Things to Watch

For "progressives" everything has to be "productive", economical.
They see everything and everyone as statistics, numbers - farm animals is what we are to them. 

Putin laughs in the face of a reporter about the anti-missile system against Russia. In this video, the reporter talks about missile defence, and the reaction of Putin has to be seen.

Interviewer: "NATO claims that the missile shield was not built against you but against Iran".

Putin: "You really make me laugh. God bless you, because it's almost time to finish the day, indeed it is already time to go to sleep. At least I get home in good humour".

Greatest video on the topic of 9/11.

Just listened to:




Really good stuff. Nothing personally revolutionary, just slight edifications of present views.

The Thunderbolts Project (Electric Universe theory) is uploading talks from their recent conference.

That's a great find.
I thought he was in hiding.

He's got quite a story to tell.



This interview with him overlaps in parts with the other one. (in terms of information)

"Liberals claim to have more love for 'general others' than for members of their own family..."
Hmm..
Hahaha

I'm thinking, liberals like humanity but they don't like people. So as long as they are living in some dominantly white and edumucated, maybe even gated, community they gonna have the greatest sentimentality for people who they don't have to deal with on a daily basis.
Especially if they are perceived to be weaker than them.
Like a spoiled princess, the 'good' kind who proclaims to have a big heart for her subjects. Who she likes to visit from time to time, bringing gifts along. Gifts the serfs actually had to work for themselves. But since they didn't pay those taxes directly to the princess, they remain blissfully ignorant.
It's all a fairytale.

Anfang wrote:

I'm thinking, liberals like humanity but they don't like people.

Yes. This is why he referenced Rand in relation to making selfishness into a virtue. He has a grasp on sociobiological dynamics. Libertarian is simply taking liberalism to its logical conclusion; that of denouncing authority, not for individuality but for narcissistic idealism. The idea of "liberty" is a parody for them, it is useful to them only as far as they can throw it. Whatever meaning liberty ever had, disappeared long ago.

The teachers depicted are an example of how political-correctness, leading to this social "civility", and perspectivism, results in dumbing-down.
Taste is not a matter of opinion, nor is beauty in the eye of the beholder.


Beauty is in the world, the eye uncovers it, discovers it, recognizes it...it does not invent it.
Appearances are not superficial....sex and race are not social constructs, aesthetics is not a matter of opinion.




Hawkin asks Dawkins, in an indirect, polite, way, why he's so obsessed with God.
Dawkins gives a partial answer, in my view.

It's something I've been accused of: Obsession.

The answer left out is that in a world full of stupidity, stating the truth becomes a matter of integrity. It is no longer a laughing matter, one can dismiss nonchalantly, if a retard believes in an absurdity.
Not in this day and age; not in a time of pseudo-Democracy.

You permit a retard to worship invisible things, the noetic, and eventually he demands to make his beliefs public. He will not be satisfied in staying in his own world, sheltered from his own stupidity, because he becomes arrogant, since his error never faces the severe consequences that it should.
In time, the retard might become so bold as to come on-line, spewing his nonsense daring to be put in his place, and if he is not, then he becomes emboldened, once again.
Well, not unless there's a Satyr present.

Why do I "obsess" over retards, and nonsensical opinions?
Because enough is fuckin' enough. I am not doing it to change them, or to save them, or to raise them out of their genetic filth, because they do not matter to me.
I do it for me and my own.
Allow a morn the privileged, the untested certainty, that he is your equal, and his stupidity makes sense, and he will become bolder and bolder, until he demands from you respect, and equal time.

Quantity drowns quality, no matter how superior the latter is.
A herd of buffalo can kill a single man.
If you do not put stupidity in its place, it multiplies and grows, and it (re)places you.

The mind evolves within the world. It discovers the world, it does not create it; it interprets the world it does not alter it by changing itself, its own perspective.
Only in a degenerate, decaying, nihilistic, Judeo-Christian, world of degradation does the opposite have merit.

Satyr wrote:

The teachers depicted are an example of how political-correctness, leading to this social "civility", and perspectivism, results in dumbing-down.
Taste is not a matter of opinion, nor is beauty in the eye of the beholder.


Beauty is in the world, the eye uncovers it, discovers it, recognizes it...it does not invent it.
Appearances are not superficial....sex and race are not social constructs, aesthetics is not a matter of opinion.    

That video reminded me of the race realism video series that Lyssa posted i believe in the "Anti-race" sub forum. The man in the video efficiently examines a gene called "MaOa" in relation to the behavioral predispositions among blacks and other races.

Aside from it being a well researched exposition of phenotypic determination, he also exposes the psychology of the liberal mindset and its blatant fearful dismissal of concrete evidence that would disturb their sheltered mollycoddled world views. This is why i am taking a deeper interest in the study of evolutionary psychology as i see memetics playing a larger role in this world of censorship.

Here are the vids again as a refresher for everyone:

Stargazer wrote:

Whatever meaning liberty ever had, disappeared long ago.

To me, liberty is something like what Jung said about destiny. "To do gladly that which I must do."
What I mean by that, is that the kind of liberty which I think of as important, is to be able to live according to my innate characteristics as an individual/organism.
A lion is free when he can live the way his innate characteristics drive him to be.

For a social animal, that doesn't mean to be separated from all other individuals and to do whatever it wants to do just as long as it doesn't infringe on the other individual's liberties….
Maybe I'm someone who wants to infringe on the liberties of other people. If I'm not allowed to do that then that's not free after all.

What I think of as freedom is something like species-appropriate living. But that term is still too generalized for my notion.

Neither is freedom for free. An individual of a social species who separates from its particular sub-group is likely going to pay a price in some form. Just as it is forced to pay a price if it subordinates itself to the group, or if it tries to dominate/lead the group.

I am thinking about an ecology. A man-made society should be like an ecological system. Such systems evolve and there are established balances which gradually shift over time. A dynamic system which keeps on balancing itself.

In nature if there is a small pond, and that pond is artificial and separated from the rest of the environment then it can happen that the balance of the pond, its ecological system, breaks down. It becomes a waste land, a toxic dump.
The reason is usually the dominance of a single organism which destroyed its own environment by its strong domination producing an unbalanced state which can't be corrected anymore.

I'd say it comes down to group size.
Officially, the party-line is talk about the human species as one group. And the larger the group the less freedom for any individual because it's about finding the lowest common denominator. No balances, just one eventual toxic dump.

Just saw this pop up, listening now...

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



Here's a Dropbox link to Part 2, requested today by Slaughtz. I recommend becoming a member of Red Ice so you can always access the 2nd parts of their discussions.

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

Nice.

The 2nd hour:

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

Good find.

When males lost control over female sexuality, with the innovation of this egalitarian mythology, the entire process returned to the whims of females.
Men who became successful, in the sexual sense, were the ones who pleased females, fawned over them, satisfied their every need.
Attraction, in our time, has become entirely feminized. Men also attracting a mate by using feminine methods.
Men become preoccupied with females and attracting them...and more importantly they become obsessed with keeping them, as trophies or as accessible resources.
This is the situation we are in presently.
Pleasure for its own sake...once the purpose of the act, and its gratification, by satisfying the need underlying it, becomes the only purpose - the manimal spirit.  

And once the cost, the price, to female sexuality was diminished, then females became masters over men who must now perform, knowing that they are denied their own sexual advantages.
As the cost for female sexuality decreased the costs for male sexuality increased, or morphed from a life risk to a lifelong cost.  

The pervasive lie, repeated by idiots in every corner of this decaying system, is that evolution works on some random system; blind chance replacing the "selection" part.  
I experienced this perspective recently in the ChatBox when a moron, by the moniker of Moooooo(Mo), had the popular "epiphany" that with race mixing, by some method of random orgy-like copulation-fest, something greater than what is would come about.  
For that imbecile, chance encounters, guided by monogamy and physical attraction - notice how this contradicts the previous thesis or Jewish eugenics - genius will emerge, as if by magic.
The underlying idea here is that all men are born with the same potentials, only inhibited by the environment, and that nature is inclined towards producing intelligence, as if there is some hidden motive, some divine force, directing evolution.

There is very little one can do with such stupidity.
We cannot cull it out of the gene pool, so the only thing left for us to do, under these "Democratic" circumstances, is hope that female awareness will choose according to the desire to breed a higher being.
Given the mental qualities of the average female we're returned to chance.

Let's face it most women think they are free, "liberated" when this is the furthest thing from the truth.
Their "intuitive" choices are not so intuitive.
Socialization, institutionalization, infects her psyche.

Eugenics is Evolution controlled by a human ideal.
Ideals are what men produce - memetic spermatozoa.
Females are guided by natural selfishness, directed by pleasures evolved to function intuitively, instinctively...randomly.
They cannot think beyond the pleasure, because pleasure is how their body informs their mind that something good is happening.
Their neural networks - with the brains as its hub - is dominated by the physical, the cellular informing the conscious.  
No lucidity is required.  

Once the environment alters, due to male interventions, these intuitive drives are guided by artifices, and if they avoid institutionalization they remain fixed on natural standards.
But natural standards (genetics) applied to human environments do not necessary produce the same outcomes, and memetics are not necessarily in harmony with natural standards (in nihilistic systems, which use nihilism as a method of mass control, the opposite is the case: the meme is in contradiction to the gene).

A woman is always quite open for influences, that's her nature.
It's difficult to compete with modern communication technologies in terms of influence.
If that were cut or restricted then things would be quite different in that area.
Especially women are hooked on social media.