Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Open Challenge

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14018
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:00 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Satyr > And I would say an organism is only as good as those that oppose it.
If Rome fell because of a Judeo-Christian disease then it did so because it was already growing weak. The disease was around, as all diseases are, way before Rome came about.Rome began to grow weak when it had defeated its most powerful enemies. That's when decadence set-in.


I am saying Rome was not destroyed like it were cut and taken out piece by piece and dismantled. Xt. didn't break its intactness, just inverted it and parasited on its vitality.
I agree...this viral strain does not destroy, this is its power, it reverses.
Once it takes over everything is turned on its head: female and male switch roles; power becomes weakness and weakness a form of power; the healthy are considered ill and the ill are considered healthy; reality is thought of as an illusion and the unreal is the more real reality; death becomes life, an eternal form of it; to become unconscious becomes a higher form of awareness; stupidity is the new definition of genius; the mentally stunted, the retarded, are the new mature ones.

Lyssa wrote:
Satyr > Rome, by the way and according to Spengler, was a later stage of Hellenic (Greek) culture...it was a civilization birthed in culture but not a culture itself.
We might say that America is a civilization birthed in Judeo-Christianity, mixed with Anglo-saxon submission (as Heisman described) but it was not the culture of Judaism.


A culture keeps flourishing, there's a max. ceiling and when it touches this, it doubles back on itself and the direction of forces reverses and concentrates pulling everything inwardly... this later becomes so solid, it petrifies, and the cycle begins again. I see it as one organic process, culture and culture-extending civilization. American civilization is an extension of (Anglo-)Jewish culture.
According to Heisman, as you very well know, the Anglo-Saxons are like the Jews.
What Egypt, and later Rome, is for the Jews, Normans are for the Anglo-Saxons.
America is the amalgamation of the two peoples that share the same vehemence for nobility.
The difference is that the Anglo-Saxons defeated the Normans in battle, as in the American Civil War, the Napoleonic Wars, World War 2...whereas the Jews use more insidious methods.

Lyssa wrote:
Satyr > My past is a devotion to my ancestors and if I were to do them honor then I would not bow or submit to any other divinity.
To place this divinity "outside" myself, outside my past, is a form of sacrilege.
If I were to tolerate any other form of authority outside my own then it could noly be to stregthen and to honor to my own.


Tell me if I've understood your concept of past correctly. The past is the sum of all previous nurturings and it is not something static, it keeps unfolding into the 'present'.
Yes, it is unfolding...into the "future".
The known, or that which can be known, unfolding towards the unknown.

Lyssa wrote:
It is not something like an object that you look behind, but unfolds and inter-acts along with you... so anything out of this inter-active nurturing is not one you'd consider your own, and if you do, it is to activ-ate/keep active this past. Yes?
Yes, the past is with you, or IS you.
This is why Know Thyself refers to knowing your past, but more than this it is about accepting git, because the past is not always flattering, and then dealing with it.
When you act, (inter)act, it is this past doing so through you. You are the apex, the tip of a pyramid forever growing towards.

This war on the past, upon nature (nature being the sum of all nurturing) is a war agaisnt identity.
By erasing identity the system can absorb the individual into its won premises.
This is why modernity always speaks of "clean slates" (essentially erasing the past) and progress (essentially ignoring the past) and about overcomnig the past or letting go of unnecessary, "unhealthy", "baggage" (essentially all that occured before, experiences genetic predispositions, heritage, family and/or bloodlines etc.)

We see this anti-nature attitude in the Judeo-Christian doctrine. It is also anti-family.
Remember Abraham was tested to see if God took precedence over his own blood...and Jesus says this:
[quote"Jesus of Nazareth"]If any man comes to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke: xiv, 26). [/quote]
The message here, o course, is that the meme, this meme in particular, represented by the figurehead of a single God-King, takes precedence over the gene: this particular nurturing must be considered superior to all nature, all previous nurturing.
This essentially means, going back to my The Feminization of Man, that whatever nature has produced is irrelevant...and it is man, and this particular brand of how man is defined (slavish, weak, tolerant, humble, nihilistic, life negating) supersedes it all; it is omnipotent.
It is also obvious that this is the perfect way to eliminate all other bloodlines from the competition, if this could be considered some kind of conspiracy.


Lyssa wrote:

Satyr > Once you recognize social behavior as a product of weakness then you see what compromises had to be made, on an evolutionary scale.
Once this is understood then the matter becomes one of numbers: the bigger the group one must integrate within the larger the emasculation.The smaller the group the more your integrity as a human being, as a natural organism, is preserved and respected.


I get this. There is some sacrifice and compromise involved, larger the organization. But is Feminization the only natural result,, what about Masculinization of Man? Does it not depend on the direction of the idea(l)?
I've gotten this question before in regards to the "masculinization of women".

The short answer is this:
Waring men's clothing, and doing men's work does not a man make. The growing uniformity is towards femininity, and in the increasing deterioration of the male women can fill-in, a pretend males....since it has nothing to do with attitude but only about appearance.
Humans are one of the few species that can mask appearance...see plastic surgery and make-up and clothes etc.

Women are not being liberated, they are being freed from the middle-man. In the past the male reflected his King's genes and culture and heritage...social groups were homogenous. The family was a way to integrate the man into the group by giving him an investment, a genetic one, binding him to his leader and his clan.

This was when manpower was still important to the well-being of the group.
So, the man had his little mini-kingdom in reflection of the greater one....The woman was the clan's through him,a s he was the representative of the clan in the family.
Today with technologies and different methods of population control and this inversion of ideals this is no longer necessary; the male is superfluous. He either becomes a surrogate female or he is excluded from the genetic pool altogether.
The female is emancipated form his middle-man status, while still being totally committed and submissive towards the only masculine entity allowed: the institution...and institutions are governed in many ways, some not as obvious and clear.

But back to your question...masculinity matters only within small groups, because only there is is masculinity somewhat tolerated and only there does he not have to be shamed; he follows the leader, the alpha-male, because they share goals and fates and sometimes genes, but most of all they share ideals.
They know each other, have shared struggles and suffering and have stood behind one another.
Males tend to bond better than females, and it is not rare or a man to step back for his buddy to get the girl.
This is agape.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:29 am

Satyr > According to Heisman, as you very well know, the Anglo-Saxons are like the Jews.
What Egypt, and later Rome, is for the Jews, Normans are for the Anglo-Saxons.
America is the amalgamation of the two peoples that share the same vehemence for nobility.

Beowulf, one of the oldest Old English heroic poems, speculated to be written bet. 8th-11th century is already remarked for its Xt. tinge. So I separate pagan anglo-saxon culture from a Judaized one. Heisman points to this, affirming N. on pg. 1191 and 1192;

"Can “modern” ideas be attributed to the influence of Christianity alone? Nietzsche seems to have hinted as much in the case the English:
"When the English actually believe that they know “intuitively” what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment....For the English morality is not yet a problem." [Nietzsche]
For the English, the effects of Christianity were multiplied by the effects of the Norman Conquest. While Norman Cavaliers settled the American South and Anglo-Saxons Puritans settled the American North, both had inherited values of gentlemanly French “civilization” that reinforced the gentle influence of Christianity."

I see the 'predominant' values around which American civilization has been crystallizing/petrifying as Judaeo-Xt.


Satyr > But back to your question...masculinity matters only within small groups, because only there is is masculinity somewhat tolerated and only there does he not have to be shamed; he follows the leader, the alpha-male, because they share goals and fates and sometimes genes, but most of all they share ideals.
They know each other, have shared struggles and suffering and have stood behind one another.
Males tend to bond better than females, and it is not rare or a man to step back for his buddy to get the girl.
This is agape.

Thanks for the prv. explanations. I see the Masculinization of Man as not inconsistent along-with a Large scale Organization. I think the compromise of Man happens when the means [States] become the standard of life itself and are loved for their own sake. The State itself becomes the aim and as the standard for aims. As a nice N. saying goes, the one who defends a castle so vehemently is in danger of becoming a castle himself. In this sense, the State tyrannizes over the Man and the dignity of a Human being is compromised. That is one reason, I would be pro-NS, which saw the standard as not in the State as an ends in itself, but in the enhancement of life through the State only as a Means:

"Hegelianism and neohegelianism justified the state as an end in itself. National-Socialism did not regard the state as an end in itself, but because the examples of Prussia and Fascist Italy loomed large at the time, it was tempting for people not thoroughly familiar with national-socialism to see it in this light (and even today it is not unusual for careless sources to mislabel national-socialism as "fascism"). The liberal age which Rosenberg mentions began with the Enlightenment of the 18th century, and found expression in ideologies ranging from democratic-republicanism to hegelianism to marxism. In this piece published in the Völkischer Beobachter of January 9, 1934, Alfred Rosenberg shows that he is not against the use of a powerful state as a tool, but explains that it is important to distinguish the essential ideas of national-socialism from ideas rooted in the liberal age, so as to avoid a recurrence of the idolatry of the state that liberal ideas engender. (Translation and introduction by Hadding Scott.)


"The State is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


Total State?
Alfred Rosenberg

In recent months, in many speeches and essays, the view has been expressed that from now on instead of the multi-party state, instead of the liberally splintered form of government, there is the "total state." It is said that this state seizes at once the whole political, economic, and cultural life of the nation, that it is the guardian, leader, and commander of all expressions of life, so as to secure thereby the necessary unity of Germany in all fields. In all these utterances it has been overlooked that the abstract state has been thoroughly an idea of the liberal age, which was set up as a technical instrument of power apart from economy and culture as a thing existing for itself, and was accordingly worshiped or, by other tendencies, passionately combatted. In reality it was such that the representatives of the state, before the war, often no longer had any sense of being a servant of the people, but instead regarded the state as a thing for itself, which hovered over the nation and whose representatives possessed the claim of exaltation over all other citizens.This abstract concept of the state had still not changed after 1918, but had merely acquired another symptom.

The revolution of January 30, 1933 is not by any means the continuation of the absolutist state with yet another symptom; rather the state is now cast into a completely different relationship to our people and national character. What has been accomplished in the past year and still to a greater extent will be accomplished, is not the so-called totality of the state but the totality of the National-Socialist movement. The state is no longer something which should exist apart from the people and apart from the movement, be it as a mechanistic apparatus, be it as a ruling instrument; rather it is a tool of the National-Socialist worldview.

This appears to be only a small distinction between the emphases in the main thrust of a political or epistemological conception. And yet the clarification of ideological assumptions is of enormous importance, because on the basis of a false development of concepts -- perhaps not at first, but surely in the course of time -- a practical consequence for the conduct of policy will occur. If we spoke continuously of the total state, in this way the concept of the state in itself would gradually move back to the center among younger National-Socialists and coming generations, and the affairs of the state would be perceived as the primary thing. But if we emphasize already today with utmost clarity that it is a specific political worldview and movement which claims the right of totality, so will the gazes of generations focus precisely on this movement and regard the relationship between the state and the NSDAP in a completely different light, than if one designated the state in itself as the highest thing.

The National-Socialist movement is the formed power of the thought of the 20th century, formed for the preservation of the whole German people, its blood and its character. At the disposal of this movement the state stands as its most powerful and manly tool, and must always receive anew its vital powers and impulses from the movement, whereby it remains flexible and enduring, and escapes the danger of bureaucratization, ossification, and alienation from the people. Once it is seen in this relationship, the national-socialist concept of the state becomes properly full-blooded, and we believe that the state thus receives for the first time its consecration, its inner strength, and its authority in a higher degree than if, led perhaps by energetic individuals*, it could become a goal in itself, and consequently ossified.

On all these grounds it is recommended for all National-Socialists to speak no longer of the total state, rather of the completeness (totality) of the National-Socialist worldview, of the NSDAP as the body of this worldview, and of the National-Socialist state as the tool for the preservation of the soul, spirit, and blood of National-Socialism as the powerful phenomenon which made its beginning in the 20th century."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14018
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:07 pm

It's unfortunate but my challenge was never taken up.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge

Back to top Go down
 
Open Challenge
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 7 of 7Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 Similar topics
-
» Open Challenge
» QC to bid out contract to convert Payatas open dump into sanitary landfill
» Open eyes Vision
» Open vision of nice Black shoes
» Another open vision inthe spirit!!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: