Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 2

For America, where's there's "Free Speech", all it seems to take is converting enough impenetrably dense and convincing zealots to your side that are unable to be killed off, to start a political movement. Armed with a few simple truths and a belief in their own victimization, they'll be able to skyrocket support for their ideology. I don't think it may have been much different than with Christians in Europe, whom preach to the tribe their message; and the townspeople, as unknowing as they are, don't see it fit to murder their ethnic kin over having a loud mouth. It only took their children softening up to a life where Christianity or Christians appeared to be a 'normal' occurrence. The logical end of its ideology covered by 'sin', that's eternally forgiven.

The haters of life, the most resentful, they will never surrender because they wish to take down everything which opposes them. Even if they're losing and they know it - and they know they will be slaughtered, they will not surrender and will not concede or admit defeat. Even if the opportunity is there for them to negotiate, they won't. They are not simply determined by survival, but by spiritual revenge - to do everything in their power to make their defeat as indignifying to their enemy as possible.

To the postmodern, conversation is a power struggle, not a way of transferring information. Allies become those who agree they need power - and all conversations ends up becoming a contest of measuring who gets what power from the institution.

Men can accept some 'defeat' in conversation because they know there's an external enemy: the world (Chaos/flux) and other men/tribes. When the only 'world' these postmoderns know are ones of society, of urban dwelling and ghetto craving, ravenous pity seeking; then there's no understanding of the male perspective of outside enemies.

That someone can argue against your state for being nationalist, while simultaneously arguing there are foreign enemies they make a huge fuss about, justifying their own state being nationalist, while also saying the withdrawal of or the non-intervention of your state is a bad thing, then the conclusion that they believe themselves worthy of owning both your state and their own nationalistically is unavoidable. So, also, is the conclusion that they believe you deserve no state of your own which represents you.

A hypothesis: the promotion of women in STEM comes from complaints by the tech industry that they're held to a standard in which they are required to hire 'minorities' (USA has the Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. supreme court case which says meritocratic hiring practices are racist or sexist if they result in different representation in employment than is present in the populace). These companies have to hire women or non-whites in order to keep the government off their back (H1B Indians serve a dual purpose: cheaper labor and brown-skin diversity hire).

Large corporations have to find something productive for these people to do, especially tech companies, when they're unable to perform the job they need to be done. Getting more women in STEM might mean, for them, finally having productive workers that aren't just there to be 'diversity hires'.

Instead of attacking the legislation of equal employment because of the accusations of 'racism' and 'sexism' that would be thrown onto them, they instead seek profit through trying to make the populace into its own ideal, given the legal circumstances/framework they are put under.

Humility of mind: the absence of arrogance, stubbornity
Humility of spirit: the absence of character, grit, or pride

These two are often interchanged for the sake of dialectical maneuvering.

One person says cosmopolitan attitudes and idea(l)s would be nice or preferable, the other says they are expected.
The first says to be understanding of those who fall from it or are unable to live up to it (due to realities such as race or sex; be accepting/tolerant of some inequality as a consequence of this) where the latter have no tolerance whatsoever; they demand that others be tolerant of their own intolerance, instead. When called out, the latter resorts back to a narrative and argumentative structure which resembles a complete abandonment of all cosmopolitan idea(l)s; demonstrating that they do not want to accept any of the costs, so are uncompromising anyway and that all their previous professions of being a believer were not only shallow, but downright deceptive and hypocritical. This becomes especially obvious when they start to resort to harassment and attacks, gossip, instead of discussion.

All have their own limits, but the latter demonstrates that they are either purposefully intolerant or they are incapable of even participating within the idea(l)s which they pretend to value.

Mention you're a national socialist or even just a racial realist to any of these latter people and watch as they transform into this uncompromising bigot.

The struggle for 'honesty' is only relevant and preferable with your 'in-group'. Having an 'open society' without any criteria for entry or even just an extremely low criteria, is a good way of opening yourself to easy exploitation and the poisoning and theft of your national/societal commons.

Look at the cultural criteria, the barriers to power, to find out who are the 'chosen' and 'selected' for that power. Who is immune to criticism? What group? Not even about what you cannot 'criticize', but what you must support in order to achieve power. Perceive the lowest common denominator for ascension/among the 'ascended'. If the society is just or right, then that LCD will be sound and representative of the people in the society - or even just 'honest' to the people. If that LCD is one involving an utter contradiction/opposite narrative to the very pattern that represents power, like having to do with 'victimhood', then there's a good chance that whole society and nation is weak, fragile and corrupt.

Having the criteria for power being how much of a victim one is, is a great way of actually destroying power.

Power is the control of entropy, (re)directed away from yourself and in human warfare, onto others moreso than yourself.

Degenerate thinks - "They don't like me. I have to force them to like me or destroy them."

The creation of order requires discrimination, spatial separation.

The degenerate has no desire or aspiration for order. He is no active threat to the established order.

Degenerate wants to revert to a form that can be easily absorbed into a welcoming, protective, pre-existent order.
Creative degenerates want to construct a self-referential, self-consistent, protective, sheltering, all-inclusive order to assimilate those who cannot construct one on their own, and feel validated by their inclusion. 

The more unreal, surreal, anti-real the construct is, the more sheltering, inclusive it can be. 
World, as in nature, is a threat....what must be corrected, healed, replaced with an alternate reality.

Scum play up their mistakes in performing their malevolent projects as, instead, proof of their innocence.

Abstract intelligence enables lateral thinking, where without it would be sequential - like a calculator.

In climates that do not experience complicated change (deserts), the development of abstract thinking isn't necessary. With the utilization of more abstract thinking also came more abstract languages, which in turn created a different sphere of sexual competition. Not only did abstract thinking become necessary, but also the ability to think abstractly about one's own abstracted thoughts. In order to help survival and compete, new levels of self-knowledge had to accumulate, necessarily restricted lower levels of self-knowledge as a cost for creating power-for-self. This is the quantitative addition or qualitative modification of one's own will, to focus it on a task most suited to help you. Out of this also arose 'expertise', which then split off quantitatively into compartmentalization in economies.

Lateral thinking also enables new mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia. As the simplification of phenomenon to a more succinct noumenal concept makes it more likely to detach from actual experience. This is 'objectifying', if done correctly. If not, it is 'secularizing', where one has detached the knowledge from all experience of self (and the world).

I realize there are some problems with using the term 'secularizing', as it typically denotes the move from a spiritual belief into a non-spiritual one. With my usage it appears to be going the opposite way. However, the usage is justified in my opinion because the performed thought-behavior rests on the same foundation: they are both (from the Pagan approach) nihilistic to begin with. Some objections might be that spirituality is not always 'bad', and with regards to Paganism I can see how this might be important. The esoteric appreciation of ancesters would be necessary for one to experience their own humility (not in the 'guilt' or Abrahamic context of subservience to an extreme-other, but of to self and therefor to ancestors) and thus also better empower themselves. I am specifically, though, using the word in the Abrahamic context and maybe even more specifically in the Judeo-Atheist-Abrahamic context.

Humanists, anti-objectifying sex-deniers, fuck their mothers spiritually. It's no wonder they're obsessed with making their spouse look as much unlike them as possible. The more honest ones don't reproduce at all.

A chef practices for years, making meals for his family, friends, and some strangers. Over time, he works for some restaurants and kitchens, selling his meals but underpriced. His acquaintances and fans take advantage while he is young. Ardent enthusiasts know his skill is superior, and so his popularity rises. He is selling himself short.

After enough time passes, and skill accumulates, his rare and more expensive ingredients require funding. He needs to begin selling his services for what they are worth. The prices rises to match his skill, expertise, and popularity. The free meals come to an end, except for perhaps his most immediate family.


So too with Philosophy. The free meals must come to an end, eventually. No more free wisdom, knowledge, information, observation, education, for the masses and nobodies, who won't really appreciate the effort anyway.

No more pearls before swine.

I've probably written this many times before but bears worth repeating:

Under every great success are buried a thousand, forgotten, failures.

A reoccurring theme is where people with no stake in a social cause lend some support because people appeal to their supposed sense of decency or fairness. For example few white people had any reason to bother with the cause to end legal segregation of blacks and whites. But, a simple appeal to their decency, or an argument which emphasizes how a less discriminative government is best for all in the long run, and many lent their support. Then it soon became clear that few of those originally appealing to their sense of decency and fairness actually had any intention on continuing the original cause of lessening government discrimination as stated, and actually just sought new types of it.

My understanding is that self-labeled libertarians seek to actually lessen government discrimination while the political left and right simply seek varying forms of it. Chances are those with mindsets more inline with the libertarians are those who are fooled by the liberals/left who only temporarily feign libertarian values to get support.

A large society depends on group hierarchies and group distinctions to function.
If everybody is merely an individual then lying and deceitfulness becomes rampant because without prejudices, without pre-judgements via group affiliations there is no way to punish lies and deceit effectively. Furthermore there is no need for any group to regulate its group-members internally for gaining a bad reputation as a whole group themselves.

Modern identity politics of leftist origin is not about creating new groups and allowing them to gain a reputation through their actions. It's establishing groups and controlling their public perceptions. It's a way how to thwart a population from establishing accurate judgements. It's a counter measure to handicap the formation of experience based judgements.

Materialism is what happens when the fire is fading and you truly believe that this was it.

Anfang wrote:

Materialism is what happens when the fire is fading and you truly believe that this was it.

Materialism is what happens when you want this, when you want the fire to fade.

The outsider which is forced inside, looking in on a society, feeling no brotherhood with them, makes generalizations of the culture, language and purpose. They (outsiders) understand them (the society) like they do a car they briefly glance at heading away from them in their rear-view mirror. Feeling no ownership, danger, or any sort of ability for power if it is secure (and working as intended), they complain about its boring character and extol the virtues of degeneration. This is while the populace viscerally feels connected to the traditions and customs of their culture, pounding away at the soil to create vegetation for their children, their children's children and they feel an investment in their orderly behavior for the payoff later. If not appreciated for great works within their nation, then they will be appreciated for providing the foundation of those great works collectively as a tribe or people. A 'working class hero'.

Anfang wrote:

Materialism is what happens when you want this, when you want the fire to fade.

Heroism is when you don't want it to fade, you want it to grow and remain dancing with the darkness.

One for Blood.

The only time of sincere ignorance is when ignorance results in false titles and accolades. Idiots given the title of 'expert' and 'genius', then claim it for themselves and profess their ignorance for all. What can be taken for maliciousness is then actually sincere ignorance from either the maliciousness of others giving them the title or the ignorance of others giving the title of expertise to someone who is simply less ignorant than they. This is why one should avoid keeping company with idiots who praise them and why Tarzan looked for his own kind instead of being satisfied with the acceptance of gorillas alone.

Economics, money, currency, is the driver of the future. It is a testament to one's contributions to the society it is within. It's the fruit of youth to excellence in their older. When someone so excellent comes along that they are given disproportionate amounts of money or their contribution was so invaluable that there couldn't be a price attributed to it, then is when that society goes through convulsions it doesn't know how to deal with. It is during those convulsions that change takes place, for bad or for good. If that society does not return to the fundamental principles during that tumultuous time of change (whether that change is good or bad), then it will be taking a gamble against the very tradition that brought them there to begin with.

Stopped in to respond to a private, though it would rude to not say 'hey' while I'm here, so: Hey.

Hey, good to see you around.

On statistics...

Scully, Vin wrote:

Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamppost; for support, not illumination.

Twain, Mark wrote:

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Twain, Mark wrote:

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Clay, Henry wrote:

Statistics are no substitute for judgment.

Esar, Evan wrote:

Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

And my favourite...

Baudrillard, Jean wrote:

Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment.

How you ask a question, where you ask it, who you ask, the fact that you ask it, and then the manner in which you explain the answers, is how statistics offer nothing more than numbers that require an explanation - patterns (knowledge), that require pattern deciphering (understanding), or how these patterns relate to each other and to the world/environment they emerge in.

The world itself, as it appears, is the backdrop against which all understanding must compare itself.
For example, the shape, color, scent, sound, texture of a fruit, is what I use to determine what kind it is, and in what stage of ripening it is in. I use this data to judge it, and how it relates to me, and my won objectives.
If I am interested in nutrition, I judge if it is edible, if it is toxic, if it tastes good or bad.
I build a picture with the relationship of the sensual input - shape, relative to size, relative to scent, to colour, and so on, producing a web of relationships = meaning.
I then test my hypothesis, and no mater how many times I do I still must remain skeptical, expecting the exception to precedent, to the rule I've produced in my mind, concerning how all these patterns relate and what they mean when in conjunction.
With every validation, I become confident with my concept.
I may even construct a natural law, concerning it.
The exception, if and when it arises, will be juxtaposed against all the preceding validations, and explained.
If exceptions accumulate, I must question my own rule, or add to it a caveat. I may have to adjust the rule or discard it, depending no how many and convincing the exceptions to my rule are: quantity and quality.

I call 'truth' a concept that has been validated by me, and by others, numerous times. The more times the more my trust, and confidence rises in regards to its validity.
How, it then, relates, interlocks, harmonizes, with other rules/laws, based on precedent, reinforces them, or puts them all into question.
Where, how, and why do they contradict each other.
The process can take years....and with each year one builds a conceptual edifice, if and when one is honest, courageous and has integrity = motive.

If the pattern is given to me, taught to me, i must doubt it more, depending on the source, and how objectively I can judge its clarity and motives.
Even knowledge coming from your own blood must be juxtaposed against reality, the world, which remains indifferent to all human needs, and motives.
The earlier one discards inherited mistakes, the easier the process of building up a new base from more reliable sources...otherwise the accumulated investment in emotion, will be too much to overcome.
Strength of will is fundamental, and this is determined by genetics, which can be enhanced using Hellenic asceticism...just as inherited physical feebleness can be enhances with exercise.
Unavoidably, each individual inherits a genetic limit not even chemical technologies can overcome completely.

A big difference between philosophy forums are those that focus on socializing and popularity.

This forum leads into the more 'unsociable' and 'unpopular' because philosophy includes areas that are simply socially unacceptable, or even unacceptable "to humanity". This is the analogy of the "human world" or human = world. By definition a majority of the human population, and definitely the average, live 'within' humanity and the walls of civilization. This can be called a bubble, bubble-reality, matrix, cocoon, infantilism, stunted growth, immaturity, solipsism, autism, etc. But this wall must be overcome and trespassed to expand definition of 'world' to everything "outside".

Outside-reality is greater than human-reality. To break through the wall of civilization and humanity, is the necessary "reconnect" back to nature. Not only physically, but especially mentally and spiritually. For example, going fishing, hunting, camping, is not enough for the modern mind. Despite doing these activities, the point is missed. There are 'mental' walls, invisible barriers, that people dare not cross. Perhaps that is a "good" thing for the most part. As social order, status quos, are maintained. Thus the average human approaches Philosophy socially and politically, with vested interests in mind.

Dishonest approaches to Philosophy are revealed, over time, eventually. Individuals have a compulsion to expose themselves. People keep secrets and want to release them. What better place to do so than philosophically, where the deepest and darkest corners of reality are explored, and lit up?

The philosophical mind has the tendency to reveal all, to lift every rock, to peer inside every mind.

Philosophy is art, now placed in the hands of talentless nit-wits wanting to sell nonsense to gullible imbecile who pay a high price to display their hypothetical cultivation.
It has become, like most Modern art, surreal, abstracted esoteric insinuations used by frauds to exploit human gullibility and desperation.

The pseudo-philosopher, like the tallentless f-artist, insinuates his brilliance, forcing the anxious audience to project upon his f-Art flatulence, their own deepest anxieties and hopes.
like the f-artist painter, there's no way to determine intent or talent, as there si no realism to copare it to.
The f-art is psychotic vomit, the observer can find his own imagery within, like when he stares upon the passing clouds for shapes he can project his understanding upon.
The painter uses hues, lines, shapes, hinting, arranged in unrealistic, fantasy combinations, utterly nonsensical...and the modern "philosopher' does the same with symbols and words.

Where there's a fool there's a charlatan to exploit him.
"A fool and his money are soon parted" as the saying goes, but in the case of the fool of foolosohy, there is no reason to be parted from the brain.
There's only a cavernous sucking void, desperate for fulfillment, an external penis to penetrate and fertilize its womb-like skull with an idea(l), and an identity.

Time (Existence) has a way of forcing concessions, one after another, after another, and then after a million others, up until Death. Death is the final concession, giving in, defeat, mortality. All life must confront death eventually. Most put it off until the end, by which they are taken by surprise. Humanity has developed this selective ignorance, which is sophisticated. In other words, humans have the intelligence to understand and anticipate death, better than any lesser organism, yet still, actively chooses to ignore the topic and matter of death. Humanity selectively ignores and "puts off" death to a latter date, a lazy procrastination.

It feels better to keep bad habits and enjoy luxury/hedonism instead. Death is "far away", a belief that most enjoy to have. Thus the human civilization develops nihilistic tendencies. Rather than remembering on a daily basis that life is precious and fleeting, temporary, humanity has given into nihilistic premises that "we get an afterlife", "we go to heaven", "there is no hell", etc. Humans largely avoid the death premise entirely. "We are immortal, granted eternal life by God", which is the Abrahamic ideology and religions.

But if you return to Nature, pagan roots, ancient tribalism, European culture, Greek Hellenism, philosophy, then life and death are reduced back to the origins, which is Reality. Life and death are rendered real, once again. Daily struggles, or even the complexes of nihilism, fantasies, ideals, all reflect cycles of life and death.

For example, what people call any "Beginning" or "Start" is a reflection of birth, and all "Endings" and "Ends" are reflections of death.

This is the essence of the Anthropomorphication Fallacy. Humans believe that "because I was born" and "because I die" that all other things must begin and end, live or die, which is a great falsity. Does a rock "begin"? Does a rock "end"? Does a waterfall live and die? Does the flow of rain and air begin and end? Does time begin and end? Does existence begin and end?

Compared to the vanity of human ego and consciousness?

Just because you die, just because we die, just because I die, doesn't mean you get to "take everybody with you", which is a compulsion of vengeance and hatred, nihilism, resentiment.

The children and teenagers who "hate their lives" develop a psychosis and selfish neurosis that "if I can't have my way then nobody can have their way", Resentiment leading to Nihilism.

"If I must end then existence must end with me." Solipsism.

All built on the same anthropomorphic fallacy. A grand fallacy, a common error, an irrationality.

There's plenty of consequences and plenty of history to a language having the concept of 'real' and 'fake' as adjectives.
Did the world lie to you or did your eyes? Or was there no lying at all, but the senses an imperfect tool - like taking a rock to a nail instead of a hammer, and your other senses and abilities work as a complete system to behold truth? Just like your fingers grip the rock a particular way and the hammer another, for the same ends.