Forums

It's gotten a bit much.
They see Satyr behind everyone with a mind they cannot cope with.
The universal scapegoat for the degenerates.

(S)He also claims to have been banned.

I made a thread about it here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Should be amusing.

Remember:

All minds have a pattern of thinking and of expression. We call this style.

When another mind is affected by it then a similar thing occurs, as when a body is fertilized by another.

The second mind adopts the first mind's style, as best it can, integrating it, inserting it, combining it, with preexisted, and within the boundaries of the limitations involved in both minds and during the transference of data.
Misunderstanding can be considered as the equivalent of memetic mutations, produced during this transference, this exchange and sharing of thoughts.

I think all ideological offshoots begin with such mutations, during data exchanges.
The slight variation is similar to that game children play "telephone" but it is also a result of the particular, original conception, morphing within a different mind, with its own particularities, living with different environments, and being naturally blessed with different limitations.

Sometimes this memetic mutation results in something greater than the original, but most of the time in something slightly lower, as the fact that a transference occurred at all means the second mind, the accepting mind, was or is dominated.
This domination may be the product of immaturity, the receiving mind having not get developed sufficiently, or it most often is the consequence of inferior potentials, as these are inherited genetically.

In the former I offer Nietzsche as an example. He, after having been seduced, dominated, at an early age by Schopenhauer and Wagner, rebelled, eventually becoming seduced by the pre-Socratics, which help him overcome his domination by his more modern mentors.

I also think this phenomenon of more masculine minds being more easily seduced, impregnated, dominated, by the dead, is a modern social phenomenon, and one Nietzsche suffered from.
We see it more strikingly in the common, modern, mind, who must always refer and defer to what is most distant from itself, and death is the most distancing state of all.
The ancients had a more healthy relationship to their peers, aging, and to their own sexuality.
The practice of an older male taking a still immature male, a boy, under his wing and totally dominating him for a time, indicates such a difference between modern male sexuality and ancient, pagan, more natural ones.

In modern times precisely because masculinity is declining, and after centuries of Judeo-Christian, de-sexualization, and de-naturalization, the typical male must display hyper-masculine traits to protect itself from its own socioeconomic emasculation.

The herd, in this case, preserves its reliance on absolutes.

For instance, to gossip once in a while, means you are equal to all who gossip constantly.
To be ignorant to any degree is proof that all opinions, being products of minds that are not omniscient, are equalized.
If you are not omnipotent then you become part of the uniform weakness, where all are equal in their lack.

To have suffered from a single moment of cowardice puts you on equal footing to the repetitive coward.
This is the brilliance of the either/or absolutist, binary method.
The absence is reason enough to argue on behalf of anything.
The absence of absolute knowledge becomes reason enough to claim that all is equally possible.
Classic Top<>Down Thinking.

It's the typical either/or, or absolutist dichotomy.
If you cannot prove your thesis absolutely, then it is just as possible as any other thesis ever thought up, by any mind.

With gossiping the instinctive practice of grooming, and establishing hierarchies, is either the main focus, or of peripheral interest, and only as this applies to the understanding of the species in question.
When it is the main focus, as with all herd psychologies, or the feminine type, all other exchanges are but ways of accentuating this internal gossip.

The feminine mind being totally dependent on the collective opinion, must constantly reaffirm its own place on the totem-pole. Some do so while denying that there are social, internal, hierarchies.
It's ironic, as many things are within nihilistic structures - ironic and paradoxical - that when all are forced into feminine behaviors, then this forced uniformity is used as an excuse to persist, and to glorify it.

To offer an example, as I often do, when a man is forced, under the threat of communal punishment, to behave as the herd wants him to, and not to deal with a simpleton as he could, then this forced, hypocritical, behavior is taken as evidence that the simpleton deserves to be treated in this way, because the man is inhibited by communal vengeance, and the individual simpleton, being totally within this identifier, enjoys the privileges of being dependent and of service.

This is how some females begin to believe that they are independent, and invincible, and threatening to males.
Because the system protects them, for her total submission to its premises, she begins to feel superior, through it.
She mistakes her own, personal, qualities, for the system's, and she identifies with the abstraction through which she can become so empowered.
Her own personal, genetic, qualities are integrated into the system's, disappearing in the uniformity, and the communal identity.
she feels powerful and independent BECAUSE she has submitted to the entity which offers her this possibility and outside of which she would have neither power nor rights.
This is the typical way weakness finds power through another.

Just look at Christians and how powerful they feel via their God.

Hyper-masculinity is like wearing make-up is for women.

In a more dangerous environment, a woman must be careful who she's showing off her goods to.

In a rather natural environment a male must be careful with whom he gets into a fight. You don't want to piss off everyone. There are advantages to having some reserves.

Today, there is little reason to not exaggerate. And so people even expect it.

Mmmmm, the mensa drop-out, is making me feel her non-obsessive pain.
Check out how she uses the typical shit-Smear tactic when cornered, and desperately looking for a way out.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I'm talking about Silhouette, who apaosha forced to justify her emotional claims. she feels that we are abductive reasoning, obsessively so, because it must have a sexual angle for women.

No, can't just be abductive or inductive, no it must be something common, base, easy, and sexually tinged.
She's so brilliant, according to tests, that she can't help but be average in her emoting.
Yet, despite all that ease she still can't offer an alternative. She masks her inability with word-games and deference.  

Then when asked to explain how and why, she uses the usual: "I'm not going to do the homework for you" shit-Smears cowardly retreat.

And Sauwelios, the one who after decades of prostrating himself before a man, Nietzsche, suddenly awakens to his Strausean liberalism.
He's found himself, and a Jew made him see it.

Welcome to your own, dear woman, I knew you would get there in time.
ILP is truly your home.

By the way, I am no Nazi, and Sauwelios has introduced me only to the degeneracy of idol-worshiping the idol-breakers, and how truly emasculating and revealing this is.
The reality of the Fight Club men-children psychology.
It's why Nazism does not interest me.
You can't teach a genetically degenerate, no matter what race and sex he is, of what is beyond his genetic limitations to understand and to attain.
You can only create monsters in this way: imitating, aping, using inflated caricatures to pretend they embody what they can never be.
Like Sauweliso and his decades long study of a man he aspired to be but later discover he could never be like.

That in his state of decline he would try to grab onto the last remnant of his pride by claiming that he introduced me to Nazism, is funny.
Particularly since Nazism is for me the last desperate hurrah of Germanic paganism that went a bit berserk, and is now seductive to the hyper-masculine who try to emulate what is not in their nature to be.  

Such a female spirit should already know, after studying a truly male spirit for so long, that hate is a feminine trait.
One does not hate his enemies, nor a disease of the body, or of the spirit - the genetic or the memetic kind.
One honors his enemies, as he fights them, because they keep him healthy and they identify him.

For example, I know what I am because I am NOT like Sauwelios, or his kind.

I do not hate him for being the liberal, nihilistic, woman that he always was, but I am grateful that she is exactly what she is.
I'm happy that like with most females, after years of soul searching at the feet of a male master, she finally found herself.

-----------------

In the link (yes we gossip about ideas as presented by a herd of morons who exclude us from their midst) provided, we see a clear example of a self-professed "genius" displaying the typical markers of a moron.
(S)He cannot argue against the reasoning so (s)he criticizes the method, by using hyperbole.

The idiot Silhouette , despite being mensa material, cannot help but be guided by my own positions on Top<>Down versus Bottom<>Up thinking, to exaggerate so as to belittle what (s)he cannot respond to.
This mensa member is clearly troubled not only about the conclusions but also about the notoriety Satyr is receiving, despite him not being a mensa member.
Go figure.
Her (re)action is to project the most base, and inflated, insinuation upon the thinker rather than the thought.
Not only is Satyr guilty of abductive reasoning, but he is so to the exclusion of all other modes of reasoning.
So much so, that he is "obsessed" with it.

The usage of the term "obsessive" in the original post, later retracted because (s)he realized, after apaosha showed up, that (s)he might be eating her own feces, was meant to degrade and insult, without having to respond to the positions.
Responding to this nit-wit as (s)he deserves will get you banned, particularly if you smell of testosterone or of horny goat.
Having realized how base (s)he and her kind are, she had to find an angle to discredit the thinking without actually responding to the thoughts.
Like most of her kind and their usage of racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, to discredit an opinion maker without contradicting the opinion itself, (s)he is typical of this type of modern degeneracy in human psychology.

It begins with the imagined, the desired end, and think backwards from this, trying to justify their own need for it.
No matter how much reality, as it aesthetically swirls around them, despite being excluded form human environments, stands in opposition to this desired goal, this beginning end, they cannot help but need it to remain sane.

When a man-child, after reading a Hellenic mind for decades settles upon the degradation, of anti-nature, nihilistic, liberalism, and proudly declares himself one of those his previous mentor exposed as being diseased, then what hope does the average Mensa-member have?
This is a memetic dis-ease.
It includes its own deductive reasoning, which always begins with a presumed man-made absolute.

We are all here a "herd of abductive reasoning fetishists", according to Silhouette.



You go girl!

apaosha wrote:

We are all here a "herd of abductive reasoning fetishists", according to Silhouette.



You go girl!

He wanted attention.
He went through the internet trying to find a catch to box the bad guys in; trap them to make them harmless for himself.
He shared, as is typical, with his fellow members of the same mindset.

Yes, his absolutist thinking forced him to make the obsession, fetish, comment, to make it seem that despite using the same reasoning himself, in this case it was one-sided, or too titled on the "right", the more base and easy.
Yet he never provided an example.

He thought he could get away with an aspersion, given that there was nobody there to call him out.
Perhaps he thought he could discover the hidden Satyr's mingling within his happy, rational, group of nihilistic retards.

I did post that Sauwelios has now found a Jewish interpretation of Nietzsche to harmonize him with modernity.
Strauss never hid his focus on the Jewish matter.
He takes his lead form Plato, who other than the one who could be integrated into Christianity, and the "noble lie", or that Delphic manner of speaking in riddles which the bible adopted.
His defenders deny it, of course, but Strauss himself speaks of reading between the lines and of the philosophic elites.
He also emphasizes Nietzsche's positions on Jews being the ones that would save Europe.

Perhaps by killing off all the dead-weight the enlightenment had left behind.

Nietzsche also spoke in that same ambiguous way, knowing that his opinions would and could be used against him.

I realized that Sauwelios wasn't all-there, so to speak, when he showed a manic obsession with everything Nietzsche.
It wasn't only that he learned and agreed with the man, he breathed his every word, and every quote was recited like a prayer.
The irony of idolizing the man who spoke against idolaters, reminded me of Jesus and how his rebellion against organized religion turned into him being the center-piece for an organized religion; half-bread, child of a slut and a cuckolded Semite, was used as the connecting bridge between Judaism and Platonic idealism: a memetic bastard.

Do you know how many books they've written trying to disconnect Nietzsche from the Nazis?
The only reason they did not try with Heidegger was because of technology and those damning pictures, and his own words.

Heidegger was not a wholehearted Nazi, no more than Evola was a Fascist.
They saw in those political movements a way out of European decline, and a way to reconnect to a lost heritage.
How sad that this crotch-sniffer, femme-bot, is now openly against his won mentors teachings, guided along by the words of a Jew Zionist.
The war had more than material effects.

We live under the cloud of post-war narratives, reinterpreting the past so that it fits into the required ways of thinking.

When dealing with a member of the nihilistic herd, you must first thoroughly investigate its defensive methods.
Not only in the usage of absolute, statements with no evidence nor argument, but also the emotional angle.
It is always present.

The lowest-common-denominator for the nihilistic modern herd-member is emotion.
It is the only thing that can stand against reason for two basic reasons:

1- It is primal.
It feeds into the reptilian mind, it agitates the instincts, those nerve endings connecting the nervous system with the cerebral cortex.
It requires no justification, no reasoning, it only requires sensations and sensing.
The herd knows the feelings but cannot rationalize them. It deifies them, purifying them from all selfishness and all motives that would expose them as what they are.
It is only the enemy's emotions that bear the stigma of selfishness, self-flattery, and animal nature.
Their own emotional reasons are pure, genuine, clean, and free of all baseness.

2- It is easy.
The feminine mind knows how to agitate, animate, irritate the nervous system.
This is its sexual power.
It is easy because it is innate and it only requires a basic understanding of human nature, which can then be denied, claiming that mankind is complex.

You will always notice in a nihilist's argument the declarative insinuation of absolutes, even if it may be covered up with a feigned skepticism and a "somewhat" or "what if", because to this it must stand as the antithesis.
You will also notice the emotional and sexual allusion.
It is because sex is such a central part of the feminine mind's panoply that it must always come into play, even if it is shrouded in an indirect "what if".
The "what if" is the exit plan, the opening to deny accountability, the retention of plausible deniabilty.

This is most clear in Silhouette's methodology, over on ILP.
Let us forget, for the moment, her usage of "herd" in a classic strategy of taking an accusation, like 'nigger' and throwing ti back on the accuser, and let us focus on the method.

What did she actually say in her opening salvo, which had already been repeated elsewhere. She feels a weakness there, and she wants to use it to defend what she cannot defend rationally.
It's a way of redirecting the focus off of the one who has been exposed.
She accuses Satyr, primarily, of being "obsessed" with abductive reasoning, yet she cannot offer an example or state how this is the primary method of coming to the conclusions she fears and feels exposed by.
The opponent is "guilty" (shame) of a monomaniacal obsession (sexual overtones) of a reasoning (pseudo-intellectualism worthy of a Mensa member) to the exclusion of all other reasoning methods. She knows this because she feels it as something which might save her from the conclusions of the reasoning methods.
She does not have to respond to the propositions, but only cast aspersions on the mind proposing them. The sexual overtones are classic.
Not only feminine but the mark of a retard, who is a member of Mensa, no doubt.

This is mostly useful to herself, because she has failed to come to an adequate response, and so settles for an aspersion which will give her the reason to dismiss without having to respond.

Deductive reasoning always begins with an absolute.
An absolute constructed on inductive and/or abductive reasoning.

What is proposed in my Bottom<>Up thinking is Inductive reasoning.

Isn't the difference between abductive and inductive reasoning more or less the amount of evidence, of observations? Abductive relying on fewer observations/evidence and being of less certainty in its conclusions.
So inductive is more careful while abductive is bolder, with the obvious drawbacks at the same time.

You went out of your way for that?

I don't know what "certainty" you are talking about but it seems that every time someone offers an opinion, and his name is Satyr, he must qualify it with the necessary deference and statements of humility so the many do not feel threatened.

A disclaimer has to be offered with every single one of Satyr's post which the herd considers too disturbing, without holding onto that small possibility that it might be wrong.
He must offer that tiny way out, he must leave the back door slightly ajar, for the common idiot to weasel through and tell himself that none of what Satyr says applies to him.

Here is my disclaimer, to the Mensa crowd, making me feel insecure with every single one of the posts:

All of Satyr's posts and opinions are positions based on probability, not absolutes, since absolutes, and their absence, including absolute certainty, is part of Satyr's position.
Probability, though, does not mean that all possibilities are equally valid, or that the possibility of error represents a reason enough to dismiss a position.
That's what cowards do.

All of Satyr's posts, and opinions, are not based on one, or two, or ten, observations, but on much more than that.
Satyr thinks that given the subjective nature of human thinking and how most are driven by emotion, it is natural for such minds to deny emotion as their guiding motive.
Satyr deals with majorities, when dealing with inferior creatures.
Higher minds do not use the tactics used by the simple, and they require more refined intellectual boxes to be put in.
The simple can be placed in communal, more broad, encompassing, boxes.
Man does not study each cat separately, but felines in general.
The particular only becomes interesting when it exhibits a behavior out of the box - not ordinary.    
A simple creature, like a dog, can never know itself more than a human knows it, and although a human can never enter a dog's mind, and think like a dog, he can take canine behavior and reason, using knowledge of himself, and of nature, as a standard, and from that man can come to most-probable conclusions regarding what the dog most probably is thinking when it acts in a certain manner.
Man places animal behavior within human contexts, and succeeds.

All of Satyr's posts, like everybody else, are personal positions which he holds to be superior to others. Not absolute, not indubitable, not certain, but superior.
Psychological judgments about others are done daily, and constantly by everyone. Even a dog looks a human in the eyes to see if his master is angry or just playing.
Satyr reasons another's psychology from the entirety of that poster's posts, and positions, including bragging about being part of Mensa when all he has to show is the average crap, or slightly about average crap, if we take Shit-Smears, Tyrranus, and Kriswest as his chosen group's average poster.
Perhaps imbeciles should return to their forum and deal with what they've made of it, or what they've allowed it to come to.  

All of Satyr's value judgments, like everyone else's, are comparisons. Satyr compares his evaluation, through observation over time, of the individual specimen's behavior, thinking, actions, in comparison to Satyr himself, or in comparison to a group of individuals.
The behavior of an other, his actions, including the activities we call thinking, as these are expressed using are manifestation of that individual's essence, unless he is lying.
A liar can only lie downward, not upward: he can pretend to be dumber, not more clever than what he is.

Every word, how one uses the word, what idea one constructs using these words, the order in which one places these words in sentences, the frequency, consistency, predictability, displayed in the usage of these words are part of the mind's essence.
Furthermore, bragging, insinuation, emotional displays, feigned indifference, silence, aloofness, namedropping, verbal gestures and so on, all participate in evaluating an individual's essence, if only words are the medium available, and when all other senses are left blind.
Nevertheless, words, suffice, over time.  

Satyr knows that "necessarily" is a word, a way the average moron tries to avoid being exposed.
He uses sexually laden words to belittle a position he cannot challenge rationally, and then, whether he is aware of it himself or not, tries to claim that the intent was not to belittle.
The choice of words exposes the intent ...in all probability.
If to this willful choice of words one adds a poster's overall performance, his behavior, over time; his psychology, as it may be displayed in bragging, in insinuation, in casualness, and you begin to develop a higher or a lower probability ratio, concerning a particular mind's overall quality, its personality, and the motives this personality is directed by, more often than not.    
   


The poster seems certain of Satyr's certainty.  
I bet he knows what Satyr is thinking, based on his understanding of what Satyr is saying.
Maybe this imposter can prove that he rally knows what Satyr is saying, by actually challenging one of satyr's real positions, rather than some make-belief, childish assertion which is in contradiction to Satyr's positions ....like this "certainty" crap, or previous allusions to satyr thinking of himself as "unique" or as the "overman".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Actual Positions, in Brief and his a heavy dose of skepticism, for the girls.

So, if Satyr exposes the herd for what it is he must, at the very least, be humble enough, to not really present the opinion as if he actually believed that it was most probably the truth, but must, at the very least, for the children, give some benefit to that inferior position which may be true, as well.  

The poster, this Mensa member who most certainly has impressed Satyr and many others, of higher quality,  over the years, need not retract a thing, since he is not as certain of anything that he ever posts.
This Silhouette need not take anything back, because everything he says is part of what exposes his TRUE quality of mind, rather than the accolades he wishes placed him on the upper 1% when he cannot offer anything more than the common and the base.
In fact Satyr enjoys studying such specimens of western decay, and only wishes he could be closer to see the finer details of this mind's inner workings.
I am glad the specimen, as represented by this interloper, with a typical moniker, feels no certainty concerning anything he says, and not only that, but he is totally innocent in regards to what he says and what words he choose, he wills, when expressing the uncertain ideas he proposes, without motive and malice, and always well-intended.

Speaking out of your arse, is now an innocent game, with no motive, and with no certainty whatsoever.
It is, in fact, nothing more than the chatter of children, as is not typical on ILP.    

Let's just say you won, and call it an abductive conclusion.
I'll take the absence of arguments in regards to Satyr's positions, certain or not, as an indication of an underlying insecurity, and this focus on the Satyr himself, as nothing more than innocent child's play.

But I am not certain ...and I am not permitted to feel that my opinions are superior, or more probable than others, because that would be politically incorrect, and evil.
Some child, some where, may, or may not, be hurt.
I cannot say anything with any conviction, because it is a sin, for the secular humanist.

Now, until the interloper, and his Mensa buddies, actually come up with a rational counter-argument to a position Satyr actually holds, and not the crap they pull out of their communal butts to comfort themselves, and giggle and slap each other on the back, Satyr is forced to take his precious time into consideration - this post excluded - and ignore another vain attempt.

Ta, Ta,

Quote :

Certainty + deduction? Of course.
Certainty + induction? No, but at least you have the support of all the evidence going.
Certainty + abduction? Not at all, with simply one explanation, deemed "probable", of potentially many.

If a group (or individual) asserts that there can be no absolute certainty, particularily in terms of knowledge or reasoning.... then a retard can claim that because there are other possible explanations for his behaviour that these are equally as possible. Likelihood does not factor in. Probabability of one explanation over another does not factor in. Only certainty, dependent upon unquestioned, self-evident presuppositions. And where there is no such certainty, a way out is offered.

A mind's methodology of thought betrays itself here. An either/or dichotomy. A circular manner of reasoning which utilizes the minds own invented abstractions to analyse and deduce - the mind's own abstractions.
Refering to nothing real. The real which is uncertain, transient, imprecise.
Truth becomes not a premise's degree of accuracy when applied to it's standard, reality, but an absolutist position/negation; which is incredibly simplistic and inaccurate.

But it is certain. Certain by definition. 1=1

Perhaps a "fetish" for deductive reasoning should be the focus here.

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

Here is a typical example of a moron using double-standards to defend his weakness.
A forum full of unoriginal, gossipy crap, chastising someone trying to criticize Christianity, because he assumes a desire to be controversial and spark debate.
This moron, Only Humean indeed, is a classic example of a modern-day, Nihilist.
The "positive" kind.
If you agree and compliment and kiss the collective arse, you do not need to meet his "high" standards of intellectual discourse, but if you do not, then all of a sudden, this pseudo-intellectual, turd, will use the usual crap to give himself an excuse ...as if being a cowards and imbeciles need excuses in this day and age.

Trying to seem "dangerous" is unforgivable when trying to seem interesting or to appear a philosopher will do.
No matter how harmless a critique of Christianity and of the modern "culture" might be, for this turd, he is quick to defensively quarantine it, before it causes too much thinking.

Consider what he claims as being reasoning. He never defines it, nor offers an example.
90% of the posting on the forum he lords over is full of unsubstantiated either/or, 'yes it is' or 'no it isn't' crap...and full of the brain-dead posting personal declarations of lifestyle choices.
But he focuses on this one, that hypocrite.
Entire threads derailed by infantile douche-bags, which are part of the majority in that herd, and he singles out this one.

Go through this turd's posts, when he tires to appear philosophical, and is not only going around being an authority figure, and try to find what exactly he means by "argument" and "reasoning".

Not only selective reasoning, but a clear need to protect something near and dear to him.

I'm a self-proclaimed elitist and I still display more openness than this imbecile of modern decay, pretending to be open minded and honest.

He has to mask his prejudice behind all that intellectually sounding crap, mostly to comfort himself by remaining true to his won illusions about his own integrity.
He administers a forum full of crap, but there are a few threads that really get to him, so he has to find a reason to dismiss them without making it too obvious.
He doesn't want to use the more typical "trolling" excuse, because that is not becoming overused, so he uses the need to be controversial as his "why, I single out this one when this entire forum is full of worse shit".
 
Here we quarantine for three basic reasons:
1- Flooding the threads with off-topic repetitive rhetoric, 2- No explicit porn or anything that will get us any unwanted attentions and 3- using aliases, otherwise known as sock-puppets, to get around the rules.

Still, we are more open to discussing any proposition, and only warn that stupidity will be punished. No protection for the average moron.

But there?
There they pretend to be open, and fearless, and non censoring, and look at the moderating team:
A brown cow, Maj, who although could have been part of Mensa, like some other elite ILP members, she can't really show why, and the resident thought-police Only Humean, an imbecile hiding that fact with big words and pretentious aloofness, yet so emotionally invested and oh so prejudiced.

I'll keep it at those two.

The typical moron, believes thinking should never become passionate, never inflame, never create conflict.
The average moron is governed by emotions and so discriminates using emotional standards:
Loving, comforting, compassionate, unifying, forgiving...are good. these are philosophical, virtuous, or whatever term the imbecile uses to associate his self-interests with something flattering.
To say something contrary to the common, the popular, something that may hurt someone's feelings, will not be accepted.
Nothing outside the loving paradigm will be tolerated.
To exclude it all kinds of hypocritical excuses will be found, expressed with compensating language games.
This turd, for instance, hides his won simplicity behind big words and verbal eloquence, but has never offered anything interesting on the forum he administers.
He's the standard bearer of mediocrity ...keeping everything level and plain.

For such turds passion is to be avoided, unless it is erotic, loving, nurturing, motherly.
No thymos, only eros will be permitted.
On the first case exacting standards will be imposed; on the second any old crap will be forgiven because it is within the erotic boundaries of feminizing decadence.

And what does this say about Carleas?
A politically-correct, average mind, owning his own forum.
Not much.

Fuck, I love that place.
Like visiting the zoo.

As a child I was obsessed with ants.
Watched them for hours, under the hot Mediterranean sun. Toyed with them. Made them fight.

The average moron feels a disturbance in the flow. He senses a rippling in the otherwise uniform surface.
Something is churning in the deep but he does not dare look.
The dark is to be avoided, when the surface is so buoyant and full of light.

This is "philosophy" for the average moron.
Keep to the shallows, get yourself no a boat: some craft someone built, and float, coast, let the tides take you and the breezes dry your skin.

Thinking for the vacationer, before he returns to his humdrum everyday life. A short trip over the depths, but not in them. He cannot swim, he need floatation devices, preferably big boats that can hold more than one person at a time.

ILP?
What a wonderful resource.

Knowing my buddies over at ILP read this, and feel flattered, I offer this:

A weakling can only suppose one possibility because any other would expose him to an uncomfortable truth.

--Over at ILP the only possibility for paying attention to them is that they are "challenging" or "interesting" on a personal level.
Like when studying ants and how they interact, some of them might feel flattered by this attention.
If you study retards, because they represent a growing majority, they must feel a bit special about it.

--Over at ILP the beast must have multiple heads, because they must believe that it is only one.
The possibility of influence, of an idea spreading, frightens the average moron.
The only ideas that matter are those it feels comfortable in, and has grown up with.
So, anyone who expresses a memetic reality, other than their nihilistic one, must be one and the same person.
They see Satyr everywhere. The possibility that Satyr might be influencing some, by exposing them to an ancient wisdom, scares the shit out of them. The only idea worth spreading is the nihilistic bullshit they suckle on.    

Also, notice how they justify their "philosophical' stringency, when they spend months jibber-jabbering on and on about nonsense.
Suddenly when they smell a goat they become real precise about the level of evidence and reasoning they will consider philosophical.
The open minded find excuses to become elitist.
I admit to being an elitist, but they must preserve the illusion that they are open, and honest, and democratic.
The imbecile Humean finds a very demanding integrity, all of a sudden.
He swims in the cesspool for months, but one gem, reflecting the shit that he is, and he loses it.  

Pages upon pages of imbeciles talking about nonsense for years, and then BANG!!!!! they, suddenly, require philosophical discipline.
The other then must be supernatural, when the mediocre suffices for them every other time.
One standard when they agree and are comforted...and another when their hypocrisy is exposed.

Prove it to be beyond doubt, if you say something that makes me feel bad ...but if not, then any stupidity will be respected and appreciated as philosophical.


The IP address is not enough, for these imbeciles.
The scapegoat must be found, and it must be one, or else we have a witch-hunt.

Some are convinced that the majority of the embers here, on KT, are all Satyr using different monikers.
Funny, and an indication of this need to reduce numbers to feel better about their own obsession with quantities.

Consider the concept of parity.

For the mediocre, nihilist - though he may reject both characterizations - the double standard achieves parity.

In his mind there is no superior or inferior, no degree, no acceptable hierarchy, mainly because the truth is one and ignorance, the absence of certainty, creates uniformity.
He may pretend to speak in degrees but he only accepts them selectively and on an absolutist, emotional basis.  

How does it manifest in real time?

Easy...
To the superior position impose a more exacting, stringent, unforgiving of the slightest lack, standard.
To the inferior position impose a less exacting, more forgiving of the greatest lapses in common sense, standard.

You lower the superior by using absolute standards, and more stringent rules of conduct, and you raise the inferior by, again, using the absence of absolute knowledge, of absolute certainty, to exaggerate its plausibility.


A retard can be living in a sea of filth, some of it his own, but he'll be disgusted by a fly.

Another parity creating tactic.
A weakling may exhibit an obsession, an addiction, but it is the other's momentary tasting that will be used to excuse himself.

For example...
A weakling may be an alcoholic, or a drug user, totally given over to chemical escapism and self-numbing, but it is when he sees another sipping on a glass of wine, or having one cigarette where he feels comforted the most.

For the jilted lover, spending inordinate amounts of time obsessing over someone who rejected him, is healthy – seeing the one who denied him pleasure behind every face, is healthy – and if he admits that it may be a bit unhealthy he must excuse it by finding obsession everywhere, to make his own less obvious and less damning.
If the one who denied him pleasure, love, then turns to look his way, he will find in that moment, in that instance, a reason to accuse the other of obsessing over him; the hours of his own dedication achieving parity with that moment.
Suddenly he does not feel as bad about himself. He has begun to get over the object of his obsession.
But has he?    

Once again, it is the absence of an absolute where, for the nihilist, equalization is established.
For the alcoholic, only absolute abstinence would make him feel weak before a drug.
For the weakling absolute strength, impotence can make him accept.
For the ignoramus, coward, absolute certainty can persuade him, if the other offers no comforting ideas which feed into his emotional addiction.

The slightest uncertainty, ignorance, lack of completion, and the weakling and coward, the everyday, modern nihilist, finds a reason enough, to produce parity.
This is the either/or paradigm, where the balance is tilted by pure emotion.


The eroticism of the female mind.

For a female, or an effete pseudo-male, the idealization of otherness must be kept unblemished.

The smallest imperfection would be reason enough to lose interest, to fall out of love, with the object of its obsession.

For the modern nihilist, the object is that of unity, of oneness.
Whether this unity takes on a masculine spirit, as in God, or a feminine spirit, as in chaos, does not matter much.
Attraction is determined by sexuality, and so it is more common, in our feminized, modern times, for there to be a more pronounced attraction to order, in the form of change leading to a "better" future, an immanent absolute, a coming Utopia.
The object of attraction must always be outside of self. Not something one must produce in self but something one must find and give himself over to.
To create order in self, is a masculine trait. To give one's self to order, is a feminine desire, a want, an attraction, obsession.
It can take the form of faith, hope.  

The "blemish" to be ignored, here, is the past.
It is that unwanted baggage, the unforgiving, unreasonable, immutable, determining past which must be ignored if love is to take hold.
Love must be blind of this blemish, of the past.
The focus must be in the immediate, directed by some projected potential ...as a coming future possibility.
The past is erased away, cleansed away, from the idealized, immanent, coming future.
The future corrects the past. It forgives it.
To preserve this unblemished ideal, such minds must ignore the manifestation of this past, in the present, as an appearance, the apparent.  
In order to maintain the purity of the parity of unifying oneness, the one that lowers the superior and raises the inferior to produce a uniformity, a comforting leveling, the nihilist must ignore divergence, difference, and focus, as a lover looks into his/her lover's eyes, only on the sameness.

To be jilted by order would result in feminine wrath; now order, the masculine, must be exposed as being less than perfect, full of blemishes.

Parity is the fixed idea(l) for the average nihilist.
Having sensed his own nature he wants to level it all down to his/her level.
The desire of denying sex and race as being a determining factor in establishing potential, is a way of leveling temporarily down to the most immediate dimensions. A way of ignoring disparity, so as to find sameness, spatial and temporal uniformity, equality of potentials, PARITY.  

Parity being another term for equal, same...uniform.
What is uniformity in space/time?
Parity of potential, of possibility.
It is the absence of probability, which is what a pattern is: order being the elimination of infinite possibilities.
This tendency towards infinite possibilities is known by another name: Chaos.
It can also be called absolute randomness, if the approach is finalized - which it never is - and becomes infinite possibility - infinite space/time. The absence of patterns of ordering, of probabilities, is reflected in the absence of matter, of energy.
Energy is flattened out into a paste of uniformity.
Matter being specks of higher possibility = probability.
Expanding universe means a towards uniformity of space - space = possibility.
Energy is uniformly distributed, eliminating divergence in fluidity, which is what matter, and energy, in its many forms is.

This expansion towards the infinite is the expansion of possibilities, leveling down of probabilities (ordering) resulting in a near-absolute state of chaos, randomness.
This coming future is comforting to the Nihilist.

For the negative, honest, NIHILIST because it destroys all that he despises: himself, the world as he knows it and makes him possible.
For the positive, hypocritical, coward, duplicitous, NIHILIST, the more ubiquitous one in our modern age, because it promises an increase in the possibility that things might turn out for his better, a personal Utopia, Paradise.
Peace being a metaphor for death, as in "he is at peace" in a world of agon, struggle, strife, war, as the ancient believed.
For this hypocrite the destruction of reality ushers in the coming, immanent, future, better one. One in which he, as he is now, is forgotten - a clean slate, a new start, a reanimation, redefinition, reinterpretation, reincarnation.
He enters Hades, and drinks from the river of bliss, Lethe. Suddenly his past, nature, is forgotten. He is cleansed of himself.
He can now reinvent himself, wear any garment, put on any mask.
A nihilist always hates the past (nature).
He only likes it when it is quarantined, cleansed, selectively re-narrated.
He wishes to make-up his own identity, or adopt one ready-made for him: something that hides his blemishes and accentuates his gifts.
Something he can purchase or be given, if he is a nice boy.
PARITY       

How does this nihilistic tendency manifest in a human psychology?
Well, first we must understand why uniformity is so attractive to a creature that finds himself inadequate and does not wish to be compared, unless it is with the motive of maintaining parity, or what they call harmony.
Harmony being a uniformity of tone. A vocal parity.
To belong to the choir is to mesh your voice with the group's tone. To disappear, to become inconspicuous, as an individual voice, only adding your vocal energy to the uniformity of tone.
It can represent a fear of being seen, of standing out ...the herd psychology where predators are evaded by this uniformity of forms running in unison.
To the predator the mass of buffalo appear as one mass, a bigger organism.

The bigger the group, the more insecure the individual wanting to belong to it, wanting to meld into its mass.
The group's mass compensating for the individual's sense of weakness.
Inversely proportional.
   

---
A description, if it has a negative connotation, is whining, bitching, for the nihilist, because trying to change the world is part of the agenda of leveling.
He assumes that the other hates himself and the world just as much as he does, so any analysis, observation, on how the world works, is a complaint, only if this description is negative towards him and his interests.
If its positive then it is objective, or honest.  
Parity.
Saying so and so is contradicting his own values, and wanting, begging for so and so to change, is equated.
Negative observation, a disparity, a divergence is automatically a complaint.
Only the uniform, the sameness, the positive must be observed, can be noticed when it comes to humans - because here parity is the desirable.
Wanting the world to change, when it is in Flux, is part of the stupidity of the Nihilist.
In fact order, ordering, which is what life is, is a struggle to arrest change, to slow it down, to resist it.
The hypocrite nihilist worships change only because he hopes, he expect, that it will lead to the better.
He hates the past (nature), the determined, and seeks salvation in the future, the coming, the more real or the super-real, or the coming correction to the real.
He has faith in the future because the present, as it has been established as the sum of the past, is what he despises.
A Nihilist always wants to change the world, reality, so that it meets his ideals...he never changes his ideals to better deal with the real. Being eternally disappointed by this infantile expectation he remains the eternal victim of circumstances.      
 
A nihilist assumes, because it is true for him, that all description uncovering a negative aspect of reality is a call for change.
Change not in self as it relates to otherness, but change in otherness.
A shared desire to alter the world so as to harmonize with personal desires.
PARITY  

---
Gossip is his trade, and so any theory about a person, or a group, is a way of equating different forms of grooming under the same heading.
A scientist studying a herd of water buffalo and commenting on their social interactions is the same as an old-maid commenting on her neighbor's sexual activities.
Lowest common denominator: they both speak of another and concern themselves with what others are doing.
But a nihilist separates man from nature. A different standard is expected when dealing with the human species because here uniformity is the desirable.
PARITY

---
He is obsessed, and accuses of obsession to hide it, once he has used it as an insult.
The attempt to self-flatter, like a female would, by finding in another's attention what she feels in herself, is found in the lowest common denominator: need.
A man obsessed with working-out is the same as one obsessed with a female, and stalking her daily.
Lowest common denominator eliminates the factor of motive.
The nihilist uses his own to create uniformity.
His obsessions are shameful ergo all obsession is an insult.    
PARITY

---
He needs to belong to the multitudes, the all-inclusive, club of sameness, and so he presumes this is a universal need.
Any social interaction is another example of parity.
Eating McDonald's and eating Filet Mignon is equated under the heading 'eating'.
The shared need is focused upon, the quality of divergence is ignored.
All is leveled down to its lowest common denominator.
PARITY    

---
He has been dominated and wants to dominate others himself, so he assumes this to be an intent in all cases.
He confuses the outcome with the intent, placing his own motive there.
To dominate is, for him, always intentional, because it is intended for him, and by him.
PARITY

---
He always includes his own situation, his own circumstances, his own interests within all evaluations, and so he automatically assumes that the other does the same, to the exact same degree.
All opinions, for him, are indications of preference, because his are exactly that.
All positions are, somehow, self-flattering, they are based on an immediate benefit, because it is for him the only reason to think of something as being more probable than not.
PARITY

---
Emotion is the all-leveling grounding of the mediocre Nihilist.
He confuses his own for the intent.
If the other's opinion makes him feel bad, makes him feel ashamed, he assumes that this was intentional.
Any description raising an emotion in him was intended. Reality must be unemotional means, for him, that it must not raise an emotion in the one observing it.
It must be bland, detached, disconnected, distanced...otherwise it should be ignored.
If it is not then the emotion is made into an intent, placing it upon the other.  
The emotion in himself he projects as the motive in the other.
MRAs and FEMINISTS do this, as they are part of the Dis-eased culture.
The other is just as guilty and ashamed and must be feeling just as bad otherwise why would his observations raise these emotions in him?
Projected identity, an unburdening by unloading a weight and placing it on the other.
PARITY  

---
He repeats what is popular, he is concerned with the popular, with the average, with the all-inclusive, and considers this his individuality.
He needs to belong to a group.The larger the better.
He sees the social instinct everywhere, and so he assumes that the desire is as non-discriminating as his is, or must be.
All want to belong to his group. Any interest in the group is a validation of that.
PARITY


The slightest hint is reason enough for equalization to occur, for the modern, mediocre, Nihilist.

Like I mentioned above:
The Nihilist seeks uniformity of possibilities ...the chaos of no probability, no order.
Order implies hierarchies, gradations, place-putting ...higher/lower.
For the nihilist parity must be had.

What is high must be torn down, and what is low must be elevated.
The near approximation of parity is good enough, close enough.

One pebble of similarity dismisses mounds of differences.
The focus is on the similarity to achieve PARITY.
His standards are not means to discern to discriminate, but to equalize, to level, to make unconscious, unobservable, inconspicuous.
He wants his standards, his principles to make the otherness disappear in a uniformity of One.

That which stands up, apart, must be cut down, consumed, torn apart.  

See the generalizations concerning the label HUMAN.
Some go further.
A 96% similarity between chimp and human is close enough to think of these creatures as at par with humans.  

One one small drop of lack, and what threatens becomes the same as that which offers waterfalls of nonsense.
PARITY
Stupidity can say whatever it wishes, and be respected, but intelligence is to be held at a higher standard so as to avoid respecting it.
Self-hatred finding comfort in this double-standard.
An observation, not a complaint. this is typical of this mind-set, this memetic virus.
I expose it to the light to study it and to use it to support my own positions to those who are interested.  
 
I go on...
A single doubt erases the hypothesis and equates it with the irrational.
Parity of possibility.
Say the most well-thought out hypothesis, and if you cannot offer indisputable, absolute, evidence, then you are at par with the imbecile spewing nonsense.

The either/or psychology of the Nihilist.    
You must be absolutely So, otherwise you are absolutely So.
No variants.
EITHER....OR

With the Christians sin was the all leveling speckle of lack.
No matter its degree it relegated you to one of God's serfs.
All equal before the absolute.
This was the beginning of the equalization Nihilism, that eventually became Marxism and even Democracy.
Democracy, of course, a symptom of Hellenic decline.
The equalization of citizenry, no matter their other qualities, under the lowest common denominator heading of Human living in the City-State ...called citizen.


The focus, again, is on sameness.
Once you exaggerate sameness and minimize difference, you achieve parity.
Sameness, of course, often based on the grossest generalizations and simplifications.
This is the lowest-common-denominator.
When one cannot easily be found in the apparent, look deeper.
Deeper, deeper, until at some point you will find sameness in a molecule and justify the PARITY proposition.
Once that small infinitesimal similarity is found then all divergence is erased.




Notice ... how, despite the many posts the members make here, including myself, the mediocre nihilist focuses on the one that speaks about them.
They feel flattered and use it to create PARITY.

Notice ... how in the Dungeon they come to taunt Satyr, though they have nothing on-topic to say.
Satyr spends time on KT because Satyr is fortunate enough - or he set it up that way - and has a lot of free time.
Satyr also lives in a climate which is now getting cold and is raining constantly, so Satyr spends more time indoors, and on-line.
A month ago, when the weather was nice, over here, Satyr was not a frequent contributor on KT, but the Nihilist must ignore all divergence from a sameness.
Short term, selective, memory.
This is used by another one of their clan to create...PARITY.
The focus is on the individual not the opinion, because there they can hope to find a weakness, or, at least, an excuse, to level all down to their level.  
PARITY

They sit in a cell, holding the keys to the door, taunting Satyr who lives outside:
"Scared to come here and face us?!!!
Yet, if I were permitted they would lock the doors up again.

If they are so desperate to create PARITY why not come here and challenge an idea, not a person?
Then they speak of obsession in the most degrading sexual way.

The bullies are now the bullied.
They must take back the identification with the eternal victims. They must humble themselves to find strength, and pride in PARITY. 
Those who propose ideals that level man down to a pulp, present themselves as the wronged.
Isn't that classic?
Victim-hood used as a tool for assault.

The average, mediocre, nihilist, still thinks Satyr is behind all those monikers which are using Satyr's words, his ideas, his perspective ...and some his style.
Even on KT they must convince themselves that there cannot be so many interested in Satyr, though they obsess over him themselves.
So they insist, those who come wearing masks, on believing that Satyr is also behind all the members here, or most of them.
Their practices, their tactics, are now uniforming.
PARITY

To clarify:
Satyr only uses Satyr as a moniker.
The few times he used another, or went through another's already created moniker, it was to circumvent a ban and to respond to cowards hiding behind electronic walls but who cannot stand before Satyr as rational beings, and not as emotional wenches.

In fact Satyr is one of the few people on these forums who has had his real name and home address and phone number plastered all over them a while back.

Not once has Satyr ever claimed to be an alpha-male, or even a male.

All Satyr has ever claimed is that he is smarter than 90% of the participants on these internet forums, and that he has created a concise, well thought-out, rational world-view, which he may or may not like, but which explains almost everything we experience, particularly when it comes to human nature and human social constructs.
All Satyr claims a superiority in is awareness.   
The Mensa members fail to see.   

Not once has Satyr ever claimed to want to dominate or that he is dominating, nor has he ever declared victory, though many have declared his defeat.

Not once has Satyr excluded himself from every single one of his positions, and, in fact, claims that to know, to see, is but the beginning of breaking free, not a foregone conclusion of success.

I watch ... I analyze ... I describe ... I adapt ...I survive  


The study continues.
Let's hope it becomes more interesting.

A little ditty about bullies and the bullied.

I find it difficult to accept the notion that a majority is the bullied from a minority, not unless the majority admits that quality trumps quantity on a one on one basis and that they belong to that majority of weaklings.
They enforce this politically-correct, nihilistic agenda, and then complain about being bullied, like women.
Nothing more totalitarian than a weakling demanding to be treated in a way he has not earned ...or a moron enforcing some bullshit ideology and then running for cover and bitching about getting bullied when he is put in his place.

If reality is not tolerable to you then what place do you have in philosophy?  

In that case one can feel pity for a weakling if he minds his own business and does not involve himself in anything above his capacity to understand and to deal with.
Nobody advocated going to churches and mocking Christian imbeciles, but if they come here, in public, with the arrogant faith in their own abilities to be rational and to deal with reality, then all is fair in war and love.

It would be like going to an arena where free-fighting will occur, and entering the rink, confident in your fighting abilities getting your ass handed to you and then bitching about the other's violent temper.  

Something I know from personal experience.
Those weakling, all humble and moral, would turn like the vicious little gits that they are if the tables were turned.
Nothing as vicious than a weakling given power.

If you wish to witness the true nature of the average moron then see how they behave in lawless environments, or when the law and order mechanisms suddenly and momentarily fail.
Any moral behavior which depends on a threat and a promise to remain so, is not honest and not innate.
It is faked.


There is no such thing as a "new idea".
All ideas are based on the past, or a combination of one or more ideas from the past.
Not only are my ideas old, but they are mostly, and by the many, forgotten.
I remind them.

Those convinced that they are part of some avant guard of intellectualism are the most ignorant about how ancient their beliefs really are.
They become mesmerized by the new words, the modern packaging, and do not open the box to smell the old stench.


To harm an idea, to do damage to it, you must first understand it.
Declarative statements are not enough.

I am mirroring this here too.... so Stuart li'l can go inform his new master Humean of the latest developments...

Satyr wrote:

It's best to be misunderstood by the many rather than to be understood by them.

My own mistake has been this desire to reveal to those who would most despise me for it.

Stuart-little is a plain idiot. Was it just yesterday that dolt came here speaking of having awakened from Xt. and discovered his new Nobility ha

Just one look at how he defined nihilism as everything to do with the Personal and the personal alone on Primal's nihilism-test thread, is enough footnote to who and what Stuart-li'l was, and what he meant by Nobility.

To him, one of his threads on ILP he deleted like all those cowards there - Moreno and d63, etc.,, he called Apaosha "Incompetent" for being laconic and non-reactionary. To him, the ones who erupt like you are no good, and the ones who actively desist from reacting are also no good and useless.
And then he can conveniently declare, there was no one to contest him. Hypocrite.

He sees Satyr in everyone there, LOl... its so hilarious and this hilarity is what checks me from bursting at him. Frankly he makes me laugh; I have never seen a bigger dufus.
He's busy collecting quotes from old archives to prove his case  

This is called being Obsessed and thinking with Feminine Emotionality.

The coward Stuart Li'l / Canterbury, would rather engage in Personality Cults than spend effort here dealing with ideas and pointing out "contradictions and inconsistencies" which he's clamouring about on and on and on, and yet, like d63, not one shred of evidence.

This is feminization - this emotional obsession trying to Defame the messenger than Dissect an idea.

With regards to what you say, the need for challenge makes the presentation and contesting of ideas with sheeple inevitable.

How the herd distorts it, of course only reveals its own prejudices, not your work.

Quote :

Not that I would say anything novel, for ideas are old, but that I would dare to speak them openly to those who would resent me for it.
This is an attack on identity, on the necessary survival ideas the majority need to remain sane and in-line.

Nietzsche attracted the fanatics, as Jesus did. It is unavoidable that when speaking indirectly those who most need will grasp upon any hint to feed on.

Yes.

Zhiqiang whoever that dopehead was, felt threatened by your positions, to turn into some fanatic good samaritan. Crazy... the extent of how ideas threaten some people, weaklings either unable to assert themselves and their rubbish [Schizo-smears is pro at this survival tactics],,, or unable to rationally check another's idea.
Weak and the Cowardly... like Zhiqiang and d63 exhibit are the real deranged sociopaths.

The typical (average) mind, is attracted to Nihilism but then is surprised by the repercussions, by the emptiness.
He dreams of erasing it all, to unify all in a uniforming nothingness, and then finds the outcome unfulfilling.
 
They love to focus on the benefits, avoiding to consider the possible costs, risks.
To avoid these is to focus on what matters for them.
Towards the opponents, or those they feel threatened by, they always focus on the costs/risks, and never the benefits.

As a result, they set-up situations which then leave them unsatisfied, wondering what it's all for.
This causes him to revert to the basic, the lowest, the primal: hedonism and materialism.

On most forums, for example, the idea of all-inclusion, universal love/respect, is practised in reflection of the Democratic ideals and their underlying uniforming, nihilism.
One must selectively degrade and exalt so as to crate parity.

Then, when they feel dissatisfied by the result.
They do not question their attitude, their mindset, but blame it on something else.

Notice that in the area of philosophy, which is our main theme on the forums we are interested in, this delusion results in the constant lowering of conversation to the lowest-common-denominator.
When all are included, equally, and then are to be given the same respect, then they dominate, by sheer numbers, or by the normal disruptive force of base behaviour.


An experiment:

Place a group of adults in a room where they are to converse about politics, let's say.
With them include children.
One or two will do.
Then enforce a standard where EVERYONE in the room is to be given equal consideration, attention, respect.

How much serious conversation will ensue?

Do the same but now lower the common denominator by including dogs or cats.
Decrease, in other words, the lowest-common-denominator within the room.
Apply the same moral rule.
What will happen?

Yes, the room's dynamics will shift downwards towards the participating member's combined average.
Whoever enters the room wanting a serious, adult, conversation will be dissatisfied.
The social rule will lead all conversation to the lowest participant's and their interests.
A joyous, playfulness, where pets are adored, loved, and all escape in the contact.
But no conversation on politics, or anything above the room's median intellectual level.  

I saw this in practice on ILP, and many other forums calling themselves philosophical.
This is why I love these on-line forums. A microcosm where some experiments can be conducted, or one can simple observe humanity behaving and socializing.

On ILP the douche-bag Fausty once became a moderator, and Carleas, the politically-correct nitwit, established a democratic, egalitarian, modern, rule, which Fausty enthusiastically enforced, and also justified.
The majority were content since they were included and nothing over their heads would be permitted without them intervening with simplistic one-liners, or some trite comment off-topic, most of the time.

Popularity, in this case, is the forum's admitted goal.
Popularity means all are welcomed...all opinions must be respected, nobody will be put in their place, made to feel stupid.

Later a black female, Maj (Brown Cow), and some pseudo-intellectual imbeciles using double-standards, Only_Humean being one, replaced Fausty and the previous team of mediocrity control.  
No need to speak on Maj, she's a simpleton placed in a situation which is over her head ...so she's perfect for maintaining the particular forum's mediocrity.
Democracy has a quota of female and visible minorities, to give that sense of modern community values.
I've also commented on how Humean uses the double standard of demanding standards from those that threaten the median rule, while he is much more lax in his intellectual rigour when it comes to those who feed into it.
He cannot display the standards he expects from some, as a way to silence them, and can more easily relate to the lowest of the low, amongst whom he feels like a genius because he sues big words.
If Humean were to apply his hypocritical standards across the board then nothing will be left on ILP.
Therefore he applies it strategically trying to keep the median down by excluding anything and anyone who may drive the average simpleton, like himself, away.

Emphasis should be placed on the ongoing critique of Stoic Guardian, another moderator of mediocrity, who is reprimanded for daring to exceed the acceptable rule of the average, of the lowest-common-denominator.  In this case we see how the quantitative superior norm, enforces pressure upon the qualitative superior who goes outside the norms.  

Result?
The entire endeavour was reduced to a childish prank.
No thread was permitted to rise above a certain, common-denominator, unless it refereed and deferred to authorities or to famous figures.
Intellect through proxy.
The world observed via an established, commonly acceptable, visionary.
Gossip as philosophy.
Not about the world but about someone saying something about it.

The majority were somewhat content, and the above average were not.
Both wondered what philosophy is good for, because the conditions that were set-up and they all defended and justified didn't permit the conversation to go beyond platitudes, flirting, banter, schoolyard socializing, and the "real' world principles and morals.

The "truth" was already a given, because it was imposed as a starting proposition.
All debate was about minor issues, or on a very abstract level, never to attain the level of pragmatism and application.
They could speak about any idea(l) from a theoretical point of view, because the acceptable norms were already in practice.
the moment it came close to going beyond the shared average, reflecting the established social and cultural norms outside the premises of the forum, it was corrected.
It was corrected by the moderation team, who are the gatekeepers of mediocrity, reflecting the administrator's goal for all-inclusion and for remaining within the norms - cods of civility they are called - and if not by them then they were enforced by a naturally occurring peer pressure social phenomenon.
The ones unable to go beyond a limit, reflecting the established norms, will always intervene when things go over their heads or threaten the common-moral standard, the lowest-common-denominator's safety. Through mockery, slander, off-topic commentary pressure was put on every thread and every participant who went "over the line, the line being the median, to return them to their "senses"...meaning to return them on the shared social norm, the lowest-common-denominator.

Then Fausty complains, as does Stuart the obsessive simpleton, who sees Satan behind every social mask, about how bored they are or how dissatisfied with the level of "philosophical discourse" they have become.
Not once do they question their own principles and choices, but place the blame elsewhere.  

Fascinating shit.
They wonder why I am interested in ILP or ILP-like forums.
Damn!!! If you wish to study human social behaviour real-time, as I am, what better place than on-line and in these forums?
Those places are anthropological gold mines.

My mistake was that I intervened upon the proceedings, contaminating them and the results.  
My intent, at the time, was to inject what was missing, and see what happens.
The dullness would have continued if I did not inject a dose of that factor coming from outside the premises they all agreed upon and never questioned. An endless conversation over the minor details of their shared delusions...like Biblical scholars debating what particular Bible passages mean, but never questioning them.
As Satyr I would introduce those ideas, ideals, those memes, which exceeded the median, the shared truths, the lowest-common-denominator's interests, its safety net.

I've done this in many places ...Sciforums, Philosophy Now, Philosophy Forums, IloveOpinions, and some other minor ones, but none matched the vigour and the multiplicity of mediocrity that I discovered on ILP.

Critique of KT Forum

The intent of this forum once I was given some control over it by apaosha, was to create a space where particular ideas, excluded by the myriad of forums where the lowest-common-denominator rule was enforced, could be expressed and discussed without ridicule, and with only the law of nature as the standard: natural selection in ideas - memetic conflict.

It was meant to congregate like-minded individuals with ideas the went beyond the established truths of the majority, the herd.

Two negative consequences emerged:

1- Like minded individuals have little to debate, as they agree on the basics.
this inhibited participation and the passions required that lead to conflict, and the growth this produces.
To compensate for this I envisioned a situation where the members could participate in other forums, such as the ones I mention above, bringing back the wisdom they acquired by engaging the mediocre.
A sort of wolf den where members can go out hunting returning with regurgitated, by them, nutrition.
Then debate would occur over the regurgitation, just as wolves battle over the hunter's gifts.

2- The KT forum, as was expected, attracted all the ones seeking relief, or the crazies looking for other crazies like them.
I tried to prepare for this by setting up a three tiered system with a public and a more private area.
In the private area only a few would be permitted after trust, over time, had been established.  
In the public area the division was meant to allow all to participate, and then only exclude, or quarantine, those few who only came to disrupt or to avenge themselves against that which they do not fully understand ...or those only here to play children's games and came here in 'bad faith'.
We have our share of pedophiles, rebels without a clue, vengeful women, and homosexuals looking for a sexual master.
such ideas are magnetic, simply because they are honest and excluded from the public domains of the average.

This natural attraction of weakness to strength, of quantity to quality, is part of the dynamics, particularly when some of the mediocre majority are pushed to the herd's periphery where they feel the least safe and the least accepted.

Satyr, come closer, and lend me your ears. i have something to whisper..

Bend over and whisper it below.
I'll give you a microphone.

As was noted, with much mirth, the average, mediocre, nihilist, does not realize that the underlying premise of his "progressive" liberalism, and his need to defend the weak (a projection of self upon the other), is a self-hatred which points to a resentment of all that made this self possible.

The end of need/suffering, is how he expresses this intolerance for the experience of existing, which the self, as an emergent, imperfect, unity, makes possible.

Instead of working on self to become more tolerant of need/suffering, he dreams, like the naive arrogant hypocrite that he is, of changing the world to accommodate him.
In this nihilistic feat he finds many allies, in fact the majority of individuals alive today, because sheltering has decreased the quality of the average, or lowered the lowest-common-denominator to the point where reality is becoming increasingly hard to take.

I feel it is necessary, at this junction, to increase my enjoyment levels, by pointing out, for one more time, a central piece of the average, mind's delusion.

Being that he has taken language literally, and not as an art-form, a symbolism, and being that this makes him an either/or thinker, a mind dependent on text, on words, on books, or The Book, he continues to make the same mistake over and over again.

He equates knowledge with understanding.
For such a simpleton reading a book is the same as saying one understands the concepts the book deals with.
He mistakes the words, the symbols, for the phenomenon they refer to, and he thinks that knowing the word, is the same as understanding the phenomenon.
The word is a simplification/generalization, symbolizing a phenomenon, and so for the simpleton nihilist this simplification/generalization constitutes the extent of his awareness of the phenomenon.

This simplicity makes the average, simple, modern nihilist, indulge in an easy and comforting practice:
Declarative Statements.

We've all comes across this practice.
It consists in a yes/no, an either/or, where saying "yes" and saying "no" is enough to represent an argument.
The word on its own, becomes a weapon, because a nihilist has no ability to see beyond human artifices, language being the code with which these artifices breath air into human environments.

Again, take the overly used and not understood term "love".
It is used as a shield, or as a weapon...as an either or an or.
It need not refer to any action, any phenomenon, anything apparent, it can stand on its own as a word.
A word producing, in a Pavlovian way, an automatic reaction, where its mere mention can stimulate into existence.
No intimacy, no trust, no reciprocity, no substance, not even proximity is required, since language is a form of grooming that spans time/space.
It can simply be written down in the written form of the abstraction, to produce the emotional reaction in the other.

The importance of the word, for the people of the word, of the Book, the children of the Scripture, cannot be underestimated.
Recall in the movie The Matrix how the artificial simulated reality was made up of code?
Yes, numbers are also symbols, and mathematics are a linguistic form - the most abstract kind.

This is the power of the word, for the nihilists who depend on ti to produce the artifices they need to keep reality away.

The word was always a tool. It was as tool of description.
Now it is a tool of prescription. A medication.
We see how casually words are thrown around.
Everyone loves each other - one moment they proclaim their eternal love to one another and a year later they divorce; the word friend has lost all meaning, as it now refers to an acquaintance, a work-buddy, someone you hand out with but do not really know.

The word has become so attached to the nihilistic psychology that to define words is considered bad form.
A word must remain ambiguous, mystical, flexible enough to mean anything ...supporting the notion of perspectivism: all perspectives are equally plausible, ergo nothing matters.
And if words are hijacked and defined as their opposite, or forever attached to one concept, minimizing their utility, then they are thrown about in declarative statements with no reference outside the human skull.

When it is shard it must produce not understanding but an emotion.
It need not refer to the world, but back to a meme, an abstraction, where the feeling it evokes is what makes it valid.

Satyr wrote:

Bend over and whisper it below.
I'll give you a microphone.

Lol

Witches only do head-jobs, Satyr... give me your head

Its of a really pssssttt {   nature.  


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


Did you get my telepathos? ; ]p

For the modern hedonistic, materialistic, nihilistic, animalistic, pseudo-intellectual, all ambitions are dedicated to being perceived, being appreciated.
It does not suffice to be, but one must become seen as becoming.
He has on standard which does not go through the majority, the all-encompassing, and so popularity is the measure of his success.

He cannot ignore the sheep that went astray, that took another path; he must bring it back, to inflate the numbers of his own evaluation.
He is a failure, in his own eyes, and if he remains true to his own nihilistic ideals, if not all do not love him, like him, appreciate him.
It is all or nothing, either/or.
That one that may go astray hints at a flaw, a question, an alternative he cannot tolerate.
Certainty is his drug, and he must preserve it by including it all into oneness.
His superior/inferior has been simplified to this duality.
He “knows” he is right, on the right side, part of the healthy majority, the popular ones, so why does that one get away?
A possibility that he may be the simpleton that some have told him that he is.

And the more potential sheep there are, the more stray ones he perceives, all the more skeptical, self-doubting he becomes. He turns to his own kind for support, of guidance, for a validation, and they give it to him, preserving their own delusions and assuaging their own doubts:
“Yes, you are kind, good, true, honest, and healthy. It is they who reject this goodness.”  
But the possibility nags at him.
A sin, Satan whispering in his ear …what did Jesus hear in the desert?

“What if?” – Ah, Pascal’s Wager.
What if? ...must be gambled on the positive side: the real, the present, the perceived, but what if, the eternity of death, darkness?
What if a lifetime wasted amounts no nil, for an eternity gained?
The nihilist can’t decide, but his need to escape, to forego this life, to erase its determining cruelties, tilts the scales.
“Best to sacrifice, the known, the existent, the real, for the possibility, small as it may be, of eternity.” He tells himself.
Best because he already feels the victim of reality; best, because he feels the loser, already, in this world.  

“Ah, what’s thinking good for? What value is there in philosophy?” he, the coward, the ignorant retarded, simpleton, snorts.

"Write a book" the herd screams at him, sharing in his pain, wanting relief themselves.
"Write a book telling us what to do ...justifying what we feel."
Such a tiny recompense for a lifetime spent in search for an escape from what?
From the past, NATURE.


It is these manimals, who shall remain unnamed, because animals deserve no name ...they are part of a herd of uniformity, and being 'the same' is their highest virtue ...it is these manimals, I say, who then come here wearing masks, to then accuse Satyr of wearing mask.
The height of self-hypocrisy, of duplicity, of self-hating (rightfully so) degradation of integrity, of pride.
It is these hypocrites, these simpletons, who then come here with declarative sentences, claiming to understand my positions, who say nothing against my positions, but only assault me with some simplistic judgment of hat they think I am all about.

It is thee manimals, the sheeple, who hide behind fences, who when freed, resort to tactics unbecoming of a human being, in the truest sense of the word, and not their modern whorish usage of it.
These turds, these products of genetic feces, are going to write about philosophy, when all they can do is gossip about who said what about the world...and, more often than not, they refer and defer, their opinions to the lowest, most despicable examples of humanity.


The French post-war intelligentsia, are the favourite lollipop of the American, academic, liberal think-tanks.
Foucault, Derrida, Lacan...steer away from that unwanted one Baurdillard.
One can read a woman, Paglia, to get an answer to that one.

Some Americans like to pretend they are thinking when they use French words, with a French savoir faire, nonchalance.
It's very chic.
They are lost in the sewer, and the only ones they impress are the brunch, urban, nouveau riche, but feeling guilty about it, set, of New World school systems, and their Ivy League charisma, with the 4 year Ph.D. hanging on the wall.

You want to smell shit, perfumed and well-quaffed?
Listen for that wench, wearing trousers, sipping on a Martini in some cocktail party, with her pet husband wagging his tail in a $10,000 suit, he just threw on that morning, casually mentioning one of the exotic European accented names, as if by accident.

She'll have that half-lid smile, shadowed by a $300 haircut, and she'll know all the names, to open all the doors.

Want to see a walking cadaver, with a skull rotting from the inside out?

Liberal fascism at work over at ILP= ILovePsychosis.

Who says weaklings cannot be bullies when they gather in large groups?

Hell has no fury like a woman scorned...and the effete, women, of the typical nihilistic establishment, can be vicious.



Eventually, with this open-door policy that only excludes the interesting and the thinking outside the box, you are left with the creeps, the retards, and endless chatter about personal lifestyles, emotions, and famous names.


Boredom is what the institutionalized mind calls its containment.

It can only think within the walls, and soon he runs out of bricks to count.
It can only find value in others, and soon he finds everyone around him is just as bored as he is because he is next to them.
Between the either/or of stress or ennui, the dullard chooses what is closest to his heart.
He reduces all to the mundane, and then finds it all too little.

Once a whore gets used to the first excitement of being open to all pricks, she begins to lose interest.

For the modern man the world is only the world of man.
He dedicates himself to fitting into it, and discovers that its easier than he originally thought, and far less fulfilling.

Poor, sad, whore.
You've made of your passions a plaything, a narcotic, a product, and look at the bed you now lay in: you made it, now sleep in it, and dream of the coming morning.
If and when it comes, - hope that the sun never rises – who would want to lay down with a whore who gave herself and of herself, so freely and so cheaply?


If you wish to sell your thoughts to those who may value them then you must understand the demographic you are appealing to.
To sell to the many, makes sure that if you cannot offer the fantastic, the supernatural, then refrain from being descriptive.
Being popular means you have to do the leg work for them.
Be prescriptive. A nice, soothing, cheap, elixir, that will anaesthetize that pesky inner turmoil, will do.
You know the kind.
The ones you gave yourself, but have now become immune to.
Let them be your new drug.

Know your target audience.
Look in the mirror.


Breaking codes, breaking news, breaking boundaries, the mind wishes to break free.
But not really, not everyone.
Breaking things may get you in trouble. You might have to face the consequences or the exposure to that which you were stuck in before you broke it.

Be happy to do what most do ...and simply break wind.
Smell that inner rot.
Imagine it hiding little seedlings, promising flowery blooms, on that pile of shit you carry around inside of you.

The common man comforts himself by fading into a whole.

A prostitute, for example, will tell herself that all females are whores, like her.
Her cheapness will not factor into her judgments.
That she gives away for a few bucks what others demand a high price for, does not compute in her mental register.
She keeps it simple, because she is a simpleton.

All are whores or they are virgins.

A mental whore, a liberal mind, is not far from this paradigm.
He can relate, and that's why whores, and all forms of degenerates, are near and dear to his heart.
He, also wants to sell, as cheaply as possible, to please and to find value in the other, like a ten-dollar whore does.

What is cheap is popular.
Whores like other whores.  

For him, if you are not giving it away, to anyone, you must be a repressed virgin.

For the progressive, mental whore, if you withhold trust, love, compassion, respect, you must be ill; you must be repressing, not giving any of it away, hoarding it like a miser, or you must be too afraid to spread your legs, like whores do with such comfortable experience.