Forums

Missed the point again, didn't ya?

Back to your full arena, uncle.
Let's hope in between the fighting and the slip sliding like amateurs some nice stick-handling will happen......

But it won't last long, some turd will elbow him and if he gets up and fights back you'll throw both of them out of the game....no you'll probably throw the talent out because he makes you feel like a klutz while the other retard makes you feel like a superstar - you'll give him a 2 minute penalty so that he can return and elbow someone else - because the retard fills the stands with more retards who can relate to him and they can play vicariously through and because the talent reminds them of how fat and slow and untalented they are.

Remember, nobody shall be disallowed from getting on the ice, and see how long the weaker players begin clutching and throwing elbows while the ref is scratching his balls or pretending he doesn't see.
But you aren't there for hockey at all..you are there for a good time....you know to waste away a few hours slapping the puck around and banging into the boards like gorillas.

When the motive is to fill the stands, then you are the ref for the job, boy.
And Carleas s the perfect manager.

Make sure you don't insult the cheer leaders. The boys love to play in front of pussy flinging pompoms.

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

More evidence as to how consistent the application of "rules" are over there.

In the end what it comes down to is that once all are accepted into the fold it all depends on the particular moderator's own views and tastes as to whether one will be tolerated or chastised, or if another will be ridiculed or protected from ridicule.

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

Once in a while you come across a mask that has a noticeable smell of familiarity, like some of the monikers used here, but you do not dare pas judgment upon because they offer so muck bulk.

Like shopping at WalMart.
Vast varieties of massive quantities with cheapness as part of the price.

But in every piece of replicated junk some short=-term pleasure can be found - like with any trinket.

From this I gain the premise that "philosophy gets "some" of its premises from science.....I can only hope that this also means that science get's "some" of its premises from philosophy, otherwise we are talking about a very unhealthy relationship.

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

Every so often you come across a pile that bears a title that contradicts everything ever posted by the same anus.

Using the medium we are forced to use, the taking on of personae with hazy motives or to escape earlier embarrassment is easy enough....yet if you take a little time and skim through the text you get a whiff of something you've smelled before, even if you might not remember where or how it was packaged.

To bring into focus, to make the intuited using other sense organs, is a daunting affair when so little sensual information is available....still the mind recognizes.

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

Read how this retard proposes to defend his absurd belief.

According to him, it, the one rejecting a claim is burdened 'equally'! with the one asserting.

Therefore if a clown comes to you and tells you his asshole is a gateway to heaven you disbelieving him is equal to his claim that it is.
You see how equality works?

All claims or rejections of claims are now equalized under the premise of communal ignorance, because we are all equally ignorant and our positions are equally based on the same faith.

And, of course, with the aid of a lap-dog like Faust and his little gang of "authority" figures defending "free-speech" and "civility", these morons can entertain the notion further as the mere fact that they are tolerated and talked to and listened to, under the premise of this holiness of civility and all-inclusion, they are offered the "right" and think it as evidence of their quality.

The ILP "authority" and common retard dared to claim [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that women were equal to men, intellectually, based on the fact that there have been women Nobel Prize winners.

I noted then that this is like claiming that the actress who won an academy Award for depicting a character in a movie written and directed by a man who also won the academy Award, or perhaps did not, was this man's equal.

Outside of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] surrounding this award, set up by a man who felt guilty about his innovations and culminating in the preemptive awarding of its much coveted distinction to Barack Obama for his contributions to peace because he had announced the pulling out of American troops from Iraq- ironic given the later developments - let us witness what happens if one of them dares to express an opinion that contradicts the established Judeo-Christian and secular humanist liberal "progressive" dogma:

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

No matter your station you are vulnerable to the wrath of the millions who have been seduced and by the social mythologies of our age.
No censorship?
Only if you speak within the "acceptable" limits and you never challenge the holy scriptures of your time and place.

Let us enjoy a small list of some of these "great" men and women.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

Can can only sit back in awe at the sheer audacity of pulling shit out of your arse with the seriousness of an undertaker and then presenting their infantile contradictions with the air of rational maturity.

I tip my hat off to all you retards.

Who but a total imbecile would declare a "place" out of space/time and an existence "outside" existence not even realizing that this absurdity, with no reference to anything in reality, is the exact description of nonexistence and the nonsensical.

That the world has fallen so low that a turd like this can enjoy the protective embrace of a forum that tolerates stupidity in its drive to become popular and that it is now respected and humored as it declares the exception to the rule for which he offers no justification and no evidence and zero arguments and it pronounces shit about a fantasy figure for which it can provide no rational explanation for - except that it feels good - is a glaring testament to the decay we are facing here.

So, I must give praise where it is due.

Good job Carleas, and you too drunken puppy-dog Faust, for a job well-done.
Not only have you created a microcosm of the macrocosm, reflecting the general decay of intellectualism, but you've managed ot lower your entire forum to the level of a post-special-Olympics jamboree where the last placed retard is offered an olive branch to place around his empty skull making him feel no different than the retard that came in first, begging the question:

"Why run at all?"

Bravo sirs....if shooting the shit with a few buddies and bitches was the goal, then you've more than achieved it.

zainba wrote:

life seems to be like hell from my point of view.
i feel the most special person on earth.
i've ideas for making the world heaven.
people don't tend to listen to me.
it's kinda like they are living in illusion that things are ok
people don't see clear enough that the evil is inside of them.

i want to make something more clear that will change it all and i need to tell my thoughts. them all.
i've a book (sort of a blog) and i try to tell some things there but i can't put my hand on all my thoughts that ran in my head until now.

what will you agree to in effort to make the world much less of an hell?

it's seems it's all possible

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

Typical. Says it all, don't it?

Yeup, when the world is a "hell" there are no ends the mind will not go to to "cure" it of its hellishness.

The emotional presumption is followed by an emotional plea and a promise.

Reasoning goes like this:

The world is dissatisfying, "wrong" ergo to correct it all that it is not must be brought about.

The Judeo-Christian doctrine enters, turning the world on its head, as this is what this promise entails.

The utopian paradise is always a contradiction of the perceived.

World - Mortal... Violent and Aggressive...Mutable... Dangerous and Competitive... Unknown...Imperfect... Suffering and Painful... Accessible via Consciousness and direct lucid engagement... Experienced by the Living...Sensual and Empirical... Pragmatic and Utilitarian....Uncertain...Incomplete.... Multiplicity.... Perceptible and Experienced... Real.... Natural.... Active.... Needy, in a state of need....Gradations... Multifaceted and Interactive,....Chaotic.... Immediate.... Determining Unambiguous and Inescapable....Varying in degrees of weakness and ignorance... Free-Willing.....ect....

Utopia/Paradise - Immortal....Loving..... Passive.....Benevolent.....Immutable....Known but rejected and/or unreachable.... Perfect.... Pleasing.... Only accessible via Unconsciousness or any form of self-inebriating, mind-numbing, thoughtlessness and/or chemical interventions...... Experienced by the Dead or in some after-life state of non-existence or existence "outside" reality....Imagined..... Idealistic...... Non-applicable and always best when it remains theoretical..... Certain.....Complete..... Uniform..... Imperceptible.... Unreal or Ideal..... Unnatural or Supernatural, Static.... Satisfying..... Absolutes..... Singular..... Order..... Hypothetical...... Indefinite...... Ambiguous and Escapist.....eternally omniscient and omnipotent......Authoritarian......etc...

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

A 1 day ban, apparently.

Fuck.... that didn't last long did it?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
One can never get enough of a morsel so bittersweet.

Quote :

This thread is about the phrase, not the book.

"Beyond Good and Evil"... At least this does not mean "Beyond Good and Bad."------
[Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, first treatise, section 17.]

Very basically, "good" as opposed to "bad" is, according to Nietzsche, what the strong call themselves; whereas "bad", derivatively, is what they call those who are evidently or apparently weak. "Good" as opposed to "evil", on the other hand, is very basically what the weak call themselves, which is derivative of what they call the strong, which is "evil".

A further difference is that "good and bad" are, like "strong and weak", relative, whereas "good and evil" are absolute: thus even in Origen's doctrine of the privatio bonis (evil conceived as the privation of good), one is either a good man (a saint) or an evil one (a sinner), though there are greater and lesser sinners, greater and lesser evils, greater and lesser privations of the good.

What it means to be beyond good and evil but not beyond good and bad may be understood from the following example. Supposing that it's harder (i.e., requires more strength, in the full sense of the word) to rape a mature woman than a little girl, to do the former is better, or less bad, than to do the latter, which is worse, or less good; whereas neither of these acts is evil.

Need I say more?

No, you should not, as your mentor is saying it for you.
Yet nothing has gotten beyond anything.
Good/Bad?
What simplicity from one that has spent so much time studying the same ideas.

Perhaps beyond binary systems, beyond absolutes.

At what point do you realize that you are addicted or floundering on the shores of your own feminine weakness?

Ten years of Nietzsche mongering is a tough act to follow. One can only sit in awe before such love.
Only Christian fanatics show this much dedication and continuous absorption with the same text, the same authors, the same ideas...the same allegorical language....struggling to hang closer to that divine mouth.

A mentor teaches, and then you move on, taking the teaching with you, like mementos from a strange land; adapting it to your circumstances. You apply your understanding of him to your ongoing existence and you make adjustments.
To return to him, time after time after time, is an admission of incompetence, if not stupidity.
It's an admission that you cannot understand the metaphors or you are incapable of applying them - it is an admission of dependence.

This desire to project upon the text deeper levels of understanding is like a thirsty traveler digging in the sand hoping that the few dew drops on the surface will give way to oceans of water.
This is projected need.
Everything about the text is now dissected under the hope that it promises infinite material to feed upon. It's never enough.
It's magic springs eternal.
Have you seen Christians go into their feeding frenzy when discussing the multiple possible interpretations of the Book?

In this case it is also an admission that goes against the very ideas the mentor proposed.
This idol-breaker did it on purpose, perhaps. His style using some of the same devices the text he so despised used with such effectiveness; perhaps wanting to filter out all that crap this divine text had left behind.

I would think Jesus would grumble coming across his modern "followers"; those who are unable to comprehend and so are unable to follow fully.
Perhaps he too did not wish for followers...and still they follow. Perhaps he ran with purpose, wishing to leave the many behind in the desert.

The irony to be idolized by those you wanted to express the idea of shattering all idols and a distinct distaste for all idolization and all worshiping, is only comparable to the irony of having pharisees spring out of a teaching that spoke against organized churches and against hypocritical priests.

I enjoyed the commentary that followed.

Some mask-holder, a gadfly eternally governed by his own more personal obsessions, is now being placed at my doorstep.
Of what "bitterns" do these boys speak of when they mention me so casually and cast aspersions to draw attention?

These "lovers of wisdom" can only imagine the kind that goes through another's words and insights.
I would think that a love of wisdom would be based on a love of reality - a desire to engage it directly - instead of this eternal bickering over scripture or trying retain the privileged delusion of being considered a favored son, or one of the chosen, or the master's best mouth-piece.
If love is not accompanied by desire then what good is it?

How sad to only aspire to be one of the twelve disciples, spreading the "word".

Quote :

I just had an insight (which, by the way, like, among many others, Luther's famous insight, came to me while on the toilet) into (young) men like Silhouette, with his emphasis on pride, and Hate Speech, who believes he's a "creator of values". Methinks that these are the ones Plato's Socrates called the "auxiliaries". Today they're the ones who are proud of the Nietzschean epithet "free spirit"; maybe Satyr ranks among them as their king. In any case, they have always been the most problematic ones. For their turning against philosophy (like Silhouette recently did when he called me a Nazi, or Hate Speech when he called me a Jew) is philosophy's greatest danger. Philosophy needs their alliance.

The christian sees devils in every darkness.
An old hurt wishes to be healed. Maybe the epithets are not so far off base, after all.
They mar his otherwise pristine self-assessment, for he shall be the only "free-spirit" because only he has followed behind the master so diligently, trying to step in the exact same places in the exact same way - only he has paid the price, and remained a loyal widow.

What is anti-intellectual and anti-philosophical is when thinking has been institutionalized; when it can only focus on the mediator while life and the world is lost behind his looming figure.
The wanderer has now acquired more shadows; they jostle for the prime spot, right behind the massive hulk.

Then the boy, who would be man, the one who has spent the better part of a decade totally obsessed, like a little girl dreaming of a knight, speaks of Socratic "auxiliaries".
The voice of Hellenic decay used so brilliantly.

The second sod offers the usual reinterpretation of the text, under the guidance of modern social and cultural effects, and tries to cleanse it of its unholy undertones.

Quote :

Haha, sod off! That guy screams ressentiment like diarrhea. I actually doubt a single person respects him, nevermind wants to serve under him. Hardly king material.

My Nazi accusation was circumstantial not personal, and conditional upon you advocating the killing of paedophiles because you were Nietzschean and therefore weren't against killing. I pointed out the similarity between this and the Nazi attitude towards Jews, with no doubt plenty of them claiming to be backed up by Nietzscheanism.
You seemed to deny the specific application of this stance and I have no reason nor desire to call you a liar.
So without the specific application of such a stance, the Nazism comment no longer applies to anything, and thus dissolves.
I never called you a Nazi in general, it was only the context of that sentiment that suggested such - and with your clarification it was successfully voided.

So with that in mind I don't see how your accusation stands up - that I have turned against philosophy. What I have done is turn against truth in favour of value and the wisdom that this opens up. I do so out of love, and therefore am the epitome of a philosopher. My opposition to philognothy and my accusation of similar thinking to a Nazi each do nothing to compromise this.

I think you seem to have flushed your insight and posted that which you meant to flush - I really don't get how your assertions, with regard to me at least, hold any water.

Philosophy's greatest danger is in the majority who do not ally with me, not the other way around.

You see, even Heidegger had to be rehabilitated after the war, so as to save his genius from the destruction of leveling.
The old Nazi is now saved from complete social "disgrace" by making him a naive victim of circumstance, or a misinformed casualty of war that made a simplistic error; he had to be reinterpreted, rehabilitated, after the fact, and with no participation of his own, for a world that wanted to taste his mind but not the parts that did not digest well in a stomach adapted to softer nutrients...baby-foods.

And who better to achieve this massive undertaking than the academicians through which the masses receive their daily dose of wisdom, and the mysterious texts are interpreted in accordance with current needs?

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

Hmmmm.

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

Then the idiot says this..and I quote:

Quote :

As you know, an existence is a mutual affecter. Every"thing" that exists is always trying to affect its surroundings and vsvrsa.

It is "trying"?
So, this "thing" has a motive? Even a particle? It desires? It can project, assess and analyze opportunities?

Fascinating.
Is the idiot adopting Schopenhauer's notion of possibilities as a definition of projected space, and simply using another word...one which totally destroys the concept?

I always thought that directing energies, such as organic ones, was a product of life, then consciousness as a more efficient method...but I must be wrong.
You see, according to this moron all "things" can project "opportunities".

So, when air flows towards a vacuum or when water flows down a slope it is seeking opportunities?
Opportunities for what?

The imbeciles - can anyone guess who victorel21 is? - do not even understand that only a conscious mind can project an absolute and then strive towards it seeking a completion.
This "completion" being nothing less than a desire to end itself or the sensation of existing.
If it developed a strong enough will it might even go against the path-of-least-resistance trying to gain an advantage by weathering more resistance in the hope that it might reach its projected goal faster.

All else flows along paths-of-least-resistance...flowing constantly and aimlessly.

Wanna see the douchebag scrambling to justify ILP's stupidity and why the question "Does nothing exist?" - an indication of the forum's overall quality of mind - is insanely stupid.

I quote the retard:

Quote :

We at ILP and places like it are the groundlings, the peasants and the bohemians of philosophy - when we're not merely overgrown adolescents who simply read the first three paragraphs of a Wiki article and post a few lines about nothing being something or some similar misunderstanding of the basic vocabulary of philosophy.

He is now a "we", because he associates with this level of "thinking".
He can relate to it and that is why he defends it with such pride.

"Philosophical language"?
You mean it does not only require a basic understanding of language?
Is the concept of "nothing", as a definition of what does not exist, a difficult philosophical concept?
Does one need to be trained in academic philosophy to understand why "nothing exists" is an oxymoron, meant to confuse and inspire the moron?

No they are not "merely overgrown adolescents who simply read the first three paragraphs of a Wiki article" - I wonder who he had in mind with that precise number? - but they might be retarded, under-grown, who are simply simple, and who would not fair any better no matter how many paragraphs they managed to parrot or struggle through, picking up only the semantics without the understanding.

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

Does anyone else see the connection?

I love the antagonistic spirit, one that does not even shy away from taking up a vapid position so as to stake a claim on greatness.

My son often antagonizes me by disagreeing with me on everything.
It's what little boys do with their dads.
Stretching their egos, wanting to declare their masculine presence.

It's cute for the first decade, then it is tolerable, as a natural part of growing up, but when one touches upon his thirtieth birthday it becomes ridiculous.

And look, the boy has discovered the psychological principle of mirroring, at the root of all social interactions....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He presents it as a eureka moment.
I hope the number is an indication of his age.

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

Did they summon Hannibal the Cannibal?!

I think not, 'cause they know not what they do.

How would they deal with him, the beast that he is?
So un-respected and bitter.

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

The notion of accountability escapes her.

Because being abused when minding your own business is the same as being abused when fucking asking for it.
Are there violent men out there?
For sure.

Is violence part of life?
Obviously.

Then why do some women go asking for more?

I mean I can sympathize with someone mauled by a bear when out camping, but I sort of snicker with joy when this someone goes out looking for grizzlies, to befriend them, with no gun, and then has his head torn off.

You know, getting food poisoning one day is different from eating shit hoping that you might not.

Maybe instead of staying home some women can keep their tits and ass more wrapped up.
Who knows, maybe amongst the crowd of unknowns there might be someone not indoctrinated or not willful enough to care about laws.

Would you go near a bee's hive with nectar spread over your balls?
Would you go swimming off the Great Barrier Reef with blood splattered on your arse?
I wouldn't.

But some retarded sluts would, because they luvs the attention and they think that because the law protects their stupidity, enabling them to remain naive and stupid, that their luck will hold up.

Zero accountability.
When something bad happens to you, it is never your fault, you had no say in it, you could have done nothing to avoid it...no it is always the other.
Because, in the end, the universe is a benevolent place and God is love.

One more for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from the boy we know so well, from the curvature in his fragile little spine.

It would appear that life is possible in a vacuum, detached from an environment....ergo everything is not innate.

So, let us let our minds go, detach thinking from that dreaded world that places rules before it and challenges it, and let us imagine a being born into a non-environment environment....an oxymoronic flight into madness....well then, can we not imagine, in a very ambiguous way, a body with no sexual identity, no language, no anything?

Sex for instance.
Since it is a product of environment and society gives it color and shape and direction, therefore if we miraculously erase environment, as if by magic, then sex is not innate.
In fact life just springs out of the "nothing".

I wonder if stupidity is innate.

And I quote:

Quote :

Now the environment from the individual point of view is defined as: that which is perceived by the senses, (including the sixth sense). if void of the environment a person will not love, hate, or be angry at anything, hence although developing emotions is inevitable, they cannot be said to be innate ( present at birth).

If emotions are reactions, and life is reactive, then what a wonderful mind that is alive yet not; nothing confronts it, it feels nothing towards anything because it is void in a sea of emptiness.

I love the typical singing off that stinks of bravado, and is reminiscent of this boy's style.

Quote :

Have fun.

You can almost see him smiling, as if he declared a "check mate" when he just lost the game.

Shit the internet is fun.
Sometimes the "unknown" can be so knowable.
You feel an energy there.
Masculine reason always benefits from a feminine intuition.

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

My God, can people become more stupid?

Faust finds some value in being the gatekeeper to a kindergarten, where children can play undisturbed by reality, and within which he feels most at home.

But why inject suffering when it might result in growth, when remaining children, development retarded at birth, when we can sit around and shoot the shit, spew out any stupidity that comes to mind?

The Group Hug: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Silhouette wrote:

It is solved by doing what you are doing right now: communicating with others toward collective solution.

It is particularly demoralising how an individual on his own is so dis-empowered. But on the other hand, it is more demoralising how we all expect this to be true - having learned no culture of communication with others toward collective solution.
Outside our group of friends and associates, or even amongst these people there is a surprising lack of knowledge and discussion of shared injustice. Off-hand complaints go no further than these social islands that we restrict ourselves to. We might know we all have it in common in the abstract, but this is a far cry from the consolidation of actual discussion.

It stops at the point where we resist the culture of alienation that is only emphasised by our economic conditions of competition and atomised individualism.
If we slowly spread a culture of actually sharing complaints beyond our normal restricted social circles, and more openly within them, the power that we actually have will become revealed to us and thus the courage to actually do something about it. This will be the point at which "it" stops.

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

Read as the herd of nitwits misconstrue the alpha-male for the charlatan, the flatterer, the one that seeks their approval.

Did I claim such a position?
Did I claim to be any kind of "ideal", male or otherwise?
At what point did I ever declare myself alpha or ideal?

Yet the word-players, the gilrish men, who hide behind semantics feel inferior so they assume that I had merely declared my self so.
They blame the feelings of vulnerability they feel upon the one that sparks them, never taking responsibility for them themselves.
No, hatred is not what they feel, for this is a sin, they despise me, loath me....are disgusted by me.

Their hatred is sanitized and made noble with a mere change in terms: despise, they say, but do not hate.

I remind them of what they really are....and toy with the weakness they sometimes admit, openly, when surrounded by meekness and self-hating humble ones. They feel safe amongst the self-deprecating ones, and then they expose what they really think of themselves. There they can open up amongst their own kind.

Imagine being unable to understand why the men they speak of, as if they would seduce such weaklings as them, and feel proud of it, would be unlike Plato's Philosopher Kings, never mind Nietzsche's free-spirits.

As if being king of the apes would make Tarzan proud of himself, or that it would be a position he would covet and find a lifetime of value in.

Imagine the baseness these manimals have fallen to.
They hoot and holler, in the jungles of their minds, and throw feces everywhere, but when confronted with a mirror they attack with hatred, thinking the image there is not themselves but another who has come to lead them.
Now that the absolute God does now bow low over them, seeking their worship, they imagine men, exceeding their capacity to understand, begging for their valueless approval or their shallow friendships or their fearful respect.

For them the one that shows humility before them, is worthy of their loyalty, as if playing with their emotions is such a difficult thing to do, if one could prevent one's self from vomiting after licking such pestilent forms, swallowing the vile endorphins they emit.

I, for one, choose solitude to the acquisition of their most desirable positions of authority, knowing that it is a position of show rather than of substance; a position that demands that I castrate myself and humiliate myself before mere manimals.
The institution is supreme male, and all others pretenders and groveling worm tongues.

One must be an actor, so good that he convinces himself that his own act is honest, to be respected by such baseness.
One would have to be ill to even consider doing so.
Look upon your politicians, vile manimals and how even you hate them, no despise them, knowing that they toy with your feebleness. Whores selling themselves to creatures that deserve nothing but exploitation.

To lie, to be coy, to hide one's true opinions - like the retard admitted - to pretend they are worthy of such efforts or that the outcome is fulfilling...such is the talents of their preferred "leader".

First the douche-bag Faust enters, like after a long slumber, being awakened by the rush he feels after finding a reason to flex his "power" by banishing the one that irritates him the most, implying that his ideal man is the one who seeks, like a woman, inclusion...for what is power or value outside the group....his group.
His idea of an alpha-male is the one that seduces him with pretty words and pretenses and lies; he wants to be charmed like all women do, by her man, before she bends over for him and accepts his penile domination; she wants to be wined and dined, told how pretty and smart she is, before she sucks his dick.
You see the creator must create fore the masses, for mass consumption. His art must be pop-art. The majority must buy it.

He cannot imagine anything outside of this possibility, as he is enclosed within communal premises, and so the idea of a pack mingling amongst the sheep but not wanting to be like them, does not even enter his tiny little sheepish mind.
He feels pleasure when one of the alien ones is discovered, willfully or not, walking amongst his herd; he exacts his revenge by kicking it out, thinking that the herd is where it wants to belong, rather than where it is forced to hunt.
Sheep, being sheep, will always consider membership in the herd as the primary goal of all living creatures. Not out of necessity, but out of psychological and emotional desire.

the motive has to be cleansed - purified to make it more of a unifying glue.

His fellow herd-member takes up the cause wanting to exact revenge, herself, after being exposed as the semantically obtuse little bitch that she is, and declares, not knowing that this exposes her qualities:

"I turn away from the solitary ones!"

This along suffices to damn her ni the eyes of those that can see.

For her all creativity goes through the one and only herd. For to willfully exclude one's self from it, or to choose solitude rather than such an insulting membership, so she pronounces herself and her kind as the ones who decide whom is the dominant one.

Ironically, the dominant one must submit to their judgments and cow-tow to their morals and lower himself to their common feminine needs.
For such a bitch, a worthy man would only be the one that can "make a difference" within the herd, and not the one that chooses to "make a difference" amongst his own or to himself alone, if no other, like him, exists.

The Feminization of Mankind, at work.

They would be flabbergasted if one were to tell them that soldiers, their idea of a dominant male, are the epitome of effete thinking.
For these imbeciles the image is mistaken for the substance, and the soldier instead of being a defeated ego doing the work of an institution that has broken him - boot camp - and made him into a mindless follower, willing to kill and die for reasons he can never know.

Don't ask, don't tell.
The modern army is full of feminine males.
Guess how many there are in those forums that are supposedly dedicated to "free-thought" and to "the love of wisdom".

------------
Do you know how you exposes weaklings and retards, comfortably munching and regurgitating the fodder they were given, as what they truly are?
Do you know how you make them drop those masks, and civilized acts?

You run amongst them, simply displaying your essence, which contradicts their own, and you snap at their haunches, causing them to bleed, riling them up, terrifying them, as they muster up their courage and forms circles.

From the start until they settle down in their most stable form they reveal their true natures.
That's when despite high-brow talk about Plato or Heidegger or Spinoza they begin scrambling for cover in semantics like hate/despise, or actual/real, desperately wanting to preserve their fake identification, the one that guarantees their membership.
It happens quickly...the masks drop and quickly they are raised again...but in that brief moment you see their scared cow-eyes, and those dull retinas, dilated in terror.

They are the first to declare victory...for in their mind they have successfully survived exposure, when in fact they dropped their trousers for all to see.

Did you see?
Sometimes it takes a keen eye...but even if your eyes are slow, the image has had an effect, like a subliminal image flashed on a screen before you.
Maybe you don't really know what you saw or if you saw it...but you're getting this feeling.


----update----

And then the flies gather with their little buzzing, to settle it down to the usual shit.

Real-time proof is, by far, much more revealing and entertaining.

The douchbag and the little girl do not understand that they are not my intended audience.

Yes...and genetic, as you join with those you most resemble.

But lions are a bad example, they are more solitary masculine creatures. Wolves would be a better example.

In the link you see an example of feminization at work - real time.
Their idea of a male, besides the usual hyper-masculine variant - itself a reaction, a compensation, to diminishing masculinity - and association with muscle and size, amounts to an association with the political male: the one that seduces them, plays along with their games, flatters them, lies to them etc.

In Plato's Repulbik the Philosopher King must be forced into leadership, for these reasons alone, whereas he would reluctantly accept, if he would at all.

If you notice in that forum - ILP - the Silhouette, girl (I know its a gut but what a fag!) has to assume both that I am socially inept, in real life, and "unsuccessful" within socioeconomic contexts.
The turd thinks that the act of weeding through the sheeple on that forum is my "real" character, and not merely an aspect of my character.
She needs this to project her hatred, which she hides form, and make me bearable to her.

Otherwise you find her scrambling to save herself with word games of the "I do not hate you; I despise you" kind.

Of course anyone who has sp0ken to me on the phone or via Skype or has actually met me will tell you that the Satyr is a part of myself which I keep under control...well most of the time.
He is in need of these forums for three reasons:

1- it allows this part to run free, for a while, because in real life it must contain and suppress itself...or face the consequence in a world that does not allow for anything besides humility, lying and repeating the common myths.

2- it allows me to cut-off the weak-links in the herd, making examples of them, or to isolate the "dominant" ones amongst them, the protectors, the ones that fancy themselves heroes.

3- it announces me to those who would be of my kind, or who are torn in their youth between the bullshit and their own growing awareness. It a world monopolized by the bullshit, fee-good, slavish crap, I inject a, hopefully, corrective dose of reality outside the common, mediocre, "self-evident", principles of conformity.


---------------
The Douche-bag Faust now enters the fray offering his all-inclusive recipes of how to bake a delicious cake, of blandness.

Douche-bag, high on his two-by-two foot area of control, announces that his community of simpletons is not following a philosophical school of thought, presumably affected by the illusion that the many variations of the same theme constitutes a major difference, proving "free-thinking".

Engulfed in the Judeo-Christian dis-ease he is unaware how the virus mutates...but he react intuitively when a serum denouncing them all is injected into this on-line body politik, reflecting modern day western decadence.

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

Quote :

Ummm...Sil.....I think I'm pretty good the way things are. I'm interested in power....the power to have a good time, which i mostly do, here. Other than that, I'll surely stay tuned to see what you come up with.

Mmmmm, one can smell the need, the hedonistic values, aching to excuse themselves.

Can you see the retard begging for a reason to explain why his every performance can never raise itself to his station?

He is there, here, for a "good time", and in this his role is that of announcer and director, with the world being that undesirable element that makes his plans fall on their proverbial face.

Are you having a "good time"?
Well then, THIS is philosophy!!!
In the 21st century.

That forums is the last one with an endless supply of such unadulterated stupidity.

They are dumb, in a forum run by idiots and populated by mostly retards, and what is enticing is that they are proud of it!

Can you imagine how much ego this post alone is offering?

More evidence of human retardation in the post-industrial age:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mmmm, this one is tastier.
It defines the overall quality the administrator and moderators are nurturing there.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And the usual dick-waving without me in the mix to castrate some nitwits:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

kriswest wrote:

It occurs to me that your dick waving is in its own universe.

And here you are.

kriswest wrote:

One species does not mean one breed and one set of abilities.

And?

kriswest wrote:

To put all humans under one breed of species is like saying a Chihuachua is a Mastiff.

Is that what you got, or the opposite, you stupid bitch?

No, wait...you just wanted a response....and here it is.

kriswest wrote:

Humans maybe a species but the interbreeding and inbreeding causes the same differences mentally and physically as it does with dogs , cats etc.. You cannot , if you are sensible,, think that all humans , all dogs all cats, etc . have the same brain functions /abilities..

A simple member of a breed, an average one, like you, should not go into this.

kriswest wrote:

What works for you is not what works for another.

No shit.

kriswest wrote:

Oh and since I know you are a dad, so happy belated father's day and Yes I know You are not USA but I also wish you a happy independence day you sanctimonious old fart.

you already got what you needed, no?

Given that I have been banned, yet again, from ILP, for doing nothing less than imitating what they do everyday over there, I am forced to respond to some who took the trouble to respond to me hopnig that they will come to read my reply here:

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

eyesinthedark wrote:

I've done it, I've figured out Satyr's moral theory. I believe it is a combination of social darwinism and virtue ethics. A behaviour doesn't necessarily have to maximize the survivability of the actor in particular, nor of society in general, but it has to arise out of the will to live and remain free and independent, in order to be deemed moral. Satyr is not a utilitarian (not of the altruistic, survivalist variety, nor of the egoistic, hedonist variety), he's fundamentally a virtue ethicist, but he despises the traditional virtues (faith, hope, love, humility, etc). He's a radical, as opposed to a conservative virtue ethicist. So how does he decide which behaviours or intentions are to be deemed virtuous and which are to be deemed vicious? By whether they have their biological, evolutionary origin in the struggle for survival, the will to live and remain free and independent (virtuous), or not (vicious).

Bingo!!!

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

Fixed Cross wrote:

In short: woman is civilization, man is barbarian.
Culture exists in the interplay between the two.
(it is often wrongly assumed that civilization is culture, or that culture needs civilization)

Wrong!
Woman is nature, many is the domestication of nature, upon which all civilizations rest.

When man dominates woman he dominates her inside of himself first...in other words he takes control over his nature.
When he loses control, he reverts back to a primal state.

We see this in the slow disintegration of western civilization.
One of the symptoms is the emancipation of women.

Fixed Cross wrote:

An often taken option for a woman wanting the best of both worlds is to let herself be impregnated by a barbarian type, and marries a civilized type.

I've gone through the "bad boy"/"nice guy" effect.
I've tried to clarify it further in the version of the thesis I am currently writing.

In short the effect lies in the hypocrisy involved when a female denies her nature, playing along with what she is told a "civilized", good, modern woman is supposed to like but still being controlled by her natural instincts and her sexuality, being that she is sex incarnate and ceases to be female outside her sexual role.

The conundrum produced by being wholly female but this urging her to submit to the modern ideals of what this means, leads to a compromise which she is not completely aware of: she "sows her seeds", particularly in her younger years when she is still discovering the extent of her sexual power and what is allowable in her current environment, but then settles for the social climber, the one who, like her, is totally committed to the norms, making him both successful and the ideal mate - effete, sensitive, caring, funny, dependable, tolerant, understanding, a good provider, available....the nice guy.
Still she is not happy, even though she knows she should be.
She explains it in various ways and sometimes settles for a comfortable predictable life of the average.
But more and more she might opt for a way out or for cheating on the side with those irresistible bad-boys.

Fixed Cross wrote:

It seems that for man to survive this scenario, he would have to form small bands again and withdraw from the mores of civilization. I think that the modern world actually provides opportunities for this. To be a tightly knit organization of barbaric drives, means to be able to invade civilization and plunder it, perhaps even impregnate some of it with new blood.

This, too is an evolutionary "tactic". Only the extraordinarily capable and assertive barbarian/male is able to dominate.

The first error is now resulting in compounding errors.
The "barbarians" in fact are the ones who play at being civil, because they've been trained, taught, to mimic the behavior. they try to mimic it as accurately as possible, but it is still an act and so it exposes itself as one in those moments of stress or inebriation or passion.

The "bands" spoken of are actually forming as we speak, via the Internets.
As uniformity increases, or the illusion of it, fragmentation and discrimination reacts in equal measure, become even more refined and stringent, yet not exposing itself openly in an environment where this would result in obvious personal costs.

The like-minded are and have always banded together in open or secret unions and this will continue to be the case.
More so now than ever.
Each unity within the unity, or each cell within the greater body which now becomes the environment within which it acts like a parasite, or a cancer, has its own common set of values and interests.
How well they organize, or if they do at all, depends on the circumstances and the desire to do so.

Unfortunately for the fabled "free-spirit" this would be a contradiction of nature, as a free-spirit is a solitary creature to begin with and the environment causes him to seclude himself further.
I'm afraid the free-spirit is not cut-out for such environments no for the survival game in general.
His/Her demeanor makes him reclusive and hesitant to enter into any commitment or long-term bonds.

He is a spontaneously emerging type of man, and nobody has figured out, as of yet, how he emerges and what grounds help him grow and remain un-warped by the often inhospitable conditions he emerges within.

As far as I an tell it is a combination of heightened intelligence, hypersensitivity, a delicate and easy-going demeanor and courage and will-power to endure and to persist in total isolation.

Fixed Cross wrote:

I am glad someone says this. Where do you see these effects, and where you draw the line between justified and exaggerated intellectual scepticism?

The line I draw is in between the world, at large, and the accepted ideals of the mind in question.
When a mind realizes that there is no such thing as perfection but only superior and inferior ideas and organism and attitudes and ideals, then Socrates becomes an exploiter of youth and an infection of the feeble.

A man eventually takes a stand upon his preferred ideals; the ones he deems essential for his well-being and his potential growth.

Skepticism can either freeze him in his tracks or force him to defer to minds whoa re inferior to him causing the weak to persevere where the strong wallow in their insecurities and their castrating self-doubts.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Sexual attraction can not so easily be separated from the eros of dominance.
Physical attraction in the aesthetic interpretation of the object of desire is secondary to the males attraction to himself as a dominating power.

True, but then self-love is the primary and most enduring love of all, in a healthy and strong individual.
A man does not love another unless this other contributes to him or services him or is a means towards an end for him or adores him, and through this adoration he can love himself via another and see himself in ways he cannot on his own - through a reflection.

This, of course, is borderline narcissism if not for the corrective effects of reality, that knows of no love or of any desire.
A man loves himself as himself, warts and all, and this does not mean he closes his eyes to his faults and his ugliness and his limits, but that he accepts them as a necessary aspect of himself.

Only such a man can be loved, as his self-love is infectious when it is honest and unpretentious, and only such a man can share with the excesses of his self-love by loving another in a similar if not an equal measure.
we can say that such a man loves a woman who is loving him (eros) and loves a friend because he reminds him of himself (agape)...the combination of the two being the magical kind of love, combining erotic pleasure with the connection of amity.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Males, at least those operating within the system on moral grounds, will be slaves to females. That much seems certain.

Yes, they will demean and embarrass themselves, becoming a carpet for her to step on. Ironically this diminishes her sexual attraction to him. But persistence, being at the right place at the right time and the compromises a female must make due to social pressures and enforce limitations on her sexuality, sometimes results in success...a wearing down of the female.

It is common to meet a professional, demanding woman, one which could be called a bitch or a "strong woman" who males are intimidated by, who having waited to find that "perfect" mate settles for her second choice just to fit into the social norm or to have a child or two.
Divorce quickly follows.

Of course the notion of a "strong intimidating female" is absurd, given that a female is as strong and intimidating as the institution which protects her and provides for her those inalienable rights.
Outside these institutional controls she is helpless, and must find a substitute authority, an alpha-male, to protect her from other males, preserving her sexual choices.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Except those men who will have nothing of this, there is no conscious force compelling us to participate in the leveling, only the mechanisms of civilization under increasing population. There is no reason to think that this apparatus will include all males. In fact it might in the end be used - this system of well educated slaves - by smaller bandes of more consciously masculine men.

You must factor in the possibility that this is more a kin-selection ploy, where the threatening males of a different clan are rendered innocuous and castrated by a system that promotes values and standards that mentally castrate them.

Thing is all social cooperative unities, such as a pack of dogs or a tribe, which include males rather than casting them away into the periphery, produces a feminization.
Population size only increases the degree of emasculation.
The larger the group the more effete male it produces as part of its internal stability.

Nice piece by apaosha here:

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

Thanks for that. But it's just this old one: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] .... edited and pasted in.

I noticed that little girl Silhouette has degraded further into popular sensibilities. At least she is being more honest. The rest are still the wearying crowd of nonentities they always were. I wonder why you waste your time with them.

Because it is fun, at times, to run through the herd.

It stirs them out of their lethargy and their fears come out.
I love watching it develop in their eyes, their posts.
I love watching the herd psychology in real-time.
I love nipping at their hooves and seeing them kick and squirm.

But yeah it gets boring.

One added factor:
Where else but in a more popular watering hole, full of dull stones and thick rocks, can you hope to find some tiny, shy, gem worth polishing?

But what's the cost?
Not much time wasted and the outcome is always inevitable.

One must learn to wash oneself in dirty water I suppose.

Look at this little gem, about London:

Silhouette wrote:

No.

They do not embrace capitalism, they forsake society's system - which is capitalist (in this case) - by taking what it has produced, but does not give to them. To fully embrace capitalism would be to partake in it in its full form. When one stops to pick up a piece of litter, they are not embracing littering.

You seem to forget that another type of economy would produce material too. Seizing material does not necessitate embracing capitalism, it entails an economy producing material separately to those acting outside of it in order to obtain the material that other people produce, who DO embrace the system.

You reduce this to "not getting their share". Yet there was also wanton destruction of private property and police disrespect.

Had they not been getting their fair share of destruction and disrespect? These do not involve material gain. An empowered gesture against police, property law, as well as commercial exclusion indicates they would not be content under fascism. They want more than just inclusion in society such that they would get their fair share.

Parliament is a little hard to burn down these days, and I doubt most of the rioters are aware of even the names of big banks. I severely doubt many of them have the education to understand how exactly it is that the Capitalist system keeps them down - hell, most people who DO have an education don't understand this!! It reminds me of the Luddites who destroyed the machines who replaced their jobs - without understanding that this was simply how Capitalism rolls. Smashing the surface doesn't solve things.

And this goes for the common simplistic interpretation of the riots - smashing the surface (the individuals without respect for law) through punishment, moral condemnation and further oppression likewise does not solve things.

Here the little faggot rationalizes the actions of a mob according to the Marxist narrative.