d63tark banned from ILP

Satyr, thought this would interest you:

We both now have the common ground of having been kicked out of ILP.

d63tark wrote:

Satyr, thought this would interest you:

We both now have the common ground of having been kicked out of ILP.

That is interesting.

I was kicked out, originally, for not putting up with retards and their usual verbal tools and from then on I've been banned because I anted them to.

How about you?
I'm interested from a purely sociobiology perspective.

Who you hate or are intolerant of, while you profess tolerance as your highest "virtue", indicates your true nature.

Glad you asked. But before I vent:

Thanks for being there for me, bud.

What it involved was a bunch of common goons, more conservative much like you, but without your intellectual finesse. They were basically common hecklers with no real substance to their arguments. To give an example, one of them was a common hick talking about his 19 dogs and personal arsenal. I kept hearing banjo music everytime he posted. And I called them on their lack of depth, their apparent willingness confirm their point through common dogma. I basically let them know I thought they were morons.

Now I know we disagree.... well, on just about everything, satyr. But if you're going to try to make me look like an idiot, at least flatter me by being halfway intelligent yourself.

What pisses me off is that they kicked me off while not even touching anyone of those common little fucks.

Now I know you're of a more conservative bent. But how flattered could you be by someone who comes on and says little more about the Occupy Wallstreet movement than "those fucking hippies should just get a job".

As much as I disagree with you, I've always recognized that your arguments are a little deeper and more articulate.

That said, I should point out the one of the main reasons I haven't been on here is that while listening to the audiobook, Serial Killers: philosophy for everyone,, I got a little creeped out. I don't know if it was the narrator's voice, or what, but I tended to think about you a lot. I began to realize that I wasn't sure how far you might take this Hannibal Lector fantasy and didn't like the idea of ending up duct-taped to a chair in a windowless room.

There is nothing I need convince you of that would be worth that.

That said, I can agree with the statement:

I was kicked out for not putting up with retards and (especially this part) their usual verbal tools.

That I can relate to. It was like a matter of pre-programmed responses to pre-programmed cues. That's what the administraters responded to.

That d63tark banned form ILP must seem like a news flash to you.

I assure you I am harmless...unless provoked.

Those "hillbillies" you speak of have nothing to do with me and my views.
I am an elitist, who was once young and romantic and idealistic and naive enough to be a leftist.

Heidegger joined the Nazis but not for the reasons they thought.
Evola sided with Mussolini but only because he found his band of stupidity less offensive than the communist one.

Both were forced to associate with vulgar minds who espoused ideas but did not know why or from where they came from or what they really were.
They sided with them for strategic reasons.

On ILP they prefer the simple, because they can make sense of it.
The progressives liberals love the turds you speak of because their vulgarity accentuates the enlightenment of their own ideals.
They made the mistake of assuming I was like that until I ripped them a few new holes in their anus and then I became intolerable for other reason: I could not be dealt with using their stupid liberal bullshit....like they could deal with the right-wing rednecks.

Associating me with them is a way of diminishing my views because you cannot argue against them.
This is why I find those pretending to be on my side, like the turd Purple Dragon, while vomiting their retarded crap, claiming to be on my side, or even more on my side than even I am, more insulting than being called a racist or a sexist or a woman-hater by a liberal dolt.
Can't stand being associated with brutes and animals who only support a position for emotional reasons no different than those they attack.

Now, the interesting part of your situation is this:

The imbeciles over at ILP in an effort to preserve their self-image of "open-minded" intellectuals who do not stoop to a level of verbal profanity, while spewing out such filth that the smell of shit is everywhere, would rather banish one of their own, so to speak, rather than banishing the simpler version of everything they supposedly stand against.

They did not do so with me.
They opted to banish me while tolerating the simpletons who attacked me because they needed a pretext to get rid of me.
They don't mind the right-wing simpletons because with them they feel confident and they look good, in comparison.
They ban you to preserve their self-image by protecting the less threatening version of all they fear.

I assure you that if you had done or said to me, on ILP, that you did to those rednecks I would be the one banned and not you.
In this case you would provide them with the opportunity to deal with me other than ignoring me or refusing to challenge me directly on the grounds that I was insulting.


I remember this one Buddhist/New age cunt form California who could not offer a reason why she contradicts her own edicts by refusing sex to a bum on the street or for showing preference to the tall dark and handsome man given that appearances are "superficial",a according to her, and reality is an illusion, according to the nihilistic interpretations of religion she aspired to remain loyal to.

I also recall noce, on another forum, how gleefully they engaged me, at first, when I began showing sings of my racist views. One bragged about how he would destroy me and so on.
After a week he went running to the admin who banned me.
Know why?

I asked him a simple question.
Why...I asked....is form relevant when color is not and if color is relevant when shopping for produce at the market why is it not in other instances?

Being a retard he felt anxiety, for he had never faced a "racist" like me. He was used to the kind you describe.
Being unable to deal with me in the manner he had learned he opted for the easy way out.

But my biggest mistake, Satyr, was committing cardinal sin for all writers: I told rather than showed:

I told them they were morons rather than showing them why they were.


Thanks bud, you've been a big help.

d63tark wrote:

But my biggest mistake, Satyr, was committing cardinal sin for all writers: I told rather than showed:

I told them they were morons rather than showing them why they were.


Thanks bud, you've been a big help.

It's easier.
I often go for the easier method. Sometimes I just can't justify the energy required to show rather than to just tell.
Mainly because I've done both so often that it's becoming tiresome and useless.
Can't deal with stupidity anymore.
i don't have the stamina I once did. As I age my endurance levels are decreasing.
Now I prefer banishment, a solitary existence outside the walls: The Wanderer.

This is but a little oasis.
Will it grow?
Who knows; who cares?
All is an experiment.
All is a game.
In the end you have to be willing to be alone. It's the only way to preserve integrity.

Satyr wrote:

I assure you I am harmless...unless provoked.

Those "hillbillies" you speak of have nothing to do with me and my views.
I am an elitist, who was once young and romantic and idealistic and naive enough to be a leftist.

Heidegger joined the Nazis but not for the reasons they thought.
Evola sided with Mussolini but only because he found his band of stupidity less offensive than the communist one.

Both were forced to associate with vulgar minds who espoused ideas but did not know why or from where they came from or what they really were.
They sided with them for strategic reasons.

On ILP they prefer the simple, because they can make sense of it.
The progressives liberals love the turds you speak of because their vulgarity accentuates the enlightenment of their own ideals.
They made the mistake of assuming I was like that until I ripped them a few new holes in their anus and then I became intolerable for other reason: I could not be dealt with using their stupid liberal bullshit....like they could deal with the right-wing rednecks.

Associating me with them is a way of diminishing my views because you cannot argue against them.
This is why I find those pretending to be on my side, like the turd Purple Dragon, while vomiting their retarded crap, claiming to be on my side, or even more on my side than even I am, more insulting than being called a racist or a sexist or a woman-hater by a liberal dolt.
Can't stand being associated with brutes and animals who only support a position for emotional reasons no different than those they attack.

Now, the interesting part of your situation is this:

The imbeciles over at ILP in an effort to preserve their self-image of "open-minded" intellectuals who do not stoop to a level of verbal profanity, while spewing out such filth that the smell of shit is everywhere, would rather banish one of their own, so to speak, rather than banishing the simpler version of everything they supposedly stand against.

They did not do so with me.
They opted to banish me while tolerating the simpletons who attacked me because they needed a pretext to get rid of me.
They don't mind the right-wing simpletons because with them they feel confident and they look good, in comparison.
They ban you to preserve their self-image by protecting the less threatening version of all they fear.

I assure you that if you had done or said to me, on ILP, that you did to those rednecks I would be the one banned and not you.
In this case you would provide them with the opportunity to deal with me other than ignoring me or refusing to challenge me directly on the grounds that I was insulting.


I remember this one Buddhist/New age cunt form California who could not offer a reason why she contradicts her own edicts by refusing sex to a bum on the street or for showing preference to the tall dark and handsome man given that appearances are "superficial",a according to her, and reality is an illusion, according to the nihilistic interpretations of religion she aspired to remain loyal to.

I also recall noce, on another forum, how gleefully they engaged me, at first, when I began showing sings of my racist views. One bragged about how he would destroy me and so on.
After a week he went running to the admin who banned me.
Know why?

I asked him a simple question.
Why...I asked....is form relevant when color is not and if color is relevant when shopping for produce at the market why is it not in other instances?

Being a retard he felt anxiety, for he had never faced a "racist" like me. He was used to the kind you describe.
Being unable to deal with me in the manner he had learned he opted for the easy way out.

Yes, Heidegger joined for his own reasons and found out the Nazi party's, being about the banal, weren't his.

And thanks for your rather mixed, but helpful advice.

As much as I hate you sometimes,

I have (not to be a hippy

(to love having you in my life as well.

Anyway, take care friend/nemisis, whatever you are.

Even as an enemy, you flatter me.

Yes, a warrior honors his enemies because they challenge him and they help him maintain and enhance his skills.

Unfortunately I cannot call you enemy.
You are far too naive to be that. You are me, twenty years ago.
If anything you are only challenging as part of the collective you represent. You only matter because you have quantity on your side: the majority.

Quality wise, you are harmless.

Do me a favor and link me to the unsavory bunch.

I want to taste their wit.

I love how you play, d63tark. I can't tell if it's utterly naive, or utterly malicious.

The biggest problem with capitalism, as it is practiced and not on its theoretical pronouncements, is that although it professes to reflect natural selection, substituting it with social selection, it does the opposite.

It's a grand set-up where some social migration is allowed and then exalted, just as with the lottery the winners who have beaten the astronomical odds are published for all to see so as to entice more gambling, its main function is to retain the social stratification with minimal disruptions.
Order the masculine ideal, is its goal. But order freezes hierarchies in place.

The offspring of a rich man will enjoy all the rights and privileges his status offers him and the system will protect him and these "systemic" rights.
He might be dumb, ugly, weak, and degenerate but his ancestor's social "prowess" endows him with respect and with access to power.
Just as his forefather's loyalty to the system helped him rise to the top so too this offspring is only expected to remain true to the principles the system depends upon and which, coincidentally, are in its own personal interests.
Only a madman or one who has been degraded by generations of sheltering can topple from such a lofty position.

In nature the offspring of a dominant parent will only enjoy the benefit of possessing the same proven genes whereas how this plays out in real-time is left up to the offspring to deal with and adjust.
Environment is changing.
There is no protection of like-minded conglomerates all wanting to maintain their bloodline's privileged position indefinitely.

The myth of ownership has fixed the rules, so to speak.
Materialism has made quality an inherited factor.
In response the liberal left has its head up its New Age arse, dreaming of utopias and an end to all conflict, suffering and therefore an end to distinction.

The funny thing is that capitalism has never been applied in its purest form, and when it approaches being applied as such it results in the debacle we recently experienced.
Capitalism's power is that it imitates nature, without stepping over a certain point. It always pulls back when the entire system threatens to return back to a more natural state where not even the rich would be assured that they will enjoy their rights and privileges.
The so called socialist ideals are present even in the harshest capitalistic systems because without them the system tends towards its logical end and deteriorates to a selective form of anarchy.
See the devout capitalist wants no government intervening in his affairs, except when it comes to protecting his loot, his stuff. Then he cries bloody hell.
He aspires to a very self-serving form of anarchy.

No government, he screams, except, except!, when it comes to preserving his already acquired status and wealth which he purchased by playing within the rules or by circumventing them, surviving the experience.
He wants the government to protect the stuff he uses to deal with his own genetic inadequacies.

This, of course, is to the benefit of those who are already on the top, because they need not do anything but declare the value of free-markets as being supreme and promote greed and selfishness so as to keep the multitudes struggling alone and in conflict with one another.

The opposite extreme, competing the bipolar psychosis of left<>right politics or, as it is known in the states: conservative<>liberal politics - is an all sheltering all giving, all demanding, all encompassing super-state promoting uniformity internally by eliminating all multiplicity or all natural factors from participating in its internal dynamics...resulting in decadence.

Outside of the possibility of eliminating 99% of the world population and going back to the old Greek Timocratic system there is nothing to do but consider both poles as aspects of the present environmental condition....conditioning.
To preserve, conserve, not the materialistic status quo but certain higher values one must learn to live within the system, keeping a low profile, safeguarding ideas and ideals for those who will benefit from them and are ready for them and then await some future time when frontiers, the final frontier, are made accessible.

Evola, Julius wrote:

• Manage so that what you can do nothing against, also can do nothing against you.

• You can do anything as long as you are sure that you can do without it.

• The error of certain extreme “racists” who believe that the return of a race to its ethnic purity ipso facto also means rebirth of a people, rests exactly on this: they deal with men as if they were dealing with the racially pure or pure-blood caste of a cat or a horse or a dog. The preservation or restoration of the racial unity (taking its narrowest meaning) can mean everything when you deal with an animal. But with men it is not so…it would be far too easy if the simple fact of belonging to one race that has been kept pure, already conferred, without being r doing anything else, some “quality” in the higher sense.

• …in the concrete course of development of modern civilization the Jew can be seen as a power, who collectively with others has worked to create our “civilized,” rationalistic, and mechanistic modern decadence, but on no account can he be marked as its single, far-reaching cause.
To believe such a thing would be very stupid. The actual truth is that one would rather fight against personified powers than against abstract principles or universal phenomena, because you can fight them practically.

So the world had turned en masse against the Jew, as he seemed to show in his being a typical form that one finds, however, in much wider regions and even in nations that are untouched by Jewish immigration.

Finally...

Socrates wrote:

• Such was the natural nobility of this city, so sound and healthy was the spirit of freedom among us, and the instinctive dislike of the barbarian, because we are pure Hellenes, having no admixture of barbarism in us. For we are not like many others, descendants of Pelops or Cadmus or Egyptus or Danaus, who are by nature barbarians, and yet pass for Hellenes, and dwell in the midst of us; but we are pure Hellenes, uncontaminated by any foreign element, and therefore the hatred of the foreigner has passed unadulterated into the life-blood of the city.

• Most excellent man, are you not ashamed to care for acquisition of wealth and for reputation and honor, when you neither care nor take any thought for wisdom and truth and the perfection of your soul?

Parenti wrote:

It is ironic to credit capitalism with the genius of economic prosperity when most attempts at material betterment have been vehemently and sometimes violently resisted by the capitalist class. The history of labor struggle provides endless illustration of this.

To the extent that life is bearable under the present U.S. economic order, it is because millions of people have waged bitter class struggles to advance their living standards and their rights as citizens, bringing some measure of humanity to an otherwise heartless politico-economic order.

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

Satyr wrote:

It always pulls back when the entire system threatens to return back to a more natural state where not even the rich would be assured that they will enjoy their rights and privileges.

Yeah! I get this Satyr.

You remind me of something said in an interveiw between Thom Hartman and Chris Hedges:

You're criticisms and articulations are often correct


(It's your conclusions and solutions I'm not quite sure about.


Anyway, love ya man!


At which point you say:

forget it d., you're not getting my last Bud Lite.

And I will try to get those posts to you. That way I can show you the banality that can emerge on your side of the political spectrum as well.

I'm almost certain you will agree that the banality of my side of political spectrum comes from CNN and most of the media.

The douche-bag, Caleas, has, of course, banned me from ILP.
Why, you might ask has this douche-bag done so, and why have so many, including the lesser douche-bag Fausty, helped him?

Well, besides self-flattering semantics, the answer seems quite simple.
The douche-bag Carleas, no matter how free-spirited and free-thinking, it might think himself to be, is simply a douche-bag, a concept towards which
He, she, It, unavoidably and despite itself can't help but be what it is: a douche-bag. And as a result it gathers around it what is most similar to it, in other words other douche-bags, towards which it still maintains a hate/love relationship with.
For this douche-bag, as with all douche-bags, it is popularity, numbers which constitute a validation. Reasoning, logic, ideals are nonsense if they are not accompanied by numbers.
Therefore for a douche-bag like he is, and like his fellows are, what is reflective of an argument against what they consider sexism and racism is popular opinion.
If the many disagree with it then, according to these douche-bags, it is proof enough that it is irrelevant, passe, troglodyte material.
For a douche-bag, as this douche-bag is, quantities represents or substitute for qualities.
It does not matter what you say just as long as it remains within popular sentiment, and anything "outside" of it is either ill or harboring a motive you wish to avoid...conveniently. He, or she, is a disruptive element, someone who disrupts the influx of new members into the "all-inclusive" den of dim-wits which represents nothing more than a microcosm of a a microcosm this douche-bag does not wish to exit.

This douche-bag, like all douche-bags wishes to remain safely within the mythologies of popularity, as outside of it this douche-bag might have to face his own nature as being nothing more than a simple douche-bag, wishing to intertwine its mind with others of its own kind: other douche-bags.
For this douche-bag, as with all douche-bags, it isn't so much what is being said, as this is beyond their capacity to cope or understand, but it is more about how what is being said affects the participants.
All is reduced to emotions and feelings and reasoning takes a back-seat, as douche-bags are more interested in losing themselves in the fun and camaraderie of being amongst their own kind: other douche-bags.
It is not so much about ides and reasoning but about participation and fun...or "positive" responses to whatever is being said, no matter how ridiculous it might be.

Now you, dear reader, might ask: "If this is so then why spend time on such douche-bags and why deal with them in any way?"
An excellent posit which totally neglects environment.

I would ask a farmer "Why deal with weeds when tomatoes is your crop?" or "Why deal with sheep when wolves is your crop?".

My answer remains the same.
This douche-bag is not important in and of itself. It is insignificant, feeble, stupid, frail, when outside its role and its multitudes.
This douche-bag values quantity because only in quantity does it have relevance and value: outside of numbers it is no roe than a douche-bag, easily dealt with and too weak and stupid to be anything but a nuisance.
It is BECAUSE this douche-bag represents a growing majority, a confluence of popularity, which makes it relevant...otherwise is nothing more than a mosquito.

Before you dismiss this douche-bag as inconsequential I remind you that is was douche-bags, like this douche-bag, who got Bush junior and Reagan elected; it is these kinds of douche-bags who maintain the myths that keep imbeciles in the spotlight and make them forces to be reckoned with.
I don't know how young and experiences any of you readers are, so I can only say that I will let reality and your personal experiences show you what power the multitudes of douche-bags have upon you.
They, on their own, might seem feeble, ignorant, boring, worthless, powerless, stupid and weak, but when included within numbers, as douche-bags always wish to be - whether they call it fun or socializing or sexual or progressive - they represent just with the power of their stupidity and how malleable it is to those who can direct it, a power to be reckoned with.

But do not take my word on it, invite this Carleas douche-bag, or any douche-bag, including Fausty, to discuss any issue and see how mundane, simple and stupid they truly are. Outside of their regurgitated, learned, bullshit and their social contrivances, as individuals, they have net to zero value...nada....nothing...nothing more than the common bullshit they repeat, hoping it means something.

Do they sound countercultural and rebellious or out of the norm?
That's only because you haven't learned to detect their uniform, boring, bullshit underneath all that rhetoric and feigned "uniqueness".
Ask, for example, a communism or a New Ager, or a socialist, in what way their beliefs differ from Christianity and see how he or she scrambles for cover in semantics and verbosity or in eastern, self-contradicting, spirituality.

But, you might think, why these particular douche-bags, and not others?
Is there something special about these particular manifestations of stupidity?
Not really...as if it were not these particulars it could have been any number of them,. as being a douche-bag is ubiquitous, easy and common.
This specific douche-bag and those it rallied close to it could have been anyone else, as they are a common, popular representations of normality.

It does not matter who they are because what they represents is so common and boring and average.
They simply repeat what they are told is "good" and "true", without any other consideration but how it makes others feel and how many can be assimilated in the parity.
Their logic being that if more apes punch the keyboards something of value might eventually come out of it.
Douche-bags always think in quantity, letting time resolve quality.

The "logical" continuation of a douche-bags "reasoning" is that if a billion monkey punch a typewriter over a billion years a masterpiece might come of it.
for a douche-bag the immediate matters and so if nothing is not immediately plausible it can be postponed indefinitely. The douche-bag can sacrifice centuries, he will not have to deal with, for the sake of immediate gratification and all-inclusion.

Has anyone ever seen Carleas or the other douche-bag Fausty ever witnessed them produce anything of any value besides repeating the common or something one can learn in first-grade school?
I haven't...yet here they are "running" an on-line forum supposedly dedicated to philosophy and all this entails.

Are these douche-bags contributing or inhibiting clarity and exploration?
I would say that when a douche-bag, like Faust, admits that he thinks of these forums are bars or as casual get-togethers for all to have fun in, whatever that means, then you not only have a worthless social event but one promoting the same old bullshit these douche-bags call enlightenment and progress.
I would say that when philosophy or anything dealing with an honest assessment of reality and the world, is dealt with in such a trivial manner, that it accomplishes the reverse of what it pretends to be its intent then those running it should be taken out into the shed and shot in the back of the head, where their thinking originates from.

We have had enough of all-inclusive mediocrity and democratic idealism and we have all seen how well it truly works or how authentic it truly is when it pretends to be working, so spare us the bullshit you wish to imitate and simply commit suicide. I am sure a billion others will quickly take both your places and nobody will even notice.