Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 1

Denial's Struggle:
There's an eluding suspicion in scrutiny by which a bifurcated anxiety is induced, not because of the disorder of the unknown, but because of the possibility of conclusions which will be uncovered.

When your hands are tied and you see no way to free yourself you can always become instrumental to your own captivity and domestication. The illusion of power even if it is about helping along your own destruction is tempting enough.

Liberalism and cuckservatism - role-playing the free man.

Power, Satire, and Ridicule

The difference between satire and ridicule is that satire seeks to convey an underlying principle, say, an absurdity that society pushes to the side, ignores; ridicule just seeks to have an effect, diminish the other.

In heroic, conquering cultures, restraint was a hallmark of their mythologies; in conquered, vassal cultures, sabotage and trickery played a large part in their mythologies.

Trickery, deceit, ridicule are forms of compensation for a lack of physical power; a slave can't physically hurt his master, so he will resort to more indirect ways, such as trickery and ridicule.

A man of power, on the other hand, is uninhibited by alterity, so it's more a question of when and why he should employ his power; self-restraint.

An apt illustration that comes to mind: Thor and Loki;

Thor is a character of great physical might. He is favored by his Father Odin. Loki, who lacks the physical power of his brother Thor and who secretly resents him for his favored position, compensates with trickery and humor/ridicule.

Now, to correspond this to modern, internet trolldom - what does it say about a culture, when so many of its people resort to petty, online trolldom? Is it just a case of anonymity? No consequences, right? Or does it go deeper? Is it a manifestation of a conquered people, a people who feel disenfranchised and powerless?

On the illusion of power

To preserve anything requires creation. Everything is exposed to the increase of chaos in time and requires an ongoing revitalization.
The modern conservative is the progressive liberal of 10 years ago in his adopted ideology. He has a different kind of temperament but he adopts and operates under the same paradigms as the modern liberal. Creation means nothing to both of them.
In a world where a creative power-process* is largely absent for most people in society power is experienced by adopting new ideals. The progressive embraces ideals which align with decay, he welcomes the destruction and thereby experiences his successful progress, his advance.
It's about creating the illusion of a power-process.

*Ted Kaczynski

Within the Right/Left political paradigm of Modernity, both ends of the spectrum are monopolized by a nihilistic idea(l), refusing to relinquish control, or to admit the transparency of its claims.
Both codependent and part of the same internal system of mass mind-control, providing an illusion of choice and discourse, as what was learned after centuries in husbandry, and farming.

Occupying the metaphysical ends of absolute Order and absolute Chaos, and relying on the human limitation of binary thinking, they offer an interchangeable political world of illusory change; both firmly on world annulling grounds, for whether by ice or by fire the world ends in their words.
Nihilism is not accidental, as a method of mind-manipulation.
It relieves those who have particular reasons to not be happy about their genetic inheritance, and provides access to hope, towards a memetic compensation.
The masses cheer for this new product of deceit.
They become the most ferocious defenders of their jailer's institutions.
Like farm-animals repairing the farmer's fences, because they know what lies out there, beyond their perimeter, and they know, in themselves, what their own chances are.

The world, for such manimals, follows the farmer's routines; his regimented cycles, that have nothing to do with natural cycles, which adds to the illusion that they've entered an alternative reality.
Their enclosure is all they need to know of world. They deny the existence of anything outside the perimeter.
They become each others validation, and excuse.

If sexism and racism are a distortion of concepts of sex and race as they have been established in nature, for politically motivated reasons, are liberals not the most sexist and racist of all because they promote social constructs like equality as a result of their politically founded ideals, whilst ignoring how nature really is? This was a response to being called racist/sexist for my views today. The dumbfounded look on her face was priceless.

The concept of sex and race are referring to phenomena in nature.
The concept of sexism and racism, the way it is being used today, is about remodeling society.
They say it's about abolishing sexism and racism but what is actually happening is that it's a tool in their arsenal to rearrange society, progressively so - it never ends.

What it does is to create artificial positions of authority when it comes to controlling this continuous remodeling process. And that means they extract energy which is being released through this entropic process.
They invented those callings/jobs and continue to justify them. That's their parasitic position in society which they have created and maintain for themselves.

The fabricators of nonsense accuse others of it, to hide their guilt.

Not one can explain how species could splinter off from a common ancestry, if not through genetic isolation, over a period of time, environmentally affected, and gradual in its advancement.
They cannot explain how appearance matters always except in certain circumstances, conveniently having to do with their ideals.
They cannot explain how evolution world on the body but leaves the mind unaffected, passed on unchanged in potential, and uniformly distributed within only human populations.
They cannot explain how much divergence is enough to be relevant, nor how intelligence evolved if it is not governed by the same processes that evolve every other organic trait.

They cannot explain how human is not a sexual designation, where male/female are specializations of it, nor how this specialization would not affect the mind, the psyche, but only the physical, the body.
They cannot explain how if sexual differences are human fabrications they are present in other species, determining the particularities of each trait characterizing each species.
They cannot explain why homosexual mutations only appear in social species, nor why they persist given that nature is frugal, and homosexuality is a genetic dead-end, a parasitical sexual mutations.

The fabrications they construct to defend their lies, their self-serving delusions, are projected upon the ones who threaten to expose them for what they are.
It's the classic, "The best defence is a good offence" strategy.

Reattaching words to phenomena is the best way to disarm them form their one and only weapon: words.
Words evoking emotion; words detached from world; words free to claim whatever absurdity, if it remains "good" and does not "hurt" anyone; words to comfort and placate, and offer hope to the hopeless; words to pretend the past/nature no longer applies, the grand erasures; words the unifying symbols of their shared Nihilism, their common ground in inherited inferiority, their need to level it all down and begin from an "equal" footing - justice; words to groom communal bonds, and preserve the herd within which they can disappear, when the danger comes, and then reappear, as brazen braggarts, desperate to stand apart from it; words to declare what cannot be presented, and plant the desirable possibility, as a idea they cannot make real.

The mystery remains unanswered, inspiring the hearts and minds of billions of imbeciles throughout the world...

How does intelligence evolve if it offers zero advantage, and it is uniformly distributed in a population?

Why evolve organs to perceive divergence, to discriminate, if none of it matters, and it is all superficial?

How would a woman's brain not be adapted, as her body is, to her sexual role; to function the most effectively and efficiently in that role?

How is homosexuality not an unfit genetic mutation, when it contradicts they very function of copulation?

But from one starting error, one gratifying lie, all others follow.
The starting error with sexual intercourse, with copulation, is that it is not an act of aggression, not an act of relative violence, not an intrusion of dominance, the female had to adapt to endure.
From this the pedophile can claim that his own mutation is "loving", "benevolent', a sexual choice hurting nobody, and the hypocrites, intuitively knowing that it is not so, cannot explain why homosexuality, transsexual, bestiality, are harmless, and paedophilia and rape are.

Because if sexual intercourse, the act of penetration, is a display of love and unity, then having it "forced" upon you would not constitute a criminal offence, no more than someone giving you money would make him a disgusting creep.

The Liberal cannot explain the linguistic paradoxes produced by his self-referential subjectivity, and language fetishism, no more than he can explain why hi sown ideals are self-contradictory.

all he has is a pragmatic utility.
The necessity of social coexistence, which means lying, and pretending, and remaining silent, which they call civility.
But philosophy is not about THAT!!!
Philosophy is about world, no matter how threatening, unflattering, cruel, it is.

Utility follows from there, as the construction of a response to the world's indifference, and injustices.
Not covering it up, not sweeping it under the rug and pretending it isn't there, not laughing it away, cynically ridiculing it, and offering no alternatives to explain what we see and what we experience.

Here, on KT we have a response...and it is not uniquely our own, except in its application to new circumstances.
It is old, tried and tested - it is called Aryanism and Indo-European, a meme that produced civilizations unmatched, except, perhaps the Chinese.  
It has also been called Traditionalism, Paganism, Hellenism.
Can you imagine what fascistic and authoritarian the Hellenes would appear in today's world, populated by these brain-dead Nihilists; how frightening they would be to the average American douche-bag?

Forgotten, dismissed, maybe no longer pragmatic in a world in decay, but still profound, inspirational, powerful.
Our challenge is to take that inheritance and adapt it to the present, the Modern, the Nihilistic Now.
This is the work we must do, because nobody else will do it.
A continuance, a building upon the foundations others have prepared for us.

I've offered only outlines, sketches, not wanting to impose my preference upon others, and I am open to suggestions.

Musings in Logic ; Thou Shalt not Judge Commandment.

Overture: Usually when I am able to complete a thought process and it transpires into form then I forget about it unless it is documented, as when a coping mechanism becomes satisfactory it no longer presses at the fore of deception, until its repression is inevitably enticed again for any number of causes or other.

Anyway, this one came about in passing upon the anti-judgement campaign, exhibited premierly in Christianity and modernist valuations like anarchism.
In this context, its edict was that priests should not be judged, no matter what.

Me: priest sexually molests little choir boys: nay, he's not a pedophile, but rather a priest, and so let him be an ordained priest.

This notion [thou shalt not judge] and its acceptance  itself is a value judgement. So in all redundancy, I am asking how do all those who hold this judgement, which decrees that one should not judge, resignate its judging properties?

Other: "What I am saying is that we are all sinners before God. Christ Himself told us not to judge anyone, for the standard by which we judge another will be the standard used to judge us at the end of days. He actually told Peter that no matter how often your brother offends you, you are to forgive him each time, no matter how often he commits the offense. Mercy, not Judgement was what he taught, and it is up to us to follow that teaching as best we can."

Me: Forgiveness constitutes positioning oneself over the one being forgiven, which stipulation is, again, a hierarchical valuation, or the judgement that one's values are above those of one's neighbor's.

Same applies to mercy: a judgement had to be formed in order to thereby act accordingly merciful, which judgement is that of supplanting mercilessness.

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

This notion [thou shalt not judge] and its acceptance itself is a value judgement. So in all redundancy, I am asking how do all those who hold this judgement, which decrees that one should not judge, resignate its judging properties?

He who is without sin...
So god and his interpreters on earth are allowed to judge.
If you want somebody to be judged you have to go to the priest and tell on that person or you have to spread a rumor so that it reaches the priest indirectly.

This anti-judgement, anti-discrimination came up after god was pronounced dead.
Now it's all magical. Faith and magic have similarities but it's not the same.

There has to be the capacity to Lie, but What is the Lowest of Lowest: Liars of Lying.

Anfang wrote:

Now it's all magical. Faith and magic have similarities but it's not the same.

What do you think is the difference between religious faith, and faith in magic?

Arbiter of Change wrote:

Anfang wrote:

Now it's all magical. Faith and magic have similarities but it's not the same.

What do you think is the difference between religious faith, and faith in magic?

Maybe a long time ago, magic and faith was not that much separated from each other.
But when looking at Christian Medieval times in Europe, I think of the man of faith, like a monk, to be someone who studies one book and adopts its incantations blindly while the magician of modernity becomes cynical and actually also unaware about what he is doing to himself.
The magician reads a lot of books, actual books and metaphorically speaking, and takes none of them particularly seriously. In that sense, we all have become more or less magicians with how our identity often hinges on proclamations and incantations in front of others which are supposed to mirror our identity back to us.

The man of faith tries to ground himself by forming a bond with one book.
When Christianity came along, all magic was declared to originate from the other world and God was the good magic while the devil was the evil magic. Now people think of this world as being filled with good and evil in a magical sense. The world has become magical (D. Hawkes). The banana-holic in the dungeon thinks in magical terms only, all else is frightening.

Evolutionary theory applied to ideas.

The best idea will prevail.
If we have free speech then the best ideas will prevail.

It's like with biological evolution - The best prevails when everybody gets a chance.
If we give everybody the same chance then the best individual will prevail.
Hah...No...
The best in which environment and moving along which trajectory?
The best hunter or the best cow?

As if giving everybody the same chance is not creating a certain environment. As if evolution has to be about individuals in one singular community.
The best... the best adapted to those proposed rules.
Same with thinking - The best idea, the man who is best at providing for the cows, food and distractions and a stressless environment.
As if evolution was about individuals coming up with ideas which are best for providing for others.
Providing what? Not even an improvement of their quality. No, improving their comfort-level which in turn lowers their natural resistances.

Another plight of the modern woman is her attempt to reconcile her innate femininity with a milieu that requires a masculine attitude, in order to earn respect and be successful.

A schizophrenia occurs;

Her outer persona is an affected masculinity; her inner persona, a repressed femininity.

The ideology of feminism exacerbates this tension further by shaming the female for having such natural and feminine desires.

The result: a walking contradiction, a sexually repressed modern female, who struggles to align her inner and outer personas.

She attempts to rationalize and intellectualize her repressed sexuality as an objective otherness, and sprinkles it with the all so coveted masculine ideals, as something concomitant to a self-austerity  - an autistic asceticism, which can easily blur the lines of her heterosexuality; a duplicate self, a projected female-other making one submissive.

This autistic self-collapsing creates further repression and denial within the woman; those taboo feeling, which could jeopardize her career and reputation, and which also may cause disgust within her own self at times.

The modern woman tries so very hard to escape her nature, but ultimately a futile and self-destructive endeavor.

What are some conclusions which can be drawn from when an overweight and unattractive girl pursues a guy on a higher scale or league as it were than she or at least his image of himself is that way?
Is the girl or guy disillusioned.
Apply the same to the inverse scenario.

The life expectancy or validation of a lie is as long as its manifest image isn't replaced with another lie and, or until it is found lying.

Weak, midget souls are content to sit on comfy chairs doing a lot of talking, but no walking.
They look up and see a world too big for them; they don't possess the requisite stature to look down and see the bigger picture.
Pretending to be a priest, while simultaneously wasting time rambling about infantile people from an infantile forum is all he will ever be.

What will you be?

Nightmare wrote:

Weak, midget souls are content to sit on comfy chairs doing a lot of talking, but no walking.
They look up and see a world too big for them; they don't possess the requisite stature to look down and see the bigger picture.
Pretending to be a priest, while simultaneously wasting time rambling about infantile people from an infantile forum is all he will ever be.

What will you be?

Dude, shut the fuck up long enough about others and actually look at yourself for a change.
You're immune to conceptual considerations, and so naturally shit on any practical advice because how can you compare it when you've never compared yourself to yourself.
Here's one in vain: go out somewhere, anywhere, your mirror even, and if all you can do out or in there, even within a momentary breath, is continue to degrade, reaching at whatever lengths to find something, anything negative with the phenomena of phenomena, then your impatience and denialistic insecurities doesn't have its etiology in some existential crisis, but instead in a psychic teratology.

Au contraire,

An inveterate obfuscation of a rudimentary conceptual awareness, opaque to most; but transparent to the trenchant intuition. A subterranean trembling dissimulating itself under the mellifluous. Even the slightest peak will ossify its intellectual turpitude. The sedulous tends to make it irate and keenly aware of its inherent ineptitude. It will continue to cavil and regurgitate its casuistry, contrary to the largess bestowed on it.

Moderns...so content to bask in mediocrity...

Typical

When you're sleeping and in order to trick yourself into longer sleep you start thinking to give the impression that you're being productive and as such you formulate arrangements that you could not otherwise, but since you're sleeping you treat such ideas as given whereby upon finally awakening it is all but eluded.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

-Modern weightlifters use the gym as a means to cope with empty spare time and to build and maintain muscles they will never use outside the sheltered room with controlled temperatures; the gym as goal on itself and never as a means to improve self-discipline and strengthen for purposes external from gym weights and static posing for women.
-Sometimes you will hear them struggling with the weight but they repress their urge to shout it out and thus you’ll hear a blaring dog.
-Then you have the gym-companions, those encouraging each other to continue and resist and complimenting each other for their increase in strength, like women complimenting each other’s makeup and other artificial means to appear more beautiful while they already have a relationship and thus use these products as goal on itself just like the weightlifters.
-The weak male friends of age 45+/- who don’t want to be there but at some birthday party talked each other in into joining a gym and joke about how many women will fall for them and eventually they are there, age of maturity in bodily processes yet not in mind expressed in fragile childlike bodies and a belly as weak as when they were born; just sitting and talking and looking a little bit confused on what they are doing there.

OhFortunae wrote:

-Modern weightlifters use the gym as a means to cope with empty spare time and to build and maintain muscles they will never use outside the sheltered room with controlled temperatures; the gym as goal on itself and never as a means to improve self-discipline and strengthen for purposes external from gym weights and static posing for women.
-Sometimes you will hear them struggling with the weight but they repress their urge to shout it out and thus you’ll hear a blaring dog.
-Then you have the gym-companions, those encouraging each other to continue and resist and complimenting each other for their increase in strength, like women complimenting each other’s makeup and other artificial means to appear more beautiful while they already have a relationship and thus use these products as goal on itself just like the weightlifters.
-The weak male friends of age 45+/- who don’t want to be there but at some birthday party talked each other in into joining a gym and joke about how many women will fall for them and eventually they are there, age of maturity in bodily processes yet not in mind expressed in fragile childlike bodies and a belly as weak as when they were born; just sitting and talking and looking a little bit confused on what they are doing there.

I asked one recently why he prefers to strive for "big" over lean. His response was that he's spent too much time and effort to not look "big" in clothes.
Besides the Narcissus, it's a way to appear threatening, which works on most.
Mass will usually squarely defeat, but not if the less massive has technique in some area or other, which to render all that muscle mass unusable.

Same concept is tantamount to your next post on cosmetics and prosthetics in all: magnify or exaggerate an appearance in order to veil a lack or weakness or insecurity.

Have you ever wondered why most parents shelter their kids from knowledge of sex?

Like, for example: a child who flips the channel and comes across a sex scene from a movie. The parents will immediately grab the controller and change the channel.

Why is this? Why do they think sex will somehow corrupt the child?

It all has to due with this ridiculous J.-Xt. concept of sex being vile, something sinful, something of "the flesh".

Even among secular folk, this mentality is still alive and active.

Honestly, I think it's an irrational fear. Sex is natural, healthy, and a beautiful thing;

It's not something vile. Just because lil' Johnny and Mary see a passionate love scene in a film, that doesn't mean they will become serial-killers, sexual degenerates, or whatever.

It's funny how people over-look these cultural quirks.

Men become addicted to seeing sexual material though. They need to see it regularly. This dulls their mind incredibly and it also makes them dependent on women for validation. And when they get into a relationship they ultimately become a slave to a woman's cycles. This can happen to all those "handsome" men too... the handsome bull that can't stop looking in the mirror.

perpetualburn wrote:

Men become addicted to seeing sexual material though.  They need to see it regularly.  This dulls their mind incredibly and it also makes them dependent on women for validation.  And when they get into a relationship they ultimately become a slave to a woman's cycles.  This can happen to all those "handsome" men too... the handsome bull that can't stop looking in the mirror.

I'm actually very ugly.

You see, in my hyper-masculine over-compensation, I decided to go to great lengths to purchase a three-thousand dollar Hollywood crafted mask that molds to my face and a body suit to go along with it, in order to make myself appear more attractive. My "looks" are just superficial, just a mask, just a facade...fake.

Nothing about me is honest, nor genuine; its all just a pretense, a facade.

It's all part of my neeeeeeeeeed.