Zombie Apocalypse

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

In response to this. Mitchell Heisman's predictions in real time. Liberal democratic equality following its logical conclusion. Its "sociobiological survival strategy" as Heisman would call it. Everything must be given a "right". From the smallest animal to the tiniest microbe. Everything must have equal status. Up must be down, 2 plus 2 must equal 5. I.e. clown world.

Nihilism is ultimately about the death of the individual.

Heismans book is a Torah on crack, his argumentation is flawed and incoherent, unlike Spenglers, which turned out to be false(but was a reasonable one, he couldnt predict the break-throughs in modernity, as much as i dont like 'organic' or 'natural' analogies), look at his sources, Kurzwil as an authority on AI(?), nihilism and the death of god as some kind of logical precursor to suicide and a lack of freedom(?), his 'critique' of 'Marxism'(?), being so certain of the inevitability of the total dominance of 'nihilism' isn't a serious argument, we don't and can't know what future will bring, men much, much smarter than us tried and failed, overpopulation and technological progress can increase or decrease 'nihilism'(physical limitations might 'snap' people back to reality), there is no solid argumentation for either scenario, as in no solid argumentation for inevatibility for either scenario. Heismans critique of Christianity is an interresting one(though he is evidently biased in his historical sources against Christianity), then it goes downhill and steeply.

For example, a complete rejection of Marxist theorhy, with no distinction, just a total refutal of its intellectual value, is a semi-religious act(typical for an atheist Jew), because logically it make no sense as Marxism is a useful method in analyzing the world and has good points and observations included, regardless of how much you disagree with it personally, it can't be denounced totally as a completely useless system objectively and argumentatively. No balance in all of this, there is no balance in worship.

Nihilism follows a pattern of self-destruction. Taken to extremes, it produces catastrophic downfalls for the individual. Negation of ones past, leads to negation of oneself in relation to the future, which leads to an impoverished spirit willing to accept forms of indignities and degradation based on an absence of values, objectives and beliefs. In times where it is ubiquitous, its only sensible to understand the power of it and what its capable of. Mind you, nihilism and death are a figurative analogy for understanding what it is and what it does. But there is no denying its effects on civilization and its self-destruction. The evidence is all around.

Concerning Heisman, he was a Jew who was awakened to his own sense of nihilism. The state of modernity exacerbated it in him. He was a radical voice of reason. Some things he said are very true, others are questionable and others are a bit off the wall, especially his views on technology which I find to be a bit crazy. But we extract truth where it is. He is relevant in terms of the current state of nihilism goes. His suicide act was the whole climactic event that his reasoning led up to about nihilism.

And Marxism is only a useful ideology for the purposes of reciprocation of productive discourse in everything that is wrong with it, to emphasize the corrections to it, such as hierarchical domain and natural selection. A vehement rejection of something can be a symbolic act to preserve the advantages of that which was suppressed by it. We reject feminism, for example, because the original alternatives to it are more life affirming and superior.

Heisman was like Atzmon....a Semite who awakened to what Judaism truly is, only unlike Atzmon, his admiration for Aryanism made it more painful to admit what his own Semitic tribes had evolved to survive - a parasitical meme called Judaism.
The typical recovering Jew turns to Marxism and Humanism, when they reject Judaism...similar to how Christians and Muslims turn to forms of secular nihilism when they are recovering from their spiritual nihilism

Marxism was the epitome of secular Abrahamism corrupting natural order by adapting it to socio-economic systems with artificial hierarchies.
Marxism was the quintessential example of using proxies to indirectly cope with reality.

Can either of you refer me to some books analysing Marxism under this context of being anti-traditional or 'nihilistic'? I red Marx and fail to see where in his writing these ideas he is accused of arise specifically, as in word for word, idea for idea, I know that Frankfurt school claimed Marxism, I am not talking about that.(i am serious)

Start with Spengler.
But why must it have precedent? If every idea required a source in some other thinker, then there would be no new ideas.
Better yet...think for yourself.
How is Marxism different from Christianity? It's only difference is the denial of 'god', replaced by an idea, held to be just as sacred; a difference in nomenclature, replacing words with other words, referring to similar concepts.
Both advocate a submission to a absolute authority - one naming it god, the other State.
Both accuse something of evil - one capitalists and Capital, the other devil worshippers and Satan.
Both are a product of Jewish minds...one Jesus and the other Marx....mixed with Aryan ideas.
Both propose a telos - one Paradise, the other Utopia; one in the beyond, the other in the forever immanent future.
Both seduce by promising an end to pain, suffering, exploitation, war etc.
Both fail to deliver, finding excuses in other than their own dogma.
Both deny natural order, claiming a tabula rasa essence of man, awaiting 'proper programming'; salvation from sin means liberation from natural selection and its outcomes.
Both express antipathy towards nature and natural order.
Both have a sacred, unquantifiable, text - one the Testaments, the other the Manifesto.
Both express an either/or dichotomy, one as good/evil, the other as exploiters/exploited.

Both offer an ideological collective that crosses genetics and memetics.
Both are Nihilistic in that their proposals would negate existence and make the emergence of life impossible.
Both promise to the meek that they shall "inherit the earth", if they only "repent" or "unite".
Both negate the past, offering freedom from it.
Both offer recommence for mental and physical deficiencies, as these are natural by-products of natural selection.
Both attract the lost and the weak, and the physically and mentally ill, and so both intentionally cultivate physical and mental illness, as a way of propagating themselves.
Selfish memes.

Only fanatics cannot see, or refuse to admit commonalities....like those Jews who refuse to see how Christianity and Islam are founded on their dogma, and how their dogma is a corruption of Zoroastrianism and Egyptian worship of death, obsessing over immortality.
Imagine the kind of mental weakness it would take to deny how the Old testament and the New Testament, and the Talmud connect...and how Jesus and Mohammed are the points of division.
The unifying personae is Abraham...ergo Abrahamism.

What do you see specifically in Marxism as an economic theorhy that would prevent life emerging? I see no such contradiction, nor that Marxism denies 'natural order', it denies capitalism and capitalism isn't natural order just like Marxism isn't(whatever the natural order is besides everything that nature births and all that it does in it), besides, these are already vast oversimplification because Marx never denied capitalism in a literal way, only a reform within it, he never promised any kind of utopia like you say(where is this derived from?), but a system in which workers control their workplaces(to a larger extent than in capitalism). I am not even sure myself such system could function, definately not in 20th century Russia, more so in countries like Norway or Sweden, but I completely miss where your reasoning towards it is derived.

Marxism denies all nature based categories, like race, sex etc.....it reduces all to economic identities.
It rejects nature based superiority, blaming it all on economics and social powers.

They do not call the current crisis of identity,as Vernaeke caleld it, cultural-Marxism for nothing.

In Marxist theory the only identity that matter sis your production and consumption. It is the opposite side of Capitalism....agree in this and only this.
Capitalism also recognizes nothing outside supply/demand and market qualities. it does not care if you are a Negro, or an alien from Mars...all that matter is how much money you got and can male.

That is false, Marx never denied race, he even held the 'Nazi' belief that nordics and germanics were a superior race meant to dominate inferior slavs, he also critiqued Jews for the exact attitude you accuse him off(worshipping money). I didn't say its the opposite side of capitalism but a reform of Capitalism where the human mass that constitutes the nation, 'the working class' which now would have included the 'middle-class', has control over their work, their enterprise, not a total control, as in a lack of hierarchy, but a diffusion of totalitarian hierarchy of American corporate capitalism, I fail to see where this argumentation definately points towards the 'rainbow' left we have nowadays which is pumped and pushed down peoples throats by...the capitalists and bankers, as in, such Marxist system could go either way, depending on the quality of the people and their preferences, but the theory itself is economic, not racial or spiritual(so the people in such a system could discriminate against niggers or not, the system has nothing to do with it).

Workers of the world Unite!!!
It's emphasis is cross cultural, cross racial, cross sexual identifiers.

The emphasis is on class, not races and sexes. Classes divided and united mankind.
Communism would create a uniformity based on each ability to contribute, to produce, making sex and race irrelevant.

Christianity does the same with sinfulness and salvation from it.
All deserved salvation, no matter their creed or ethos...all would be saved if they repented.

The offspring is never a clone of the parent or grandparent.
It is a continuance.

Christianity does not reject races or sexes...but puts them in the category of 'sinful' worldly, which must be corrected.
It places them in the category of the base, the physical, to which it offers salvation in the spiritual...code for mental.
All men are united in sin, and are absolved of it, if they surrender to the ideology....the absolute authority of god.
The Communists replaced it with an even more abstract concept....State...Mankind.

I am not advocating communism, actually I am not defending anything, the text is the text, historical applications are historical applications, nothing exists in a vacuum, I admit I haven't red Spenglers book on socialism nor am I familiar with the term 'prussian socialism', I don't take peoples word on things, I like to go and read myself though I don't deny I have one intellectual and moral authority that is now dead that I personally refer to, in this world it is useful to have somebody much older than you and smarter that you can trust based on his lifes conduct to help yourself orient yourself, I personally think Marx and Engels and their economic theory are useful as are the more honest and traditional marxian thinkers(closer to Marx, further from Frankfurt school) of today like Richard Wolff and I know I found them useful in understand the world around me, sometimes in ways opposite to their personal world-view which is leftist, the Marxist system allowed me to capture who the enemies of Europe are vividly and why(international 'banking', beurocracy and 'capitalists') and what is their character better than anything right or far-right I've encountered that was coherent, because stuff like Propertarianism simply made no sense to me. For example, the alt-right always speaks about the Jews, the Jewish influence, the mass-immigration which is fine but their reasoning is almost always primitive and superstitious(hence why these sorts of movements always go hand in hand with Jewish conspiracies), why is no talk ever made about the disruptive force the marxist 'capital' has on the traditional formations of the West?(I dont deny the influence of the jews, just want to contrast one with the most obvious and striking one in our societies), I think if they red Marx they could percieve these things better(I know I did).

An example is very simple, Trump, if you have red Marx you would understand what he is and why he can't, by his very position in the American society and that of people around him, be a genuine alt-righter, whereas if you went by some idealist or dogmatic propositions you could, as many people have, fallen for his act, even if you will completely disagree with something, a system, it can bring your attention to things you have never considered in a way you have never considered, I think that is a useful thing.

polishyouth wrote:

That is false, Marx never denied race, he even held the 'Nazi' belief that nordics and germanics were a superior race meant to dominate inferior slavs, he also critiqued Jews for the exact attitude you accuse him off(worshipping money). I didn't say its the opposite side of capitalism but a reform of Capitalism where the human mass that constitutes the nation, 'the working class' which now would have included the 'middle-class', has control over their work, their enterprise, not a total control, as in a lack of hierarchy, but a diffusion of totalitarian hierarchy of American corporate capitalism, I fail to see where this argumentation definately points towards the 'rainbow' left we have nowadays which is pumped and pushed down peoples throats by...the capitalists and bankers, as in, such Marxist system could go either way, depending on the quality of the people and their preferences, but the theory itself is economic, not racial or spiritual(so the people in such a system could discriminate against niggers or not, the system has nothing to do with it).

This goes into your dislike in reading into what people do as having a deeper intent. Perhaps most Idealists and Romantics don't have a direct malign intent to destroy whatever they attempt to change, but by validating such Idealism, you necessarily create the environment by which comfort and disease settles in.

What happens when Marx eliminates market competition by giving all a living share? Virtue Signalling becomes the new currency. With the success and excesses of capitalism making market competition less important, we have seen the rise of the "SJW", who wish to raise their status and currency through victimhood.

Whether he intended it or not, his ideal world, gives birth to further degeneracy, first by denying the relevance of violence and force, and second by validating the idea of seduction being the method by which men compete. This is the same case with Jesus and Christianity, regardless of how "traditional" the orthodox church might still be today it lacks the conviction to accept violence and action as part of life and not just a means to an indefinite end.

It matters not even if these men could beat me up and kill me, it would not change the fact that they desire peace deep down and make themselves slaves by doing so.

Wanting to 'correct' a fact - change it - is the same as denying it even exists.
There are many ways of dealing with an existence you dislike and threatens and frightens you.
Pretending it isn't at it is, is the easiest.
Proposing "solutions" that will change them is another.
Both negate.

Negative collateral effects are never intended nor admitted.
The idealist - especially if he's a positive nihilist - always focuses on the benefits of his ideology - realistic or naive. If he admits a negative it is always small by comparison to what is positive.
For this reason a naive idealist will always be surprised by his own failure or the repercussions of his own ideology. He will always seek to explain them by accusing others.

Propose something different, or don't propose anything, have you red my posts you would have known I am neither advocating for Marxism, nor having finished reading Marx, nor an expert on Maxist economic theory, nor have I anywhere, at any time, proposed to implement Marxism or Communism anywhere. If one has decided that there is no going back and the modern world is not worth the effort to reform and salvage, that is fine with me, remain a constant crytic, always having a critique ready but never bothering with the realisitc assesment of the possibilities of implementing, as percieved by yourself, superior alternatives, that you would find tolerable, I am not offended by it, nor do I wish you would be otherwise. Supplementing yourself with a belief in historical cyclism and golden ages is also supplemental in such case, and again, have that belief. I don't believe in cyclical theory past the atomic age, in modernity, there, in my opinion, won't be a re-birth after a collapse because in a global world nothing that presents an advantage will be lost after a collapse, that could then circle around the world between barbarians and not be appreciated and used to gain an advantage, if the West falls, it will fall and be subdued by Asians until history resets itself through some kind of, unpropobable, atomic war that moves everything back. And because I don't believe in a collapse, and a re-birth, I am not willing to abandon this world and I try to make my way in it, for the sake of my family, my future family and people and a civilization(in its aspects)that I hold high and that I think is, unquestionably, the greatest civilization known to man-kind.
As regarding your actual arguments, I am not going to address them, because you haven't thought them through yourself, I am not going to start thinking what you could have meant and in what scope and then make your argument up for you then reply with my own. What happens when Marxism doesn't provide everybody with a minimum?

If you want to integrate violence so badly, I have both bad news and good news for you, bad news is that with the atomic weapons, violence is over permanently, good news is that there are still plenty of places violence is used instead of signalling, go back to Latin America, join a cartel, plenty of opportunity to use force within the system, these are ex-military, special-ops, American trained guys, the kind of men you would place in that top 2% of males that deserve to be appreciated by females, they rape females they have under their control constantly, I am sure if you lived long enough and were violent enough you could find a female to subdue and move somewhere to the outskirts and breed and be your wife. You deny violence, as in physical, martial-arts, steroid pumped violence in front a club, you deny extraversion and bravado as qualifiers, I am not sure what you want and how you imagine it.

polishyouth wrote:

Propose something different, or don't propose anything, have you red my posts you would have known I am neither advocating for Marxism, nor having finished reading Marx, nor an expert on Maxist economic theory, nor have I anywhere, at any time, proposed to implement Marxism or Communism anywhere. If one has decided that there is no going back and the modern world is not worth the effort to reform and salvage, that is fine with me, remain a constant crytic, always having a critique ready but never bothering with the realisitc assesment of the possibilities of implementing, as percieved by yourself, superior alternatives, that you would find tolerable, I am not offended by it, nor do I wish you would be otherwise. Supplementing yourself with a belief in historical cyclism and golden ages is also supplemental in such case, and again, have that belief. I don't believe in cyclical theory past the atomic age, in modernity, there, in my opinion, won't be a re-birth after a collapse because in a global world nothing that presents an advantage will be lost after a collapse, that could then circle around the world between barbarians and not be appreciated and used to gain an advantage, if the West falls, it will fall and be subdued by Asians until history resets itself through some kind of, unpropobable, atomic war that moves everything back. And because I don't believe in a collapse, and a re-birth, I am not willing to abandon this world and I try to make my way in it, for the sake of my family, my future family and people and a civilization(in its aspects)that I hold high and that I think is, unquestionably, the greatest civilization known to man-kind.
As regarding your actual arguments, I am not going to address them, because you haven't thought them through yourself, I am not going to start thinking what you could have meant and in what scope and then make your argument up for you then reply with my own. What happens when Marxism doesn't provide everybody with a minimum?

And if you had read my posts you would not have concluded that I insinuated that you were a proponent of Marx specifically but dispelled the notion that the intent behind someone's actions matters in any way toward their actual effect in reality.

Asians are overall, a frail weak race that have no ambitions outside their computer games and markets, i dont see them subduing anything anytime soon, they have emasculated themselves to a seemingly irreversible degree.

Greatest civilization indeed, why would you abandon this world? You seem confident enough that it will secure your current and "future" family.

polishyouth wrote:

violence is over permanently

Now that is funny. Violence cannot be engineered away, just like death cannot be, to the disappointment of misers who wish to avoid it in order to survive through their mouths.

I deny the modern form of violence which is always fought "in a ring" with a set of rules that deny the qualities which aren't beneficial towards it.

Between these two archetypes, who is more dangerous?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One requires a ring be built for him and a crowd to cheer and validate him, the other just needs a blade and the forest.

I've never sugggested that blacks are superior in warfare, in the past I've highlighted that the differences in testosterone between whites and blacks in America, when corrected for external factors, are like 15%, given the fact that it is very likely that blacks in America have a higher testosterone levels than an average African and I have also noted that testosterone isn't a simple thing, where more means more, different individuals seem to need and respond to different doses radically differently, i.e. it is possible that a man with very low test. can function much better off of it than a man with an extremly high testos. but for example genetically dull hormonal receptors(which is more common than you think). It is true that the proper 'racists' and 'white supremacists' use testosterone 'differences' as some explanatory token besides 'iq', and I disagree with that, when corrected for IQ, whites and blacks are extremly similar, despite the 15% test. difference and speculated differences in self-constraint etc.(which some white supremacists who like to believe whites are special and don't come out of Africa tend to find disgusting) and it is true that the black IQ, just like Hispanic, has risen over the past hundred years, blacks are around 90, hispanics around 95, whites around 103, whilst the african negro is around 70, and was close to that prior the whole racial segregation revolution, one must also remember that the upper-iq percentaile of blacks and hispanics hasn't moved a point, and since around 70s' the blacks havent been going up, in terms of iq, and almost 15 points on average is a tremendous difference, look at the jews with their 15 point difference(in verbals), and multiply this difference by how many more whites there are than blacks.
As to your other points, I wont reply because there is nothing to reply to, it is autistic, what is the point of the Rambo with a knife?, what are you actually saying?, you also go back on your words, you explicitly say that what would happen if, under Marxism, the market competition would be removed and all would be virtue signalling and then you say you didn't accuse me of promoting Marxism? and I am making false accusations, get the fuck out of here, another stuck-up jackass... I am not fighting whilst talking and engaging in intellectual exploration, like soldiers only getting ready for war are only shooting blanks, not real life ammunition, I don't hide anything, I dont try to get 'one on' anybody through being clever, intimidating anybody, spreading falsehoods or trying to assert my own philosophy and personal morals as some kind of universal system and then be vile and agressive towards anybody who strays from it...
If we are to be representative of a type of violence that characterizes us, I would be this:

except..., I'd shoot right through the child without blinking, war is cruel, if the enemy shields himself in anyway with civilians, I believe, you shoot right through the civilians, if the Taliban hide in a civilian village, you razor it to the ground, this diffusion of war is, I believe, a sign of western moral degeneracy, new, soft, barbarity, you should be 'knightly' in your everyday conduct but when it comes to real conflict one must be cruel, this has nothing to do with the Nazis, who were indeed justified in some of their war crimes which weren't war crimes, but only a stoupid cunt denies that a lot of what they did had nothing with a war but a genocide based on unscientific concepts of racial superiority and nutty, half-esoteric, conceptions of 'nordic' destiny, as expressed by modern 'apostoles' like Spengler and paddled to the masses by a charlatan Hitler.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Between these two archetypes, who is more dangerous?

polishyouth is too busy creating threads dedicated to polishing the knobs of such nigger boxers to ponder that question, I'm afraid.

Your paranoias are yours, luckily, the west is going down(its written in the stars), america is finished, europe is being raped by niggers and muslims as we speak, all western females are giving ass left and right to smelly blacks whilst already plotting a divorce with the european males that are masturbating to nigger cuck pornos, dont forget not to watch porn tonight and drink a big protein shake, you will need it, the muslims are coming for your sisters, you need MMA to fight them.
Also, not that it matters, but a lot of my posts in my thread are about whites, you frail cunt, please tell me to leave this forum, it will be a third time somebody tells me this and I wont listen, I like some of the people on this forum personally, I enjoy what they write, I wont go anywhere.

Also, lets not forget, the noble and loyalist right scene of European resistance engages in esoteric and trusitic and opinionated assesment of the problems and the sources whilst simple and easily demonstrable explanations are contained in things as widely accesible and popular as economic Marxism, but Marxism is a sin, one can't touch it because he won't go to heaven.

The situation in Greece is like a Hollywood Zombie movie [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— ChildOfEurope (@ChildOfEurope) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But the kind of zombification I'm talking about has to do with the spread of a particular world view - a nihilistic one, spread and made viral via a parasite, as such diseases often are.
It's a type of mental dis-ease , or illness of the psyche, which gradually detaches the individual from the world around it until nothing it perceives makes sense and it loses all sense of identity.
These hoards of Afro-Asiatics are carriers, but most are now part of our environment.

Zombies...meme-parasites spread the virus that infects them.

Zombie = Modern/post-modern - Liberal - Nihilist.

Zombie = a individuated collective that denies all physical identifications - as the physical rots - and can only identity with a shared hunger - i.e., need/desire - for blood - i.e., nihilistic ideologies.
Anything that negates the body/physical, the experienced real - i.e., that which is present and is interpreted as appearance - the tangible, empirical, sensually perceived.
To the zombie the world it lumbers through, looking for sources to satiate its hunger, is an illusion of diversity - all ti understands is the collective hunger of its individuated, distinct, herd - a herd like no other as it reproduces shared memes and not shared genes.

Feeling is so real, it is as complicated as the 'complexity' hiding behind chaos.

Slaughtz wrote:

Feeling is so real, it is as complicated as the 'complexity' hiding behind chaos.

Hunger, need/desire, is real....satisfaction, gratification is real and certain....all else is illusion.

That which unites us is a common hunger, though it may be satisfied differently; the hunger, feeling, sensation, itself.
Manimals....pretending to be more than animals because they use words, and their hunger is gratified by them.

LOGOS...ΙΔΕΟ-ΛΟΓΟΣ.