Forums

Lyssa wrote:

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

Looks interesting.
I registered.

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

Retards will be retards.

They think this kind of tactic will make reality go away.
The brain-dead, zombies, calling us "crack dealers".

Ha!!

Wait...are they the crack addicts?

In an idea(l) ILP future world ILP members will teach their children to reproduce with this...


..and they will teach man that this is also beautiful...

...because they can talk the talk but not only walk the walk...
Ah, bright New World Order...how wonderful you will be.

No ugliness...only beauty...beauty everywhere.

And if the kids resist, calling the above ugly...we'll make sure they change their minds...and not see what they do see.
Social eugenics for the Liberal twats of this world.
Because beauty is subjective, and anyone and everyone, can be beautiful...and winners, and smart...and cool...and lovable....

No cult there.
HA!!!

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

Akankinos wrote:

Now, as to respecting myself... Why? Why should I respect myself? What does it mean to respect oneself? It's not like I'm likely to anger myself due to my lack of respect toward myself. I mean, if I must respect myself, I should also be polite to myself, no? What the hell would that even consist of?

Quote :

Yeah, I'm comfortable with my progressivist, ultramodernist dismissal of ancestral wisdom. Well, except for those ancestors of mine that rebelled against the British Crown. Those guys had wisdom by the cubic tonne. Just not enough bullets.

Satyr wrote:

ILP head Retard wrote:

Conversely, objectivity is an attitude adopted only by people who can't shoulder the responsibility of their personal tastes and have to foist it onto the external world to bear. That's not an argument, that's a dismissal of any counterargument, which is effectively a resignation from the onerous burden of having to defend and justify your views.

Anyone can have an opinion and claim it's correct. Philosophy is doing the groundwork to prove one's view is correct, to justify it to the satisfaction of other intelligent, critical minds. If you can't be bothered with that, that's fine; you have every right to proclaim The Truth As You See It. You just can't call what you're doing philosophy.

According to this crap, saying there is an objective world which the subjective mind must interpret and adapt to or perish is not taking responsibility...but deluding yourself that whatever you think is true is actually true is not evading culpability.

What is he even talking about?
It's the other way around.
People who claim it's all subjective are those who demand from the external world to take responsibility for their bad judgements and tastes. That's the attitude which breeds entitled twats who demand that the environment does not remind them of, or judge them for their personal, just as good as everybody else's, subjective, tastes.
That is their psychology; that is how they avert responsibility for their own thoughts and actions.

Lyssa wrote:

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

Hawkes wrote:

"The objectification of the subject (carnality) and the subjectification of the object (idolatry) are different aspects of one process which Milton, like later philosophers, calls “alienation.” Satan is described as “Alien from Heav’n” (4.571) and “alienate from God” (5.877). The effect of the Fall is to reduce the world to the same “alienated” (9.9) condition, and Satan considers God “alienated” (10.378) from creation, thus leaving it prey to “the dark Idolatries / Of alienated Judah” (1.456–457)." [The Faust Myth]

Stuck in the same paradigm... as those other ignoramuses with inverted crosses and speaking of being anti-Xt...  comical...  

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

Your boy is a pretentious creep.
He talks way too much shit. This sack of shit, humanist social justice actvist claims openly how he turned in contact information of people here to the ADL and that NHS and other security agencies are involved, following up himself with incitement phone calls to Satyr's home.
Does anyone take him seriously...

The barn manimals seem to have gotten their designer panties up in a bunch over the issue of beauty and how [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] it is.

It seems reasonable that a weakling and a coward would prefer to place value judgments in himself, independent of all external, to his feelings and hopes, standards, desperately declaring to escape nature's decree, and the past's determinations, by resorting to word-games, and solipsistic escapism.

It is, preferable, to declare yourself beautiful or valuable or smart, without having to answer to anyone or to anything, hoping that if you convince enough imbeciles, like you, that your declarations will begin to appear plausible, and if you repeat it often enough, you might forget that you simply decided to declare it.
It's preferable but not honest...and most of all human preferences tastes, hopes, if they are shaped by social eugenics and fantasies, do not change anything other than our psychology.
If not for the sheltering system we are serving, and offers us this 'right" to delude ourselves with declarative, self-flattering, statements, we would face the consequences of our foolishness.


So, here's the honest truth...

Objective:
What we call objective s not a thing, nor an absolute. Objective simply refers to the world, and the world is a dynamic, fluctuating sum of processes, of (inter)actions...and one of those (inter)active agencies is us, I, the human individual, who is also a sum of processes.
The world is indifferent to our tastes and hopes and desires, since it is neither conscious nor a singular thing, a /god...but a sum of processes.
Some of those parts, a fraction, might be conscious, but the majority of processes are unconscious.

We, as living organisms, emerge, within this (inter)active world, and are shaped by it, and in relation to it.
Our tastes, predispositions, potentials all determined before we were born, and only changeable in a slight way, with great effort (will power).

Subjective:
The subjective is the organism becoming conscious of the world (objective), which made it possible and against which it must struggle to preserve itself.
The subjective, increasingly conscious (varying degrees) organism must adapt, adjust, judge, the objective world, which is constantly changing, if it hopes to remain conscious and alive.
The subjective mind, to facilitate this process of survival, has evolved automatic, predetermined, methods of (re)acting to this objective world, and its stimulation on its sense organs.

The subjective mind's options are limited to within these automatic, reactions, which evolved because they are necessary for it to continue being subjective, and not dead.
It's tastes, sexual preferences, potentials, all shaped by this objective, dynamic world, in the past, expressing itself as appearance in the present.
Everything it likes, or dislikes corresponds to its basic needs and the automatic processes evolved to preserve it, despite it being stupid, or a moron, or a coward, or suicidal, even.

Ergo Beauty is not subjective...but subjectivity has evolved the capacity to discover beauty in the world because ti is symmetry, order, and life is an ordering...so the subjective mind is atteracted to order.
Any slight modifications in this regard can be attributed to dysfunctions - mutations that are protected and not culled out of the gene pool - or organic, hormonal variations.

Nevertheless, a living organisms, no matter how fucked up it may be, it needs symmetry, order, and so it consumes it, assimilates it, is attracted to it....wants to be assimilated by it...the feminine psychology.

Not so complicated people.
If you stop feeling, and surrendering to your anxiety/fear, it is crystal clear.

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

I quote this piece of genetic feces...

ILP turd wrote:

Hi objectivists,

Subjectivity has often been used as a convenience for smoothing over certain conflicts of taste. Agreed.

1. These tastes are subjective by nature

YET
2. Subjectivity does not entail equality of taste. Try to wrap your head around that.

I already know he comes here...

So, this imbecile, against those of his kind, suggests a standard outside subjectivity, by which the inequality of subjectivity is determined.

What does this turd call this standard of evaluating the quality of the subjective perspective?
The turd never says...he alludes with no specificity.
Because cowards and imbeciles, remain what they are.

Everything is subjective, but, according to this piece of shit, not equally so.
And?
What is this other, which measures the quality of subjectivity, called?
What shapes taste?
Why is Beethoven superior, if he is superior, to Britney Spears, if all is subjective?
What word will be used to describe it?

The PUA many are obsessed with is about flirtation...marketing...selling/buying....cost/benefit.

The seller up the value of what he is selling, to entice the buyer...the buyer, suspicious of his ways, tries to evaluate the real value of what she is to purchase.

The boys hyper-inflate...the females try to downplay, to cynically dismiss...and so on.

It's all a fuckin' game.
Taken seriously by the base because that's the level they exist on, and because procreation, for that period of their life, is a dominant concern.
If it is not, then the one who still wastes his/her time on it is either studying it, as a social phenomenon, or enslaved by it.

It's why females who have already had children are always more honest and pragmatic....although not by much.
Males, still preoccupied by this, are usually males with no children (young, virgins, social losers), or effete twats who have used this to accomplish the deed, and remain loyal to it, because of its success.

Satyr wrote:

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

I quote this piece of genetic feces...

ILP turd wrote:

Hi objectivists,

Subjectivity has often been used as a convenience for smoothing over certain conflicts of taste. Agreed.

1. These tastes are subjective by nature

YET
2. Subjectivity does not entail equality of taste. Try to wrap your head around that.

I already know he comes here...

So, this imbecile, against those of his kind, suggests a standard outside subjectivity, by which the inequality of subjectivity is determined.

What does this turd call this standard of evaluating the quality of the subjective perspective?
The turd never says...he alludes with no specificity.
Because cowards and imbeciles, remain what they are.

Everything is subjective, but, according to this piece of shit, not equally so.
And?
What is this other, which measures the quality of subjectivity, called?
What shapes taste?
Why is Beethoven superior, if he is superior, to Britney Spears, if all is subjective?
What word will be used to describe it?

I've always considered defuse to be too casual about philosophy, he makes even temperedness into a fault.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] a bunch of gorillas trying to make sense of themselves, in relation to a world that does not give a shit about them.

A delicate balance between hypocrisy and honesty, pragmatism and a bullshit.
They want to feel comfortable, and safe, and valuable, but, at the same time, they want to balance this with their need to be accomplished and successful and valuable outside their brain-dead heads.

We can all appreciate the dilemma.
How do you preserve your myths, your principles and ideals, in a world that remains unaffected by them, amongst those who claim to buy into your myths, but act in ways that contradict them.

It's the old idea(l) contra real conflict.

An example...
Women, the vast majority indoctrinated in the modern bullshit, will tell you the shared lie...but, in a male's experience, she will not abide by this lie, acting and choosing in ways that contradict it.
Because no matter how solipsistic you wish to be, or how many intervening protective measures are placed to save you from reality, helping you remain asleep, reality seeps through the human cracks.

This disparity creates friction.
It confuses the average brain, trapped in the shared paradigm of words and faked intentions and convenient modern conventional contrivances...and many of them come here to understand why.....why?!....this is so.
Why is the world so confusing, and surprising to them?
Why what they wish to believe is never realized?
Why are they almost always disappointed?
Why, the average imbecile asks, despite having attained everything I was told was supposed to make me happy, I remain unhappy?
Why, despite having everything I ever wished to have, do I remain in need, though I would never, ever, admit it openly?
Why is satisfaction, gratification, pleasure, so ephemeral, if it is supposed to be the meaning of life?

Those not sharing in the spoils of dishonest grow to loath it, though perhaps more unconsciously that not. The problem is that when one has never met an honest person he'll end up taking it for granted that it's a myth that no one can ever come close to approaching. He then approaches honesty in a compartmentalized manner, focusing only on it when pertaining to forms he's suffered most from. When actually discovering those attempting to be honest in all things, he can't quite tell what it is that makes them different, but nearly inevitably he'll come to conflict with them, because while they share his honesty on some matters, they refuse to remain indifferent to his duplicity on others.

How do you persuade anyone of anything if he is addicted to what he's already decided is best for him, given the circumstances?
When emotion, how he feels about it, is the deciding factor, the standard of evaluating quality is not shared, and because it is not shared, and still remains irrelevant, it is just as plausible as any other.
He can continue living in whatever delusion he prefers, if this is the case.
This man finds relief in remaining irrelevant.
He can laugh away anything, because he is so desperate about his comfortable state of delusion, knowing that it does not affect a single thing outside of his simple brain.

But here's where Satyr has the upper hand.
He describes the world as it is, not as he wishes it was, or hopes it will be.
And because he makes of himself a conduit through which reality shines through, and because reality is indifferent to human bull, and human hopes and emotions and dream and expectations, he becomes the focus, and the refection - both god and devil...man and beast.

If his human part can endure the threats,a the hatred, the taunts and insinuations and social costs, then his beastly side can find relief.
It's easy, you see, if you realize how base and insignificant human costs are, to the bigger picture.

Lyssa enters in a cage full of, baboons, gorillas, and chimpanzees trying to discuss human things with them.

It's Tuesday...and Satyr is awaiting visitors in the ChatBox.
Will nobody feed his self-indulgent arrogance?

Satyr wrote:

It's Tuesday...and Satyr is awaiting visitors in the ChatBox.
Will nobody feed his self-indulgent arrogance?

What goes down there?

You'll never know.

Whatever you like.
Satyr is open to suggestions, on that one day.
The rest of the days, if you do not offer anything interesting to Satyr, then you can pretty much go fuck yourself.

Satyr wrote:

You'll never know.

Whatever you like.
Satyr is open to suggestions, on that one day.
The rest of the days, if you do not offer anything interesting to Satyr, then you can pretty much go fuck yourself.

Makes sense.

Quote :

This VO is a chicken-soup for the modern invertebrate spineless masses. A way to justify the belief that no matter how you compare you MUST value self.

They want to get rid of shame but what they don't understand is that the only way to get rid of shame is to feel shame (i.e. to deal with it, which is to say, not to get rid of it.) All this "self-valuing" business is simply a repackaging of modern self-help/New Age psychology. Sad people need to "think positively", fat people need to "exercise", people who don't get laid need to "go out and get laid" and people who are ashamed of themselves need to "value themselves". They all have one thing in common and that is that they all ignore the simple fact that any change, for any individual, must be gradual and must follow specific set of steps that suits the psychological and biological make-up of those who want to change. This means that in reality some people will never reach their goal (since life is finite, right) and that is one of the reasons they want to make this process as short as possible, or rather, to convince themselves they can speed it up (for what happens when they try to speed it up is that they slow it down.) In short, they want miracles.

So a man who hates himself wants to love himself, but since he has no time nor intelligence to address all of his psychological issues one by one, which in itself would already be a kind of love for oneself (see Nietzsche for example), he's forced to look for "another solution", which really only means to "convince himself that there's a solution". He finds it and applies it: he starts "loving" himself. But all he's doing is deceiving himself: what he likes is not himself but an image of himself that he has created using a sophisticated process of self-deception (say by posturing and "collecting" compliments from his environment or by tricking others into thinking he is what he would like to be and then using their approval as a proof that he really is what he says he is -- the list of tricks is practically infinite, someone should sit down and write a book on the most popular ones.) The most annoying thing about the drug-addicts is that they look down upon people like Nietzsche for "hating himself" simply because he's not willing to take their drugs -- they are utterly convinced that taking drugs requires intelligence (rather than the other way around, that resisting drugs requires intelligence.) They confuse appearance of self-love with genuine self-love, like what Mr. Reasonable retard did in the exchange with Lyssa. They don't understand that genuine self-hate is better than apparent self-love, since the former leads to self-love (and that it is already a kind of self-love) whereas the latter leads to a deeper self-hate (or death.)

Let's take a look at the recent exchange between Lyssa and Mr. Reasonable.

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

Lyssa wrote:

And those, like you and others, who cannot love themselves, need to resort to compensations like money.

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

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

The part about me not loving myself....that just doesn't make any sense. If you're gonna attack the person, at least know what the hell you're talking about. You can read my posts for days and days and I think you'll see plainly that I love myself more than most people do.

No indication that he's acknowledging that there is such a thing as apparent (i.e. fake, deluded) self-love and genuine (i.e. real) self-love. Moreover, he takes it for granted that if someone appears to love himself, that means he really loves himself. Apparently, he does not believe that such a thing exists. Schizophrenia exists but "mild" insanities such as these do not. He must believe so, otherwise, he will have to question himself.

There are two kinds of self-deceptions depending on what one denies: one can either deny the real (what one is) or the ideal (what one should be.) The above belongs to the first category. When one obsesses over convincing oneself that the ideal has already been achieved or that he's close to achieving it, when in reality he's not even moving towards it but away from it, we say he's denying the real. A man obsesses over becoming something better to such an extent that he ends up denying/forgetting himself (and harming himself in one way or another, like anorexics and SI people do.) When one is content with oneself and wants to get rid of every responsibility, when one no longer has any ideals, we say that he's denying the ideal (which is a sort of denial of the real, since the ideal belongs to the real.) In both cases one is trying to make the distance between the real and the ideal as short as possible, the only thing that differs is the way they do it. The first type does it by falsifying the real while retaining the ideal (one is thereby a narcissists of a sort) whereas the second does it by falsifying the ideal while retaining the real (one becomes "honest" with oneself, one becomes "realistic" and "humble", one no longer expects anything, one no longer has any goals, one completely surrenders to one's instincts, etc.) The tension between the real and the ideal is in both cases what's at the core of the problem.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

A man obsesses over becoming something better to such an extent that he ends up denying/forgetting himself.

So if one hates oneself so much that he can't wait for slow improvement, he may end up falsely believing that he's already made the ideal improvement and therefore will lose track of the real, forgetting himself.

Altogether, your above post makes sense. I have an observation based on how it relates to previous posts of yours.

Quote :

You can see the aforementioned betrayal at work when that Laughing Moron retard decides to go to work despite his body screaming into his face that it does not want him to go to work. By ignoring these signals Laughing Moron ends up forgetting himself -- he ends up losing control over his life.

...

he's a coward incapable of taking the tiniest risk by quitting the goddamn job so that he can better understand what his body is trying to tell him and use that knowledge to find a job that converges with his long-term goals (if he can find a job -- there is no guarantee he will find one.)

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

You may recall that I brought that quote to your attention last month. What I had in mind was the contradiction of saying quitting would be a small risk, when obviously it wouldn't be; a fact which you help establish later in the parentheses.

Quote :

All this "self-valuing" business is simply a repackaging of modern self-help/New Age psychology. Sad people need to "think positively", fat people need to "exercise", people who don't get laid need to "go out and get laid" and people who are ashamed of themselves need to "value themselves".

...

This means that in reality some people will never reach their goal (since life is finite, right) and that is one of the reasons they want to make this process as short as possible, or rather, to convince themselves they can speed it up (for what happens when they try to speed it up is that they slow it down.) In short, they want miracles.

When advising those who don't like their job, the self-help frauds first instinct is to tell them to quit.

Basically, you understand that psychological miracles are unreal, you don't have the same disbelief in physical miracles.

Sad truths...


--> Not all who are born will remain alive, using their own talents and strengths.
Nature produces experimentally, selecting naturally.
No "justice".
Trial and error.
Genetic combinations that mostly fail.
Preserving them, to deal with some internal insecurity, or as a way of ensuring that our own failings will be excused, produces a nice feeling, in the short-term, as if you've beaten the world and you are cared for by some otherness (god, humanity, whatever), but it also has very serious repercussions, in the long run.
Those you preserve, in this way, grow in numbers and in dependence. Having not earned their survival, not proven their VALUE, in relation to a fluctuating, indifferent, world, they become addicted, obsessed, with external power.
In time, nihilistic (anti-nature, anti-self, anti-world) ideologies flourish amongst them; a cocooning, self-indulgent, system of slaves, develops, where all is inverted.
They will go to great lengths, each supporting the other until quantities overwhelm all rational discourse, to preserve this inverted, delusional, un-empirical perspective.
The word precedes the emergence of life, is the same as saying value precedes judgment.

In the Platonic psyche sense, it is a charioteer (reason), pulled by two horses (passions), where the reigns (will) disappear behind him, flapping in the void; where he imagines some invisible hand (God, reason, word, will, value, one) holding unto them.


--> Increasing chaos, entropy, means increasing randomness. In the binary logic man is forced to think within, it is a decrease of order, patterns.
To put it another way as order decreases, probabilities decrease, and possibilities increase, one inversely proportional to the other.
This means that as possibilities increase, towards the infinite, the absolute, the patterns, limiting possibilities - which is what we call ordering, becoming - diminish.

The modern, in order to escape the determining ordering of the past, considers chaos a freedom, not realizing that he is really hoping for an end to the requirements of his own emergence.
This is what I've called "positive nihilism"...because it proposes the annihilation of life, but offers a positive rewards for it...some beyond time/space or beyond as in future.
Because the "beyond" is not present, it can be imagined in any way, and if this imagination detaches from sampling the past, from being guided by the past/nature, and precedent, then it can be imagined in the most fantastic ways possible.
The future, towards infinite possibility meaning that anything and everything is possible, since nothnig is more probable, limiting what is possible.

This is a liberation from the cruelty of nature, where many are born and only a fraction flourish.


--> When you've inherited nothing of value, or when you've been trained to detach from your own heritage, your past/nature, from where you can draw inspiration, and strength from, then you seek guidance, inspiration, power from anywhere....from any other.
This makes you more vulnerable to the manipulation of others, since self is a manifestation of past/nature, and seeking strength from there is looking inward, not outward.
in the past, when social unities were more genetically homogeneous, and the shared meme reflected this, a child growing up, being guided by another was like being guided by this shared heritage.
Today, when heterogeneous genes are forcefully integrated into uniformity, suing the lowest-common-denominator (animalism, hedonism, materialism fear being seduced by the easiness of nihilistic escape and inversions), the child being inspired, guided, by another entails a disconnection from self.
This creates a schizophrenia, where the past/nature, still manifesting as a presence, is contradicted by an artificiality, a projection towards the beyond, demanding a detachment from this past/nature to make the transition easier.
This creates internal rifts, compartmentalization, a convoluted psyche which believes in things it cannot justify, or defend....saying one thing and acting in opposition to it.
This, in turn, necessitates hypocrisy, particularly self-deceit.

Stuart- wrote:

So if one hates oneself so much that he can't wait for slow improvement, he may end up falsely believing that he's already made the ideal improvement and therefore will lose track of the real, forgetting himself.

Yes. But I wouldn't phrase it like that. One does not choose to hate oneself, and inability to slowly improve is not a consequence of hating oneself. One hates oneself if:

1. one is full of psychological (and physiological) contradictions
2. one lacks necessary capacity to resolve one's contradictions (no matter how slow this resolution is)

Nietzsche was full of contradictions but he was capable of dealing with them which is why it's wrong to say that he hated himself. On the other hand, most people aren't, which is why they are forced into denial/delusion of some sort, which can take many forms, from simple psychological defense mechanisms over theoretical delusions to placebos and pharmacological intoxication. This is a war of one against many, of an individual against generations of individuals, of nurture versus nature. One is "too complex", which is to say, one is rich but one's richness is imbalanced, thereby forcing them to dream of trimming themselves into something simpler, something less problematic, of going back to being an animal, only there is this problem that they are not rich enough to make a regress-qua-progress (i.e. short-term regress, long-term progress) but only regress-qua-regress (i.e. short-term regress, long-term regress) i.e. they never become an animal, they only end up imitating animals. There are two ways they do this "trimming": by turning against size (e.g. Epicurean hedonists) and by turning against order (e.g. self-indulgent hedonists.)

Quote :

You may recall that I brought that quote to your attention last month. What I had in mind was the contradiction of saying quitting would be a small risk, when obviously it wouldn't be; a fact which you help establish later in the parentheses.

I didn't say that quitting is a small risk, but that it is a small risk compared to other actions one can take. I said this because he thinks he is courageous.

Just to make it clear.

When I say that those who hate their job should quit their job, I am not:

1. promising them they will get a better job
2. saying they should adopt an anti-job attitude
3. saying they should not try to adapt to their job

I am simply saying they need time for themselves. Whether they will try to adapt to their current job or seek another or die jobless is simply not something I can answer since it depends on personal factors I have no access to.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

There are two ways they do this "trimming": by turning against size (e.g. Epicurean hedonists) and by turning against order (e.g. self-indulgent hedonists.)

Do those two forms of trimming respectively correspond to masculine/negative and feminine/positive nihilism?

Quote :

I am simply saying they need time for themselves.

Ok.

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

Turd wrote:

As we can see thoughout this board and KTS, VO is already an action, a self perpetuating action that now captures the minds of increasing numbers. Some it captures in understanding, others in a kind of negative idolatry, in any case it is acting upon these minds, I am acting upon them, shaping them.

In 2006 Ive acomplished a pivot in societal ethics through mass media, but quickly found out that actions there do not have lasting recognizable consequences. Clearly defined efforts lead to alienating results. I withdrew, focused on music and then got drawn back into philosophy. Philosophy and science are the only 'acting solids'.

One must stand back in awe at the spectacle of human depravity.

Do you see him coming here?

We need an emoticon with a hand to face movement.

Luckily we have ILP to gather all the crazies in one spot...for observational purposes.
What's the count on ILP geniuses now?
shit-Stain, the numerological trio, the Saint of everything, the MENSA group that has scattered...who else?

This is why ILP is my perti dish of psychopathy.
A variety of modernistic, nihilistic, slush, combining into sociologically fascinating forms.

The sheer audacity of declaring yourself a genius, or to make statements like the one above, is fascinating.
It's one thing to think it, and another to have the balls to put it down in writing and then publicize it...with nothnig to back ti up but more words.
At this point mentioning someone constitutes a validation of his illness.

You can say:
"Look at this idiot" and he's hearing "I matter, I am noticed, I am important".
Astounding.    

The liar who tells the other what a good liar he is, has already discounted himself from the running.
The moment anyone declares himself a genius, or makes statements like the above, he's already told us that he's the reverse.
He need not say anything more.

All I can say is ...WOW!!

I can use ILP, and no other forum to write a thesis on human psychological depravity.
That place is a goldmine of nihilism and Modern types.
Amazing.

Yes...you., and only you...dear.
I never claimed to be having an effect upon the world.
And...you come here, do not forget...I do not point to you there, if you never came here, and simply declared you my puppet.

My influence is small...upon specific individuals of a specific kind.
No world-changing motives, dear.
I am not that stupid and arrogant.
I am humble...I have humble motives, and ambitions.
I preserve. I do not invent.  

But, dear....I stay here and they come.
Who goes to Humanrchy?
How many?
A clown sitting in a room with half a dozen self-proclaiming "geniuses" dreaming of changing mankind, using symbols to declare themselves creative geniuses

They change words around and then claim to have invented something new.
I tell you that I am telling you the obvious...what is older than old....
I expose, I do not invent.

VO in place of Will to Power or self-affirmation, then another clown replaces 'behavior' with the word 'performance'...
Word-games.
Value BEFORE a judging consciousness emerges.
As with Nietzsche's will.
They've replaced god with a word...another one.
Wow...impressive.

EUREKA!!
We are geniuses.
Watch my numbers.
If someone even mentions him, he thinks he's affecting them.
A psychosis.

Like you. I respond to you, you take it as power.

They even admit that they are simply manipulating grammar...
HA!!!
Classic Judeo-Christian psychology.

phoneutria wrote:

If you call lyssa a clown again I will have you lashed.

He can call me HIS clown, and you needn't do a thing ; )