Against ILP

This thread will be about ideas, topics, and proposals of arguments, to be leveled against ILP, their staff, and their (Modern) community. I'm permanently banned for being "irredeemable", and previous attempts to duck their censorship fail when I'm called-out, by users here, by trying to identify who I am. Thus this re-direction will have to make do. It is not a matter of choice, but of constrained choice.

This thread can also act as a conduit "to Modernity", to present arguments against modernity, nihilism, and humanity.

If you could force a Modern to take responsibility for him/herself, could force answers and definitions, then what would you like to know most of all, or what ought to be exposed?

Example:

Moderns, particularly those embodied by the liberal-left, claim that 'Discrimination' is bad, morally wrong, evil, and humanity ought not engage in it. However, of course, they mean this selectively, which is actually a form of sub-discrimination. Thus Moderns, according to the liberal-left ought to be discriminating in some areas of life (politics, democracy, for or against Trump) but not in others (concerning genetics, race, sex, gender, etc). Thus there is a double-standard.

However, to react against Anti-Discrimination, the best example of Pro-Discrimination is an organism's auto-immune system. And this can be *ANY* biological organism, society, specie, etc. Thus *EVERY* biological organism immediately benefits, and survives, based on genetic Discrimination. If an organism allows in "good" substances (food, nutrition) and disallows in "bad" substances (viruses, fungal infections, disease) then the organism lives or dies by these differences. Thus Discrimination is not only 'Good' (objective sense) but necessary for survival. In other words it is 'Good' because to discriminate rightly (allowing in nutrition, disallowing toxins) causes survival. Thus it can never be 'Bad' for an organism to be anti-discriminatory. For an organism *NOT* to discriminate, leads to two results. When an organism does not discriminate, it allows in toxins such as viral infections, lethal bacterias, disease, and everything else that leads to death, some forms which are immediate. Or if an organism blocks everything out absolutely, then it would not allow nutrients in, and this would also lead to disease or death (starvation).

So either way, anti-discrimination is biologically, objectively "bad" for *every* organism.

This would be a perfect argument to level against ILP and Modernity...

Clarifying the previous example:

I suspect that Moderns will attack the usage of "good and bad" in the first example. Perhaps they will claim what is 'good' for one organism is not good for another organism. Thus predation, an organism eating and preying on other organisms, disrupts or diminishes this notion of "good and bad". However it does not. Because the rule holds true. Although it can be "good and bad", subjectively, for one organism to prey upon other organisms, that does not mean that discrimination is ruled out. It stays true for all organisms, thus, is objectively good (beneficial to any organism) and does not need to be subjectively true (one organism preying upon another).

This actually helps my point, and describes the platform of liberal-left policies more so. The *victim* is portrayed as the key moral agency. Thus predation (and therefore discrimination) are attacked based on the perspective of the victim.

Thus, to the liberal-left, discrimination is bad in the sense that a predatory must consume the victim. However this still dodges the victim's own discrimination.

And that's the key to the argument. Liberal-leftists, and Modernity in general, excuse *their own* discrimination, but attack others' discrimination, while attempting to claim victim-status (Privilege).

As a side-note and conclusion: Privilege is the goal of liberal-left policies. They want to be the "Privileged in-group". And if they were to succeed then they would immediately become Conservatives (the privileged in-group).

Anti-Discrimination:

When Moderns (mostly including the liberal-left) claim or imply that "discrimination is bad", what they mean is that 1) they are the victims, or speaking on behalf of victims, 2) because they are victims, discrimination against them is wrong, and 3) "all discrimination must end". Liberal-leftism is disingenuous, a lie, because liberal-leftism holds double-standards. Their own discrimination is completely ignored, but "others' discrimination" is targeted, of the predator or aggressor.

In essence, liberal-leftism is not about discrimination anyway, not really. It's about *victimization* which is a socially Privileged status. As the Victim (eternal victim), liberals want to be Privileged. No guilt, no remorse, no regret, no accountability. When you are the 'victim' then you can do anything you want. All moral actions are reversed (inversion, nihilism). Thus liberal-leftism has an envious relationship with Judaism. Liberal-leftism is a pseudo-jewish ideology, linking victimization with privilege. Because when you are the "eternal victim" then you become blameless and perfectly excusable.

You can never "do any wrong" as the eternal victim.

An appealing ideal for Moderns, bent on Hedonism. As hedonists, they can never do any wrong, never be held accountable for perversions, sickness, disease, and illness, but are always faulted by another.

Taken higher, nihilist can always "blame God", which they can, do, and will, anyway.

Objectifying Women:

Moderns, including those at ILP of course, often claim or imply that "objectifying women" is "bad". Is it? Why? How? What does it mean, other than the obvious, which is a male lusting and craving intercourse with a female? Is that "bad"? Or is it, good? Doesn't sexual objectification (lusting) imply that the specie (humanity) will continue to reproduce? Isn't survival a good thing?

If survival is a good thing (which it is) then sexual objectification of (lusting after) women, is also a good thing. Forget about it being good...it's *necessary*. Without it, humanity would not exist.

Therefore, critiquing or claiming "sexual objectification is bad" is also saying "survival of the human specie is bad". Of course, Moderns do not mean this. What they actually mean is this...they mean to say that *some* males should not objectify women, but some other males can and should. And thus, the males that are "socially acceptable" (emasculated) can sexually objectify (lust after) women, to a degree (to such a degree that it suits, flatters, and impresses women, and humanity at large, civilization and society).

In other words, Modernity wants to carefully control and limit the lusting of females, by males, for its own purposes. Some males will be excluded (those who are unapproved of by society) while most males will be included, as long as they pay prices, and hold certain social conventions (submit to some forms of social conditioning, indoctrination, and emasculation).

Once you are an effeminate, weakly, pathetic male, an effete male, then you can "sexually objectify" women, as long as it benefits women directly.

That's what Moderns really mean.

So *if* somebody were inclined to "provoke thinking" at ILP, as it advertises on its logo ("provoking thought since 2001") then you could make a couple of simple threads and arguments:

1. Discrimination is Superior, because the more an organism discriminates and does it well, separating and allowing 'good' nutrients in and 'bad' toxins out, the greater chance it will survive in life and reproduce. This argument also implies sexuality, that a woman allows 'good' sperm in to reproduce superior and fit generations and disallowing 'bad' sperm out. Thus discrimination is good for life, and good for women, producing superiority.

2. Sexually objectifying women (lusting after them) is good, "as long as she allows it". Because it leads to reproduction of humanity. However sexual objectification is "bad" when women don't accept it. Therefore, really, sexual objectification is good or bad, directly dependent on the quality of the male in relation with a specific female, and her general reaction to him.


These are two simple concepts, popular, that can be highly provoking and argumentative. ILP would reject the premises.

I would get banned for posting stuff like this. Which only demonstrates how lowly and fallen "philosophy" is and has become, in the Modern world.

I can't post over there, but somebody who reads this, if you were so inclined, could. And these are a couple of simple, easy topics. By no means it is the complex and 'difficult' type of ideas and philosophies, that people should be doing, in this day and age.