Forums

Thinking about it now, you remind me of a serial killer attempting to convince their victum they should enjoy it as much as you do.

Satyr wrote:

Here's the skinny, boy.
This modern world is full of Hollywood endings and feel-good poems and songs and hugs and ki8sses and stories about how all deserve this and that and how everything will work out alright in the end....the entire system in the west is geared towards infantile, weak, stupid fucks, like you.

Here’s the problem with this, bitch:

Everytime a woman cries on a movie, or anyone, or anytime I hear that music, I choke up. Sometimes I even I cry. And sometimes when the beauty is real enough, I ball like a bitch, because there is nothing left to resist. But I’m honest about that.

But at the same time, there are a lot of times I’m reacting to it but know that it is not real. I may choke up, but I regret and resent it because I know I’m being manipulated.

I know there's a big difference between it and reality.

You, on the other hand, don’t have to the opportunity to resent your sentimentality. Yet you fawn like a common bitch every time you see it. As long as it’s ugly and vulgar, it works for you.

So, bitch, don’t tell me about what it is I idealize. You need to take a real good look at your own idealizations.

Satyr wrote:

Dear...boy, the problem with you is that you think truth, or any description of reality, has to have a context outside philosophy?
That's what kind of a moron, YOU are.

I wonder, where can one speak about reality, or one's own assessment of it, other than in a philosophy forum, or within a philosophical or intellectual or intelligent conversation?

So if your doctor knew you had cancer, he would not be able to talk to you about it outside of a philosophy forum? It would seem to me that particular description of reality would warrant something well outside of this.

And does this mean that grandkid of yours should only express his love for you here?

I mean, what kind of a moron are you?

And you talk about my idealism. But what kind of idealism are you describing as concerns philosophy?

d63tark wrote:

But at the same time, there are a lot of times I’m reacting to it but know that it is not real. I may choke up, but I regret and resent it because I know I’m being manipulated.

Why do you feel manipulated when reacting to a fake story?
Do you also feel manipulated when you find a painting beautiful?

In fact, what kind of idealism, the kind idealism you disparage in movies, drives you?

I mean, Mr Lector, who is it that you idealize?

What is it that makes you so authentic as compared to everyone else?

Satyr wrote:

As for the last part of your inquisition it not only admits to a kind of personal feeling of inadequacy but it uses it to cast a challenge.
Perhaps you haven't noticed but in today's world credentials are what people buy.
If you have the paper-work, given by institutional authority, then you are an authority on anything.
Also, what feels good sells, making my vies highly unsellable.

Well. I get what you’re saying here. I understand your frustration. There are a lot variables involved in success that are extrinsic to value of the work itself. And it’s not like this is anything new. I mean look at Van Gogh.

To give you an example, back when I was cranking out art, I went to a local invitational by a highly credited gallery. It was intimidating at first. I knew they were way better than me. But at the same time, I figured what made them better than me was that they all seemed to know what everyone else was doing. I know it sucks, but art is a business. It requires a lot preprogrammed responses to a lot of preprogrammed ques.

But that still doesn’t give you an excuse to beat everyone here down because you don’t feel up to the system. But if you didn’t, you wouldn’t be the Satyr we know and love. So fly on brother.

I guess I’m just in a position where I can love the process. I do…. I love it. I can engage in that Dionysian dance and reach a point where I’m so ecstatic; I can do some of the stupidest things. Yet I will go right back to it because, despite the stupidity, I still feel like I’m doing something that most people don’t even come close to experiencing. It’s like crank to me.

Just being able to stand up to you, satyr, with authentic confidence, is a privilege to me. It is God’s, or Fate’s, or whatever it is way of showing me its love. Call it what you want to; but I think we are blessed.

Anyway, luv ya man:


About to do some sound tripping to the essential Fripp and Eno.

- Satyr -

Quote :

It is a usual occurrence: the nihilist claims an anti-nihilism position simply because his brand of self-negation comes wrapped in a pretty gift box, full of promising goodies and endless pleasures.
We see it in Christianity with its "promise" of everlasting happiness AFTER death. Death, self-annulment is the prerequisite, as it is in Hinduism where the ultimate goal of self-fulfillment is to never be born again.

It seems to me that all monotheistic religions, by which I mean to include Hinduism because its trinity is unbreakable like a monad, aim at denying the worth of this world, and positing a counter value as an afterlife, in which all the realities of this world are either reversed or annulled. But it is not so with all religions; the Greeks of course posited the afterlife as a dreadful, nebulous and boring affair, uncomprarable to the world of the living. But in the starkest contrast to monotheistic ideals stands Walhallah -- myth says that a warrior who dies in battle, the good death, is rewarded by being invited to Odins chambers, where he faces the god in armor, faces him in battle which ends with the warrior being torn into pieces by the god, put back together, after which they enjoy a meal together. This ritual is repeated every day into eternity.

It cannot be clearer how different temperaments produce different joys, and thereby different moralities. The viking sought to increase his suffering, thereby his feeling alive, his joy.

Quote :

Now we see it in transhumanism or this ideal of the one God, the all encompassing, all knowing, all Being.
If the universe is to complete itself in that form then it is the end of it. it is the end of consciousness as there is nothing left to think, and no utility for thought.
The thought becomes some airy solipsistic narcissistic flakiness, stuck in some state of eternal limbo, forever masturbating to alleviate its boredom...which contradicts its perfection.

The words you have chosen here evoke the image of the Greek netherrealm, the land of the pale dead.

Satyr wrote:

there was nothing "nebulous" about Hellenic spirituality which is not reflect the vagueness of all mythologies.

Perhaps theirs was the most clear spirituality of all mankind. I meant to refer to the nebulous nature of world of the dead.

Quote :

Although I admire all pagan spirituality the Greeks were more multifarious in their symbolism owing to the fact of their position on the crossroads of civilizations and the fact that they were seafaring folk, exposed to a variety of spiritual outlooks from across the Mediterranean basin.
This is also why they produced a golden age in philosophy which covered just about every intellectual perspective, including the monism which later was incorporated within Judaism to produce Christianity.

That is why they are so much more interesting then the Romans. Contrary to what Nietzsche once wrote, that we are limited to the Romans, that we can not really understand the Greeks, that their thought / language is too strange to us.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:

It cannot be clearer how different temperaments produce different joys, and thereby different moralities. The viking sought to increase his suffering, thereby his feeling alive, his joy.

And so did the Spartans.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:

The words you have chosen here evoke the image of the Greek netherrealm, the land of the pale dead.

I usually use the more modernistic imagery of the Zombie.
The land of the living-dead is the desert of the real.

Pardon me for being so forward, but what do you propose we are going to do about this?

And be ostracized by your kind? And refuse function over the nobel and beautiful and fair?
Never! I must never think of it.
I must tear off the heads of those who approach me with vain thoughts of pleasure.
I am an incubator.

I should let the record state that I am in favor of any form of sexual pleasure between a man and a willing woman, girl, man, goat, barstool, or eggplant.

It is the second time you've ignored my (sarcastic) criticism of your ascetic view of sex.
I am very hurt.

I never think of my biological needs, themselves. I only think of the pleasure that satiating them gives me.
I save functional considerations for those in conflict with their own human nature.

But questioning is deeply involved with the appreciation of emotional and instinctual impressions.
Not really different from what you advocate, except for the part where I live the experiences you choose to criticise from a safe distance.

Not questioning the needs, I should clarify. Question the satiation.

Satyr wrote:

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

This is the kind of shit one expects from imbeciles and dimwits who go to a philosophy forum pretending to be open-minded only to find the controlled, contrived, regurgitated, subject matter, presented in the same old ways, claiming the same old shit, repeating the same crap only to depart with a sense of emptiness.

I think it's humerous when people think they are rational when they regurgitate ideas they think others arrived at rationally. Also that they never check the kinds of common sense defaults 'rational' people who believe in science tend to have. They don't seem to notice that their methodology is precisely like that of fundamentalists, but they have chosen authorities they think are better.

Quote :

This kind of "philosophy" is worthless.

Science is the new "God", and never-mind that science is the offspring of philosophy or that science is not forced to return to its mother's embrace when it reaches its limit and comes across Quantum abnormalities.

If only they merely worshiped science. What they actually add on to this is the idea, which they don't notice they have, that science is finished. So anything that is not currently validated by science cannot be true. They also seem blissfully unaware that science has gone through radical changes over time and once upon a time certainties no longer are. But they sit around thinking they can estimate the liklihood of this or that not currently proven hypothesis, despite the history of science itself being an enormous caution about such hubris.

Quote :

The imbecile starting the thread is a worshiper of science, just as in earlier times one just as stupid as he is, worshiped God, and God was all he needed to answer his metaphysical and physical questions.

They do not understand that science has a metaphysics and for some reason they think that science has a neutral starting point.. It would be merely sad if these kinds of 'intellectuals' did not influence so much public policy.

Quote :

Now the other alias eyesinthedark has been inspired to add another thread contra the dreaded Satyr over at ILP, yet he does not post it here where I can deal with it piecemeal.
Towards a New Civiliztion.

I only go by two aliases, eyesinthedark and Lucis Trust, oh, and I was apatheist for a brief time, until you deleted apatheist.

Quote :

My position is supposedly "nihilistic" just as the "positive" could be called nihilistic by the negative or just as a clarity can be called cynicism or "pessimism" by a child growing up within the infantile myths of post-modern naivete.

Did I say your were nihilstic?

Hmmm, for you, being, or the absolute, is just as nihilistic as non being. For you, only becoming is not nihilistic.

As far as the eye can see, and the mind can understand, reality is becoming, everthing has a beginning and an end, from stars to atoms. If the whole of the universe is infinite and immortal, then if it was going to evolve into an omnisymbiote, it would have already, for it already had an infinite amount of time to do so. So, the universe is probably just a cyclical coming together and going apart, the eternal return, or whatever, nothing new under the sun. However, if the whole of the universe has a beginning, it may end up as an omnisymbiote.

My idea was never to do away with the need for a hand that graps, omnisymbiote is not necessarily a completion, it is merely more complete than we are now, just as I am more complete than a child starving in Africa. Since each individual passes away, that makes life kind of, sort of meaningless, and could be considered a form of nihilism, a dog chasing it's tail. If human beings and human civilization is doomed, then there's less of a point, I mean, I'll probably still go on, even knowing this, but perhaps not with same rigour and vigor, zest and zel.. with the same urgency, than if I thought, though I may perish, at least human beings and human civilization would live on, preferably as it is, but since if humanity is to live on, we must continue to evolve, so we can evade the death of our star, and other potential catasrophes, we must change to some degree.

I like your idea of conservatism. I don't think we should alter our nature more than we have to. When you look at my philosophy carefully, I don't think it's as nihilistic as your projecting..
but I understand your criticism.

Quote :

We see it in Christianity with its "promise" of everlasting happiness AFTER death. Death, self-annulment is the prerequisite, as it is in Hinduism where the ultimate goal of self-fulfillment is to never be born again.

Christianity is not as nihilistic as you think it is, it is certainly delusional, wishful thinking, and an astrotheological religion. I think Buddhism is slightly more nihilistic, the objective of Buddhism is to.. die, the objective of Christianity is to become immortal. There will supposedly still be things to do, I think, I don't know what, but yes, what is the use of having lungs if you don't lack oxygen, what use is having a penis if you can't procreate, I suppose you could have meaningless sex for all eternity.

What is the use of acting without threat of death or.. or should I say, and pain, the use of a belly if you're already full, the use of a mind if you already know everything there is to know, or you can just ask God for answers? It's kind of like a videogame, if you lose, game over, if you win, game over, you can't win, there is only lose.. lose, lose, lose, or perpetual winning and losing. You want to maintain the perpetual losing and winning, for as long as possible, the dance, the wheel, where as the Buddhist and the Christian wish to escape it, and the cynic, the pessimist, and the nihilist resign, surrender, commit suicide, homicide, or live life less passionately, with less appreciation, more carelessness and recklessness, but how long can you sustain the dance?

Science tells us all will eventually perish, you may dismiss the idea of progress, but I remind you we have made some significant advances in recent times, and perhaps we'll continue to do so in the near future, but not if we adopt your ultra realist, ultra conservative attitute- let's go back to the way things were, the good ol' pagan, viking days, feudalism, or whatever (I'm inferring the rest of your philosophy from bits and pieces I'm familiar with, trying to fill in the blanks.. like you do with others, so correct me if I'm wrong).

I must say, I am attracted to your philosophy, and I think it is the next best thing to my own. Perhaps I'll incorporate aspects of your own into my own. I like the idea of making as little progress as possible, I think a synthesis is in order, between your absolute conservatism or regression to a more, primitive way of being, and my absolute progressivism. We should only evolve if we have to. Evolution, cultural and biological, has and requires a conservative mechanism, in addition to a progressive one.

Could you direct me to an article of yours, on this site or another, that would help me understand your notions of progressivism and conservatism? I'm anxious to learn more of your philosophy. You're the only thinker I've met on these forums I feel I have a lot to learn from.

Quote :

I I'm in the process of writing an addition to The Feminization of Mankind that will include these concepts and what they mean to me.

But...in short:
In a world of increasing entropy then conserving the status quo, the feminine attitude, is the one which promotes change as a virtue.
Change is inevitable, whomever pretends to be wishing it or promoting it is simply preserving what occurs with no intervention and no will.
Might as well wish for death....it is just as inevitable and it requires just as much human prayer and wishful thinking for it to come about.
In fact change is about increasing entropy.

I disagree with you a little. Observe the planets and the stars, they require no human or divine intervention, yet their movements are regular and predictable. Although there's no way to measure the two precisely, order and chaos seem, more/less evenly distributed throughout the cosmos.
However, in regards to life.. life, being a response to death, must actively, mechanistically and/or consciously preserve itself, otherwise, it disintegrates. Life cannot be defined without death.. nor death without life..
Formerly, I didn't associate conservatism (preserving things) with order and life, anymore than I associated progressivism (changing things) with order and life. I have tried to imaginge your perspective from scant information I've obtained from your The Feminization of Man essay, and some of your other threads and posts, I have yet to read your blogs.. and from the clues and hints you've provided me with here.. oh, and most importantly, from my own observations and interpretations of life.
From what I gather, we are order, life is order. Life does not actively seek to alter itself, alterations happen accidentally, life does seek to preserve itself, exactly as it is, preservation happens intentionally. I think I read that even our dna has mechanisms, little organic machines that attempt to preserve our dna, exactly as it is.
However, there is something different about man, and that difference is our intellect. It can be juxtaposed with our instinct. The instinct is the epimethean element in man, the intellect is the promethean, and this promethean fire is both a blessing and a curse. There is also both a conservative and a progressive element to intellect, one is past, conventional, is oriented, the other is future, radical, ought oriented. I believe the two are interdependent.. but perhaps is, is more foundational.. fundamental. Man uses his intellect to adapt the world to his will, or to adapt himself to the world, the goal usually being to preserve his own life and the life of his tribe and allies.

Should intellect and culture, only change when absolutely necessary, should it change at all, is this what you're arguing for? Should intellect and culture follow biologies example, and resist intellectual and cultural changes, in addition to biological changes?
If Memes are like genes, than perhaps we should preserve them in addition to ourselves and our genes, but not all memes are worth preserving, are they?
What I can get behind is this- if it is not broken, do not fix it. I think this perpetual altering of objects into tools, machines, robots and computers, increasing production and consumption without end, is the curse of prometheus, the curse of pandora's box, and should be avoided like the plague, nevermind my transhumanist bullshit, I was merely entertaining my notion of Omnisymbiote, I was never sold on it, and I have usually opposed and resisted this blind obsession with infinite growth. There is something counter life, and counter human about it.. not just something, everything about it. In addition, this endless altering of ourselves, specialization, globalization, geo and genetic engineering, for what purpose? Never inquiring..

Oh shit, I feel a rant coming on...

Why must we make everything so efficient, why must we siphon every last drop of energy and resource from our earth, and look how when we increase the quantity of production and consumption, in turn, we decrease the quality of production and consumption? This obsession with meaningless structure has got to stop man, it has got to stop.
What is this disconcentment, this black hole that lurks within us all, are the Jews to blame, are women, or are we all to blame, our greed, our hatred of existence and life, our preoccupation with nihilism and death on the one hand, and Christianity, capitalistic, socialistic and technocratic utopias on the other.
What's wrong with the way we are, why must we resist order, why do we attempt to do away with nature, wipe it away and start a new, clean and blank slate, why not celebrate it instead?
All throughout my life I have been torn between the absolute on one hand (secular and religious variations) and anarchy, destruction and nihilism on the other, never noticing that in the middle, lies life, in the middle, lies order.
We cannot be animals, our instincts and our bodies are too weak, we must use our intellect, but we must use it wisely. If it is not broken, do not fix it, quality is more important than quanity. There is nothing wrong with our nature, our heritage, male and female, white and black, egoism and conditional love, what are these childish fantasies of utopia and immortality, this preoccupation with the absolute, contempt and disdain for our past, from whence does it originate?

Yes, there is nothing wrong with our promethean gifts in and of themselves, but we must use them wisely, change should be resisted, we should only change our nature when necessary, and we should celebrate our nature along with our intellect, we should not hate it, as both common religions and secular philosophies teach us to do, we should use our powers of innovation, but we should be proud of our memes, from whence do these revolutions and disatisfactions come?
What does this hatred for our forefathers, and rank/position in society come from, is it wrong to follow in your father's footsteps?

If we our bellies are full and we can earn a descent living, put food on the table, with a moderate amount of sweat, then why must we rebel, instead we should be happy and give thanks, instead of constantly revolting against our betters, unless we are starving, or life is absolutely brutal, we should be content with our lot, man does not need much in this world, do these revolutions come from the Jew?

The one who has historically occupied the lowest position in society, is it his discontentment that ignited the maddening fury, the revolts against aristocracy, the occultic institutions, the freemasons and the rosicrucians, how the Jews had no soil of their own, so they learned to prosper off of decieving the masses with promises of utopianism and communism, and egalitarianism, some of them actually believing it, and others using it as a way to decieve the Europeans into destroying the monarchy and the aristocracy, and then nothing could save them from the revolutions that ensued.

America was not founded on egalitarian principles, but an oligarchy, only land owners could vote, and females and slaves could not, just like Athens, and I was wrong to equate modernism with Ancient Athens contra Sparta, modernity is anti classical society, in many ways, anti Aristotle and Plato, even contra the Stoics and the Epicureans, modernity is a strange thing, perhaps it is cancerous.

To finish, perhaps we should keep our memes the way they are, this neverending "improvement" of the world is, in some ways, more like a kind of chaos, we don't need to order society to satisfy our extreme, hedonistic, decadent and debauched, materialistic urges, we need enough social and natural technology to preserve ourselves, enough with the hatred of our nature and our heritage. We should only alter and increase our technology, natural and social when necessary, and we should fine tune the achievements of the past, not overturn them, seek to improve our institutions, not overthrow them, again and again, it should not be the norm, change, change, change, insane dreams about how we can all be rich, famous and wealthy beyond measure, and childish, idealistic and naive preoccupations, everyone suddenly and inexplicably becoming altruistic, and love, peace, blah blah blah.. it must come from the Jew, they've been so opressed by reality, they had to invent fantasies, Marxist, utopian fantasies, they hate reality, they hate life, they hate the way things are, they are causing chaos and anarchy everywhere they go... they have teamed up with women, children and the dark races to overthrow life and western civilization.

Well, am I on the right track... that's what I got out of your intellectual provocations.

Quote :

The true rebel is the one reacting, resisting, to the norm, which is change.....and this is what is today called conservatism.
Order is a rejection of the norm, which is disordering.
The real rebels are the ones trying to create order, those trying to arrest the flow of time and stop or slow down change.
Oftentimes this results in traditionalism or a looking back. a desire to return the world to an earlier state....where the universe was more ordered. If entropy is increasing then looking back is a way of looking back into a more ordered period. A period with less entropy.
This is the masculine attitude.
But, for various political, social and economic reasons, the concepts have been reversed.

In many ways I sympathize with you, I never would have 5 or 10 years ago, but... what is this hole that lurks inside me, this postmodern hole, I have little or no roots, no tradition. My father was a Christian, and I know how you despise them, but he had many criticisms of modern man, similar I think to this French writer.. I believe his name was Jacques Ellul, have you read his work?

It's weird, I find myself partially agreeing with you (or what I understand you to be), because in many ways, your ideas are so alien to me and my experiences, the world I grew up in, it sounds like you have deep family roots and traditions, I don't really, but I'm desperate for meaning, I need concepts to govern my perception of reality, and so I was not given any, or few I found satisfactory, I turned to philosophy, to my own intellect for answers, in the hopes that I could fill this gaping void in my soul. I could agree with my father about some things, he shared some of the views I presented with you here, but I could not bow down and worship that God on the cross, the foreign Jew God, I could not make myself do it.

Quote :

By the way...consciousness sis a looking back. Even Heidegger claimed as much.
To look back and to be aware of the past is to be more conscious. This is also what memory is and memory is linked to genius.
This "living in the moment" this Buddhist" meditative state of unthinking thought, is nothing more than a reversion back to an animal state, masked in rhetoric and semantics.

Yes, and we must start with what was, in order to know what is, and what will be, we cannot know what is and will be without knowing the past. I am not as anti innovation as you... seem to be, to, but I understand your loathing of endless change and the ceaseless toying and tinker with fabric of civilization, without end, or objective, blindly, creating frankenstein monsters and a world of cancer, disease, obesity, atrophy and insanity.

Quote :

Do not animals live in the moment?
Do they think about the past?
Do they have any historical conscientiousness?

The dumb ones certainly do not, and there are some fucks that would even go so far to tell you that there is no proof animals are dumber than man, well.. some animals are certainly not dumber than some men, I'll give them that.

Quote :

To look back is to look back on reality. It is to look back upon yourself. It is to Know Yourself....it is the very definition of self-consciousness.

Right, I understand you place analysis of what was, and tradition above innovation, and I agree with you to some extent, I think we should protect the old, this automatic attitude of, we have to get rid of the old, is a form of madness, without even thinking why, there's this hatred, this discontentment with the way things are, not enough, more more more, these insatiable monsters cry. I am not like this with many things, but I am indeed guilty of this when it comes to intellect, when it comes to material and hedonic things I am quite content with the way things are, but when it comes to intellect, I'm quite insatiable with ideas, yet I am trying to work towards an order worth preserving, I am not merely toying with this idea and that, aimlessly, without purpose, I am working towards an order that will attempt to explain the whole reality, or at least what we have access to at this time, something that hopefully I, and perhaps others will want to preserve, and pass down to the next generation, that will become tradition, I always opposed the nihilists and their endless terring down of the old, and building the new, only to tear it down again, never satisfied, skepticism and deconstruction without purpose, never trying to create something lasting,
I have opposed that attitude on iLP.

Well... perhaps that's not your philosophy at all, I don't know. Maybe I just heard what I wanted to hear, and I filtered your ideas through my own.

Perhaps you're more interested in innovation than I once thought, and revolutionary, ever increasing order, just a different kind of order, an order of quality, not quantity, the strong over the weak, the intelligent over the stupid, orderly, productive philosophy over deconstructive, and retarded feel good philosophy, fantasy philosophy, good food over junk. What's happening from your pov, in society, where the weak are overthrowing the strong, or attempting to, is a kind of disorder, chaos, denying causality and reality, replacing it with ethereal, intangible absolutes and infinites is chaos, pollution of the mind. Maybe I got it all wrong, maybe you're for radically reorganizing this planet, and increasing transformations of nature to aid humanity, and overthrowing past systems in favour of better ones, but that's not what you see happening, you see us as creating a unsustainible paradise for the inferior, supported by the superior. Where every work of art, piece of music, and stupid philosophy, no matter how rediculous and retarded, is tolerated and even praised, where everyone gets a gold star. just for showing up, just for participating, the special olympics, the preservation of retards, cripples, degenerate filth- homosexuals, pedophiles, rapists, the obese, the lazy, the unhealthy, rehabilitation instead of the death penalty, egalitarianism instead of aristocracy, am I on the right track now? ?

Perhaps the trouble is we associate egalitarianism, and everyone being accepted and tolerated with progresss, when in reality, that is regress, that is death and decay, we're delusionally thinking we're helping others, and society, when in reality we're only multiplying our problems, by allowing shit to be passed for high art, music is decaying in your mind, philosophy is decaying, film is decaying, perhaps at one time we were going forward, but now, since, the 60s or something, we've been slowly, gradually declining, and you believe we will progress and be a healthier society, if we were more discriminating, but we've become soft, lazy and decadent, and tolerante, we've lost our tenacity, are verility, our lust and passion for life, to live to it's fullest, to experience, to philosophize, genuinely with all our heart, to order and make sense of the world, to do away with nihilism, and philosophy as fun and games, you want people to get serious about life, to challenge themselves, work hard and grow, be producers instead of consumers, be proud and love what they do, and be the best they can be, and to hell with the scum, the bottom feeders, let them perish, at the very least do not assist them, and if the government is to get involved, then do the opposite, destroy them, kill the bottom feeders, the parasites, a kind've libertarianism/fascism, a non egalitarian form of democracy, where only the competent can vote, and affect policy, order, order, order, creation, you praise movers and shakers in this world, beethoven and mozart, bach and handel, artists, archetects and visionaries, pioneers.

The bottom feeders are a plague, a cancer, but they have numbers, that is all they have, and you see yourself as the cure, a strong society is a society that promotes men of virtue, men of depth, not shallow, mediocre, dullards, weak spineless impotent, retarded. You're concerned with the helth of the whole, you believe by promoting the good of the whole, you are promoting yourself, making this a better world for you and your offspring, your friends and family, by removing the scum, but the scum have numbers, so it is a never ending war, between the rotting, subhuman filth, the animals filth on the bottom, always decreasing, mutating, subverting, with their shit music, tasteless, garbage,they seek safety in numbers, for you, a healthy society is society that makes them slaves, a society that is dominated by them is a society that topples, withers aways and atrophies. Your society is pro life, their's is pro death, they adopt sickly, anti life philosophies like nihilism, and drug like coping mechanisms, and schizophrenias to deal with a worth to harsh for them to bare, they seek refuge in delusions, fantasies and utopias instead of loving the world, celebrating it for it's worth, they hate themselves, they know they are inferior, that is why they distance themselves from their nature, they say no, nature does not matter, we can wipe it clean, we can be anything we want to be, we can do anything we want to do, everyone is special, everyone deserves to be loved, and you say no, fuckers, you are liers, the truth is we're all human, yes, but some us are more human than others, some of you are infact subhuman, not everyone is special, not everyone can rise to the top, and you do not deserve a free lunch, you are, you do not deserve a hand out you did not earn.

Perhaps it is a combination of both, what I said earlier, and what I am say now, quality of innovations over quantity, health over natural decay. Society naturally deteriates I suppose, we are becoming weaker and more pathetic, Greek civilization is lost, the Romans too, it is sad I guess, but perhaps inevitable, just as it is inevitable men like ou will resist it, and you're descendents may survive the dark ages that lie ahead, and perhaps they will go on, hundreds of years later to preserve the best remnants of civilization and start a renaissance, a golden age that looked back to Germany and America when they were in their prime, just as the Germans and the Americans looked back to the Greeks and Romans.

Despite the fact I was taught to fail by mtv, and movies, taught to be a piece of shit scum by society, to relish, to hate myself and life, perhaps, through all the bullshit, I can aid humanity, overcome sickness that lives inside of me, and contribute something of worth, in philosophy, or in the arts. Philosophy keeps me going, keeps me passionate, it is my true love, it's about all I do. We were taught to laugh at life, and not take it seriuosly, and despise it, and to be shitheads, and parasites, and to think killing people and doing drugs was cool, hip, rebellious and fun, and we thought we were real smart when we stole, and got stds from prostitutes, we thought we were cutting edge cool, leading civilization down a new path of anarchy, chaos, freedom of expression, love and peace. boy were we fucking duped. I am just as guilty as any other for being a turd, perhaps the most guilty, my entire life has been one, big giant turd, and I relished it.

Well... perhaps a renaissance is occurring, maybe ron paul will get elected, libertarianism, or some ultra right wing party will get into power, or something, I'm not sure if that's a good thing either, but... ha, fuck, this has been one hell of a ride for me, thinking about all this shit. Ranting and raving like a lunatic, pouring out my thoughts to you like this, hahaha.

Philosophy is the one thing that keeps me going, it's one of the few reasons I have to live... perhaps I should find more, instead of just coping out and saying, well, God probably exists, and it loves me, and it's going to take care of me, blah blah, I have a soul, blah blah blah bullshit.

Sigh

I am No-one, by the way.

eyesinthedark wrote:

The bottom feeders are a plague, a cancer, but they have numbers, that is all they have, and you see yourself as the cure, a strong society is a society that promotes men of virtue, men of depth, not shallow, mediocre, dullards, weak spineless impotent, retarded. You're concerned with the helth of the whole, you believe by promoting the good of the whole, you are promoting yourself, making this a better world for you and your offspring, your friends and family, by removing the scum, but the scum have numbers, so it is a never ending war, between the rotting, subhuman filth, the animals filth on the bottom, always decreasing, mutating, subverting, with their shit music, tasteless, garbage,they seek safety in numbers, for you, a healthy society is society that makes them slaves, a society that is dominated by them is a society that topples, withers aways and atrophies. Your society is pro life, their's is pro death, they adopt sickly, anti life philosophies like nihilism, and drug like coping mechanisms, and schizophrenias to deal with a worth to harsh for them to bare, they seek refuge in delusions, fantasies and utopias instead of loving the world, celebrating it for it's worth, they hate themselves, they know they are inferior, that is why they distance themselves from their nature, they say no, nature does not matter, we can wipe it clean, we can be anything we want to be, we can do anything we want to do, everyone is special, everyone deserves to be loved, and you say no, fuckers, you are liers, the truth is we're all human, yes, but some us are more human than others, some of you are infact subhuman, not everyone is special, not everyone can rise to the top, and you do not deserve a free lunch, you are, you do not deserve a hand out you did not earn.

this is where you are so unrealistic it's boggling. who are the bottom feeders? you assume based on socioeconomics that those who cause problems or degeneracy are only on the bottom of the social and economic ladder. it doesn't work that way because all humans have some type of vice or weakness, some more than others and each promoting what they want or excusing them. a doctor, lawyer, judge, politican, professor etc may be a pedophiliac or any number of vices you've mentioned in your posts.

it's really not about socioeconomics as it is about one's values and one on the bottom and the top can have contrary as well as mutual values that they are trying to work toward in manifesting or changing in the world. the cancer is in people, period. it's about accountability for all. THAT is what is going to make things better.

as for trivial things like one's taste in entertainment such as music, food etc there are all types of variety and no one is forcing you or anyone else to engage or participate. you can choose what you want.

Yeah? Who did it? Faust? or who's running that forum nowadays?

I did, in fact, fuck up.

Satyr wrote:

Why are you afraid of yourself?
Why is the other's opinion of you so decisive?

Is it because you still wish to sell; to sell yourself as a commodity?

Apaosha thinks you "fucked up". I think it was a rare display of honesty in the garbage-bin of dull posturing and kindergarten antics you moderate over.

Apaosha is talking about something else. He requested (via PM) that I change his Custom Rank to, "Daeva," I did that, but I also made, "Daeva," the default rank. That's what I fucked up. I had nothing to do with the quote he posted.