Stefan Molyneux is wrong and his guest is right....mathematics IS idealism because numbers are ideas, they do not exist outside the brain. But I did enjoy listening to how he dominates his guest. If I were there I would have torn him a new a-hole, but meh.
I forgive him because he is, sometimes right about things, and I do appreciate the mount to time and research that go into his vids.
Molyneux is one of those unfortunate modern thinkers. An 'Alt-righter' but, he also masquerades as a neopagan. I agree, he has his good points and he is articulate, but i dont think he takes himself seriously. He's too much of a wise cracker and a clown and it annoys the shit out of me. Alex Jones might be a bit off in the head and he's certainly no philosopher, but he speaks purposefully, and he does take himself very seriously and i like that about him.
I unsubscribed to Molyneux's channel after a comment i made in one particular video of him ranting inanities about Thanksgiving. It was uninteresting and seemed to me another chance for him to self-indulge in his smart ass comedic antics. I suggested in the comment that he is becoming bored and descending into an online entertainment personality, to which he made some lame snarky comment attempting to patronize me asking what "facts" i had of it. He is dependent on statistics and data...unable to think in his own logical observations and knowledge. The amount of up votes his "comeback" got was crazy. So many You Tubers and online groupies sucking his dick. It's pathetic.
He is definitely no philosopher, even though he thinks of himself as one. He's too modern. He is a journalist and a newscaster and an academic. He is worth watching...sometimes. But for me personally, he annoys the hell out of me.
I've experienced the same thing Kvasir, I tried to reason quite humbly and politely yet assertively with my convictions that contradicted 'theirs' on many less or more dumb and bizarre Youtube and FB pages and have always met with fucking snarky up-their-ass cunts riding on the dicks of their followers and fanboys that would give me a reply that would call me a child or a frustrated maniac or some other dismissing shit that was then up-voted. The amount of times I have been banned off of FB pages... on the basis of me being rude or evil or this or that....
I've experienced the same thing Kvasir, I tried to reason quite humbly and politely yet assertively with my convictions that contradicted 'theirs' on many less or more dumb and bizarre Youtube and FB pages and have always met with fucking snarky up-their-ass cunts riding on the dicks of their followers and fanboys that would give me a reply that would call me a child or a frustrated maniac or some other dismissing shit that was then up-voted. The amount of times I have been banned off of FB pages... on the basis of me being rude or evil or this or that....
And that is why i am not a forum poster at other sites. I just have zero interest in engaging with stupidity or delusional arrogance unless it becomes so insistent that i force myself to act, like with that crazy retard camus666.
Stupidity may be inferior, but it can be ruthless, like army ants. Millennial Protestors are a case in point.
I dont mind making comments here or there online, Youtube, whatever, but not to any excessive degree. The problem with being an online guru is that you become surrounded by this stupidity that then eventually becomes like a goofy dumb sidekick to you, eager to please, and you get comfortable using it to enhance your reputation and even intellect. Once you have grinned and bared it for a long enough time, and you have enough word of mouth vouches from enough gullible minds, you have solidified a podium where you can be as arrogant and patronizing as you want.
Ok, so Varg claims alpha males are those who reproduce. A sensible claim, but I wonder if he would accept a nigger with 10 children subsidized by welfare as more alpha than himself. If not, then he would be forced to accept that in modern times even the undeserving can reproduce. But I would also grant Varg that although some who are undeserving may reproduce (which would go counter to his point), I wouldn't say there are many of deserving ones who DON'T reproduce, because the deserving usually find a way, which supports his point and MGTOW who are childless are removing themselves from the gene pool, probably for the best.
TFM attacks Varg and calls him a beta male who submits to the gynocentric system. However, Varg's MGTOW video is the first and only video he saw of Varg so he didn't even know his name and who he's attacking. I think he changed his mind about his accusations when some people in the comments section told him a bit more about Varg. TFM brings up his usual points - the dangers of marriage (divorce rape), having more important goals in life than genetic reproduction, pointing out how diluted genes become after just a few generations, and the idea that a better way of reproducing if one wants to preserve their genes is cloning. Also that having children necessitates getting involved with a woman and thus risking your freedom.
The way I see it, being alpha has several aspects to it - genetic and memetic propagation and a mindset of self-control. MGTOW focuses solely on memetic propagation and/or pleasures at the expense of genetic propagation and refuse to make any compromises involving the reduction of their self-control (such as surrendering their freedom to the state through marriage). Traditionalists focus more on a balance of genetic and memetic propagation and are willing to make some compromises to achieve this.
Both sides embody certain aspects of alpha maleness and neglect others, but I'd say traditionalists generally win out over MGTOW because most MGTOW don't use self-control for memetic propagation to compensate for lack of genetic propagation (can't blame them, most people generally don't), instead they focus on pleasures. Many of these are men who could not genetically propagate even if they wanted to, so their separation from the system isn't so much a choice as it is a lifestyle they adopt involuntarily but maybe have grown to accept since it is inevitable for them, and it does have some benefits. They are socially rejective not because society's standards are beneath them, but because they are ABOVE them.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37119 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Betas, and even omegas reproduce only within manmade Nihilistic systems where feminine traits and males that submit to them, are idealized. When the State, has replaced God, as the monopoly on alpha, all must become representations of this alpha, or betas, imitating and serving it. This is necessary because the State, as was God, is a abstraction of masculinity, an idealization of it, in accordance with Nihilistic ideals. It cannot fertilize females,a s a biological alpha could. Therefore the abstraction requires proxies, that only serve as the corporeal part of the ideal - a reduction, since ion nihilism the body, the physical, is reduced to an avatar. This links us to liberals demanding to be treated as females trapped in a male's body, or vice versa. They, essentially despise the real, the physical....and want all to become idea(l), making everything malleable to mind - or giving magical power to symbols, words.
What they really despise is past, or nature, as the sum of all past nurturing - the immutable determining PAST. What they feel freedom to be is detachment, rejection, forgetting this past.
So how do beta's become more prolific than alphas? One, they submit easily and readily, willingly and joyfully accepting the role of proxy alpha. They are God's or the state's cock, and they must please the female. Keep her happy. Two they accept the biological method common among all beta males: subversive copulation, in exchange for being the female's man-slave. Three, females are indoctrinated into the alpha male's dominion, meaning they easily surrender to the prevailing power. This makes them fashionable, trend seeking and easily adaptable. But in Nihilistic systems this leaves them with a problem. They are genetically inclined to be attracted to alpha males, but none are permitted, so all she has are copies, imitators/pretenders, or omega, comfortable, helpful, carpets to step on. She is trained, socially, to desire, pragmatically, rationally, the beta, and their genetic attractions contradict this.
This is the root of what moderns call the FEMININE MYSTIQUE. it's based on females being indoctrinated into nihilistic memes, then conflicting with their genetic predispositions. They are confused, their genetics conflicting with their memetics, and the men who try to understand them, to get laid, are perplexed....they call it feminine complexity. women are complicated. BUUUUUUULLLLSHIT!!! They are simpler than simple, if they are average....but intelligence is always complex. the average females is inferior to the average male, and both are simpletons, to be understood as such. What is confusing is them trying to adjust their memetic indoctrination to their genetic inclinations. They say one thing, do another, and believe a third...so you begin by first taking the ACTION as your starting point. disregard their words, what they say they believe in...watch what they do. What choices they make, how they behave....stop listening to morons talking. Words are, for them, ink in the water. The spineless use it often. Furthermore, they have no clue what and who they are. The KNOW THYSELF is crucial here. This makes them ignorant of their own contradictions. They, actually, believe what they say, even when they contradict what they say with deeds, and are unable to justify or define or explain what they say....they just say it because it feels good, they were indoctrinated, trained to say it, they regurgitate it, or in the best case scenario they intentionally try to hide who and what they are, with words as distractions, covering masks, accessories to match their new outfit and job.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
Do you reckon Pinker doesn't understand that free speech is a right-wing issue because it is from that sphere of politics and ideologies that any systems and structures emerge that seek to undermine that monopoly of power of leftist politics and nihilism whereas all the leftists produce outside of the norm are mostly vulgar and perverted piles of bull crap or slight modifications to what already is? That said obviously ignoring his explanation that relates to the conditioned triggers such as Hitler, right-wing used to dismiss that, as relevant as it might be, does not seem to pin it down precisely enough for me because of what I have said earlier and the nature of Jordans Petersons ideas. btw I like him a lot, he has the ability to simplify and constrain complex and multi-layered propositions in a logical, conclusive manner that builds all that is needed to progress to the next stage in a very disciplined and precise manner
The people in the comment section complain that its hard to understand but I disagree, it is the best example of what I just mentioned.
There is a pronounced trait of quasi-political correctness that influences these dissenting academic professors against leftism.
Nothing to do with alt-right though.
These particular professors are deeply invested into the academic institution and have cultivated a reputation which sways their modesty of thought. However, they are calculating enough to propound their positions without appearing too threatening to the establishment. Whether this be self-preservation or self-interest, is confined to their own motives. One thing is clear, they are subtle enough to understand how to express their ideas against leftism, while still retaining their status as respected educators.
Pinker is far more invested in his scientific pursuits in academia and because of that he is accepted more as an educator and not vilified outright as a dissident, while Peterson has more of an alpha tendency to challenge the status quo and as a result he comes under hotter fire but, so far, has garnered no more than small protests against his lectures. Peterson’s philosophical spirit seems genuine to me and therefore, I must believe that he acts from a survival instinct to maintain his position to discourse and lecture his insights which I find to be nicely introspective.
It is tricky sometimes to discern how far their true principles or beliefs lie, in terms of racial superiority and hierarchies. Their intellectual integrity suggests a traditional belief system, but their indirect conformity they abide by with the media and publicity, in relation to politically correct subjects, says they also value their social and academic standing that demands placation of simple-minded audiences.
It comes down to their long-term changing motives. Whether or not they intend to make a direct impact to risk the lifetime of their socially approved achievements and accolades for a legacy of wisdom, or whether they will nurture a pretentiously cooperative parasitical strategy of attrition to pervade their ideas as long as possible; to make their concessions and submissions to achieve awareness with a select few. Which is more effective, is up to them to determine.
WakeThyself
Gender : Posts : 13 Join date : 2016-01-24 Location : New England US
A very fascinating exploration of the connection of geology with mythology. The scholar, is a geologists, connecting his science to myth, calling it geomyhtology. Unfortunately it's in Greek. I should translate it, because it's very insightful and compelling.
To give you a taste...he connects the Titans and the Giants, part of the geology associated with the Ice Age; with the rise of the oceans, due to the melting of the ice, due to warming, and the creation of the islands with certain myths. For example the birth of Apollo on the island of Delos, occurs when the area detaches, due to the rise of the sea.
Another things he says is that the myth of Hydra, begins in the Peloponnese, in an area called Laerna... ergo Laernean Hydra. Hydra, from hydor [υδορ], which is geek for water. The seven heads corresponding to the seven subterranean tributaries. If you block one, it splits into two. Place a stone in front of one tributary and its splits into two. Therefore the myth about cutting off the heads of the hydra.
He also explains why civilization emerged first in the Aegean and why it is so dominant. It's climactic. Why democracy is reflected in the Dodecatheon, which were originally six main gods. When Zeus wanted to decide what to do with Hercules he gathered the gods to decide - the roots of Democracy are found in the myth itself, that preceded the emergence of the political system.
The defeat of the Titans by Zeus is about the gradual stabilization of the geology and climate due to the end of the Ice Age, and the stabilization of the weather. Imagine how the people, of that time, experienced the rise of the sea levels, up to 5 cm a year, 50 cm. in ten years, times 4, which would be an average lifespan. People living in the areas being threatened with the rising sea, must have believed some titanic forces were out to get them. with the stabilization of the weather he must have thought some more kinder forces were fighting on his side...the Olympian Gods that defeated the Titans....which would correspond to the end of the Ice Age and its extreme geological and climatic effects.
There's more. All in all it is very interesting. He connects Hellenic mythology to geology and climate conditions, over a period of geological time.
A very fascinating exploration of the connection of geology with mythology. The scholar, is a geologists, connecting his science to myth, calling it geomyhtology. Unfortunately it's in Greek. I should translate it, because it's very insightful and compelling.
The first time I've heard a live interview with this "infamous" comic book rouge Matt Drudge. Despite Alex Jones' disruptive behavior for interrupting he was able to behave himself and it was a good interview.
Drudge has some good observational sense for being a modern conservative, and was smart enough to keep most of his political affiliations out of the interview, which was nice.
His insight into Social media as a proprietary intellectual corporation, taking ownership and appropriation of language was good.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37119 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
A very fascinating exploration of the connection of geology with mythology. The scholar, is a geologists, connecting his science to myth, calling it geomyhtology. Unfortunately it's in Greek. I should translate it, because it's very insightful and compelling.
Please do. It sounds great.
Don't know if it is worth that much effort when I can give you what I gathered from it as the condensed knowledge.
He connects ancient mythology, particularly Indo-European traditions, with geological and climactic conditions. The myth of Heracles and the Leaned Hydra, I mentioned before is one example. He connects the emergence of the Olympian gods with the settling phase in climactic and geological changes. Titans and Giants with the period of severe weather and geological alterations. Olympians were worshipped the victors against the Titans when the geological and climactic conditioned that threatened the people in those areas stabilized.
He connects the birth of certain mythological entities, islands being named after them, with the meting of polar ice, and the rise of sea levels, attributed to river gods. He says that the privilege place of Hellenism, or of cultured birthed around the Mediterranean basin, were due to the privileged geographical configuration, creating a relatively stable climactic and geological area, allowing men to develop higher civilizations. He claims that the Black sea was once a salt-less lake, fed into by the meting ice of the receding Ice age, causing an overflow. The myths of a deluge are found in this overflowing. Eventually the sea levels rose and the black sea was flooded with sea water, destroying the co system, and the sea life. The passage of the Dardanelles was created then.
He claims the Minoans traveled all the way to North America, and up to the Arctic circle, and that Heracles was a real Mycenaean.
My view is that the Mediterranean basin looks a lot like the vaginal canal with its end being where the fertilization of Hellenism was birthed.
Exiting the canal to conquer the entire western world. Gibraltar being the lip of the vaginal canal, spilling into the Atlantic - named after Atlas holding up the world. It was the geographical configurations, resulting in geological and climactic conditions, that made the Hellenism so dominant. The northern European lands were not habitable, due to the permafrost, util much later.
He also claims that the ocean streams were already known to the ancients, and described methodologically. He also claims that the Greek language is much older than what current historians think, because this knowledge was transmitted orally, and it goes back to the Ice Age. Much of history transmitted in oral form as stories, tales, mythological allegories.
The artistic nature of language is retained. The mind shares metaphors, approximations, presentations...symbols.
