preparation which is the expression of my care - not of my hatred for the groups who label me "fascist" or "totalitarian" for becoming powerful and threatening to them and any potential plans they have had, or wished to have had remain open, to hurting me or my people. As a protector of my own life and the life of my children and my people, I do wish to be threatening - to all who would try to interfere with the expression and improvement of those I care about.
Our neighborhood favorite mutation illustrates his nostalgia for the masculine nihilism and all the gifts it has brought upon the western body....
I see nothing wrong with a woman's choice as long as she suffers the consequences of it, consequences which Christianity mitigates and soon made irrelevant.
Of course, those children with no earthly father to guide and train them must be saved by the abstraction instead of suffering the consequences of an absent father. The abstraction knows no bounds, so it will not be satisfied until the entire earth is under its dominion.
Ah yes, science, used selectively now by those who wish to deny the world and who lack the conviction and courage to act upon their findings by referring back to fluidity.
Those who learn to not judge a book by its cover, from a book on not judging books by their covers.
Of course sheltering gave the opportunity for the fields of science, medicine, and weaponry to develop further, but what has that done but make us more dependent on these tools and allow those unworthy to multiply.
Separation of Church and State
Perhaps separated in theory, but in practice the two branches continued to abide by the same idea(l), the same idea(l) that allowed for "SJWs" to come about. Of course Christianity is not to blame for its excesses and influences upon the real, only man in his pursuit of it...how convenient.
This is classic Nihilism proper, or authentic Nihilism, being confronted by positive or hypocritical Nihilism. Masculine versus Feminine Nihilism...and what better representative than a half-breed Jew, homosexual. On the political spectrum the Conservative versus the Liberal world-haters, belonging to the binary poles of Nihilism, the 1/0. To annul the real world in absolute chaos, or to annul it in absolute order.
The U.S. is the "civilization" emerging out of the idealism of Nihilistic despair. Like Rome was the end-stage of Paganism, emerging out of Hellenic culture, the U.S. is the end-stage of Abrahamic Nihilism, and its secular outgrowths. The culture of no-culture, populated by "individuals' lacking a past, in other words detached from nature - sum of all past nurturing. Not pragmatically, but in theory. It oscillates in the afterglow of post-War victories over its true enemy, which died producing a monstrosity as part of its dying spasms.
America is all noumenon - abstraction, to compensate for inherited imperfections. It's politics is encompassed within the Nihilistic paradigm of pure nihilism, Liberals, and hypocritical, "positive" Nihilists, Judeo-Christian conservatives. Division between Church and State never took place. It morphed into a metaphor, incorporating the Abrahamic Nihilistic spirituality as part of its political spectrum. Right wing neo-cons maintain a tenuous connection to Paganism, in ritualized form, but only within the all-encompassing salvation of a one-god, converted into monetary code - money can set you free from your past, compensate for inferior genes. Liberals preach complete detachment from reality - a absolute immersion in noetic fantasy - subjectivity. Even the obvious, like biological sexual roles, are denied relevance, without a hint of shame, or a sign of doubt. They can lie to you, straight to your face, and call a dog a cat, without losing a beat.
American freedom is this equality of possibilities, if you work hard, pay your dues, and earn the right to declare yourself liberated from your ancestry - the self-made man. If you got the money, honey, they've got your disease. Liberty in remaining adolescent - under the protective umbrella of a benevolent State, rather than the forgiving embrace of the conservative One-god, absolving all true believers, all who have love in their heart, of all natural identifiers, and all genetic limitations to their fantastic aspirations. Why feel shame when you can buy respect, or, at least, have some fake it?
What else can be bought? Love, friendship, genius?
When words no longer matter, they can be thrown about to cause an impact, to build an image. Enough money will buy you yes-sayers, worshiping the round you walk upon.
To be lost is to be free. Free to be exploited, to become assimilated, to change dress and play another part. Lost is Modern-speak for "sinner" - an eligible lost lamb ready for salvation. The shepherd will leave his flock to go out looking for that one lost lamb - a power display. Ambition of the herd-er, secretly considering himself distinct from the manimals he finds esteem within.
Although every human, every animal, every fish/bird/insect, is always an 'object', all creatures attempt to distance themselves from their "objectivity" (instincts, nature, emotions) by building themselves as 'subjects'. This is a necessarily, implicit moralizing concept. A thing becomes its own Agency (Autonomy) and this is how humanity convinced itself, for thousands of years, that is is "more than" a mere object. It is through ideals, goals, rationalizations, objectification (inversion), and projection that Modern humans convince themselves that they are "Subjects" (Dignity, Honor, Pride) instead of a lower, most easily controlled animal.
For example, with Modern Feminism, women deny their "sexual objectification" and claim they are more than "sexual objects designed for the pleasure of men". Yet, within their own diagnosis, they reveal their own psychosis and motivations, and their fears. A modern woman *FEARS* her sexual objectification as a necessary conclusion of sex. Could mammals have evolved this far, humanity too, without "sexual objectification" and sexual gratification? Obviously not.
So, like most Modern liberal movements, Feminism is Nihilistic, an attempt to deny, or hide the obvious fact, that women ARE their sexuality (feminine) in a way similar that men ARE their sexuality (masculinity) as well.
And NO amount of pretending, child's play, women pretending to be men, men pretending to be women, are going to ultimately affect Nature or the "real world", objectively, in anyway.
Hetero Sex is still the same foundation it always was, forcing men and women into a necessary cooperation. Because which true interests and goals do men and women share, beyond sex? Anything at all?
Males represent the "upward/downward" movement of Modern social classes and economic standing. Females represent the "left/right" movement. Women do not truly move "up or down" social hierarchies, but instead, attach themselves to a male to take them upward. Women never want to go downward, although a man can falter, fail, and fall down, taking the woman with him.
In previous ages, divorce was much rarer and much more illegal, shameful, and punished. Thus the ancient Christian Church and Morality ensured that if a woman chose a man (Marriage) then she was stuck with him, no matter which direction he went. Previous ages of morality ensured that she either went 'up' with the male she chose, or 'down'. And she could not merely "divorce" herself out of her downward spiral. Modern Liberalism has changed this, for the benefit of women. Today Feminism makes it relatively difficult for any woman to go 'down'. Modern women are intended to only move 'upward', thus changing the institution of Marriage at its core. Males then encompass all the risks, and few or no rewards.
With Modernity, men can fail and drop 'down' but the woman can divorce, freely, and let him drown without paying for it as she would have in previous eras.
Literally translated, which great 'goals' ought humans collect into and cooperate for? Which group represents your team? Which (ideal) appeals to you, or, to the greatest number of people? Are these goals worthy? Are they realistic and premised upon reality? Or are they completely detached, impossible, ridiculous, absurd, nihilistic? Are they religious, and, according to which particular religion/s?
The Modern "Democracy" is a competition of such ideals, based upon their popularity. The ideal with the highest amount of supporters, automatically "wins" according to Modernity. But a delusion can be popular. And nihilism can be most popular.
In previous ages, divorce was much rarer and much more illegal, shameful, and punished. Thus the ancient Christian Church and Morality ensured that if a woman chose a man (Marriage) then she was stuck with him, no matter which direction he went. Previous ages of morality ensured that she either went 'up' with the male she chose, or 'down'. And she could not merely "divorce" herself out of her downward spiral.
She went up or down but she kept her life in most cases. The loss of the fear of death for choosing an unfit male was removed by the moral precedent which acted as a safety cushion for her instincts to run wild.
Fear of Death is the basis for nature's Monogamy. Fear of Life is the basis for nihilism's Monogamy.
Modern Liberalism has changed this, for the benefit of women. Today Feminism makes it relatively difficult for any woman to go 'down'. Modern women are intended to only move 'upward', thus changing the institution of Marriage at its core. Males then encompass all the risks, and few or no rewards.
The degree has changed but the moral precedent has always been the greatest benefit of all for women(weak men). Modern Liberalism just followed through on the "logic" of the precedent.
Males CAN encompass all the risks, when the risk of death becomes irrelevant. Males get few or no rewards instead of many or few punishments.
With Modernity, men can fail and drop 'down' but the woman can divorce, freely, and let him drown without paying for it as she would have in previous eras.
With Modernity, failure is not culled and "payment" is made with paper, not blood.
The difference between quantification and qualification: Quantification isolates in binary. Qualification detects in relationship.
Those that attempt to quantify relationship end up with a nihilistic conception of 'relativism'. Qualifying binaries can only be done in reference to natural behavior, generally in reference to that of a conceptual scheme like the human brain which is capable of thinking in both 'waves' and 'particles'. Waves being patterns/qualification, particles being absolutes/quantification.
Only white people can be racist. Just like only the bourgeoisie could be classist, according to the same kind of people.
The pig has no problem with living in the pigsty or your house. You on the other hand might object to living in the pigsty though. You, the owner of the house are the only obstacle for the pig, the only reason why the pig might not feel at home in your house. It's when you don't welcome the pig inside. You must make it intolerable for the pig to be inside the house. And you don't do this by making it a worse place than a pigsty because then you don't feel well-come in your house yourself anymore.
The pig does not need to defend the pigsty against the intrusion of animals which object to living in a pigsty themselves, only against those animals which are even more tolerant than the pig itself. And that kind of defending is actually done in large parts by the farmer.
If pigs could be reasoned with then one might convince them that it's not good for themselves to drive the farmer from his own home in the long run. But if not then there is only force.
But this time is gone by now. Now we have pigs in the house and what do pigs know about defending their space but to make it less tolerable for the intruder than themselves. To be more tolerant than the intruder. Only problem is that the intruder is more tolerant, more fine with filth than the pigs in the house themselves.
Take all the memes away, clear them out, cull and purge them, and genes express the nature of the thing, the person, the animal.
How long after dogs are not fed by a human's hand, do they take to the street in packs, and hunt for what they can, expressing their natural vigor and aggression?
How long after grape vines are untended, do they begin to branch out, sprawl, and takeover whatever paths they can?
And with humans too, how long after social constraints are removed, the padlocks unhinged, do people begin to show, expose, and reveal their truest selves? Humanity is a social construct indeed, a system of lies, of histories, laws, regulations, etc. Once these are removed, one by one, a human reverts back to his/her nature. The truth is revealed. Therefore, if civilization fails to maintain the costs of its upkeep, the electricity stops flowing, the lights go out, the water quits running, and humans "wake up", as if suddenly, to a long-forgotten "secret".
Nature re-expresses herself once again.
The art of philosophy includes knowing the nature of all things, even when they are implicitly or overtly hidden from view. And especially when, human conditioning does all within its power, to stop, halt, impede, or slow down human nature.
Apparently the Arabian Nights stories are not very popular among modern Arabs. It's among Europeans in the early 18th century where the stories had their revival. Ancient Persia seems to share a more similar taste with modern Europeans than with modern Arabs.