Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:39 pm

Quote :

Religion is opium for the people. - K. Marx

This is a propaganda phrase by Marx, so that he was able to implement his own Religion: Statism.
Take the religion away from people and you take their heart away and you make them rats in a cage, that act by your commands.





"Gnosticism" is the religion of the money elites.

Paganism has potential to free people. Whereas atheism is the seed for communism. It is the foundation of Statism. I see that very clear today.

I've met and talked to a lot of Libertarians and that is their big blind spot. They reject the state and the marxist approach, terminology ect.., but they fall into the same trap, except that they never even get to power, because they reject that too. They reject politics. But their ideology is not so different. They too are atheists. They consider themselves rational and so on. Social, even. Humanitarians.

Paganism is the opposite of Atheism
! Paganism is contrary to Gnosticism too. But even Gnosticism is more powerful than Atheism. That's why the money elites have more order, than the atheist or exoteric, blind-believing, god-fearing, judeo-christian masses. Because they are esotericists. Not of the highest kind, like in my opinion Paganism is, but at least with more sense than the nihilistic atheists and the judeo-christian believers.

The God Debate is a fake one! Where is Nietzsche in that debate? Which side is he represented by? Exactly, he is not represented by either side. And that shows you that these debates are worthless entertainment for the masses. Nietzsche may be looked at as an atheist, but todays atheists reject him. Especially the Libertarians. Because he was no humanist. He was an Elitist.

Libertarians basically just worship the Economy. That is the kind of empty capitalism, like in Japan today, that leads people to depression and suicide, breaks up families and takes away peoples reason to live. Libertarians are arrogant. They are market supremacists. New rich, some of them. Ambitious. All of that. I like them better than any leftists. But I haven't met an elitist amongst them. All I hear them say is that the market takes care of everything and we need less bureaucracy. That's their whole slogan. But the structures have grown over the years. Here is the essential Tarpley vs Kokesh.



There is another one, where he buries Alex Jones, from the same week. I'll spare you that. Or in case somebody has a lot of time:



Now Tarpley is a democrat, but his criticism is right on. Like Hitler was right too from what I get from the first chapters of "Mein Kampf" in evaluating the political situation back then. Critique and good evaluation are but a necessary first step. But not everything.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13771
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:47 pm

Religion is institutionalized spirituality.
Marx was right.
Without religion there is no possibility for civilization.

Plato, through Socrates, was correct when he realized his original mistake in spreading scepticism amongst the youths who had no capacity to make use of it and who were lead to disillusionment and to totalitarianism.
Only a few, the Philosopher Kings, if you will, can tolerate the idea of a world with no god, and not go mad.
The masses must be given an authority, beyond the corporeal and the attainable, to scare them towards self-discipline, and most need it to remain sane.
But spirituality can come in many varieties.
In my mind Paganism is the absence of A God.
It worships nature, which is a vague reference to the processes (forces, conditions) that participate in existence or, more precisely, in the emergence of an ability to perceive (sensation, consciousness) existence.
In Paganism there is no overruling authority, for all are part of the same entropic decay.

Originally the Greeks (and many other pagan tribes, I'm sure) worshipped no gods. They paid homage to their ancestors, offering them food and wine – pouring it over their graves – and from them they asked for guidance.

This is what I do.

If I pray and at times seek help and guidance it is not from some fantastic, supernatural;, projection of human nihilism, but from a known persona and figure in my own family.
In his image I see my entire past. When preying I ask for my past to come to the aid of my consciousness, which is struggling.
This past is me, since I am the result of it. So, in effect, I am digging into my psyche, connecting to my entire past through every cell in my body.

It’s akin to lucid meditation.

All this talk about Republicans and Democrats leaves me drowsy.
We have the same system wanting to control the same mass of people trying to find a happy medium between necessity and individuality.
It is a debate over methods of husbandry at any given time. As circumstances change so must the methods of farming change accordingly.
The masses must be kept asleep, hedonistic, materialistic and unaware.

I really do not care to save the herds.

As long as there are no accessible frontiers any method applied which keeps these dumb oxen working and docile and timid is fine by me.

Lucidity should be about seeing for your own benefit. To laugh at the shopping sprees and promiscuity talking about love
and loyalty and depth, and be unaffected by it.
But we are social animals and our method of reproduction does force a social structure and an (inter)action of sorts, therefore the question comes down to taste, and remaining indifferent by a world you are forced to exist within.
If we consider Hegel's master<>slave dynamic then we must recognize that what separates the master from the slave is a degree of need.

Both need each other and are dependent upon one another, but to different degrees.
They are, in fact, not representations of opposites, no more than Masculine Nihilism is the opposite of Feminine
Nihilism
. Both approach the same outcome form different directions and with different attitudes.

The real antithesis to the master<>slave dynamic is indifference; to not care to be either master or slave.
And the antithesis to Female Nihilism (Absolute Chaos/Randomness/Emptiness) and Masculine Nihilism (Absolute Order/Predictability/God) is existence.

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



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:11 pm

Quote :

Only a few, the Philosopher Kings, if you will, can tolerate the idea of a world with no god, and not go mad.

That's why I reject the promotion of Atheism. It's the WORST thing for the masses. They do go mad.

Quote :

The masses must be given an authority, beyond the corporeal and the attainable, to scare them towards self-discipline, and most need it to remain sane.

Exactly and the consumerism of today is a replacement for the dead god.

Quote :

In Paganism there is no overruling authority,

Yes.

Quote :

for all are part of the same entropic decay.

Yes, but Paganism also gives sense to life. Atheism on the other hand just hits you in the face with the feeling of decay.

Quote :

I really do not care to save the herds.

But the herds do effect you too. And there needs to be some sort of soil for even you to exist. Communism is the worst of all possibilities for any kind of free speech, such as on this forum here.

Quote :

But we are social animals and our method of reproduction does force a social structure and an (inter)action of sorts, therefore the question comes down to taste, and remaining indifferent by a world you are forced to exist within.

With this topic, I just want to refute this newest of trends: Libertarianism. The Ron Paul movement, because it is still most popular. And these people consider themselves elitists too and all knowing, like the MRAs. Libertarianism was a third option, kind of. It was neither Republican nor Democrat. I compare it to tibetan Buddhism. It's a creeping poison. Not like the Pope, who is openly criticized and ridiculed by many, but more like the Dalai Lama. The friendly optimistic psychopath from next door. Patrick Bateman.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:49 am

In Paganism we get the sense for a coming and going of things. A circle of life. Not just senseless decay everywhere like with atheism. In nature we have the seasons. Spring, summer, autumn and winter. Every winter (death) is followed by a spring (birth). For birth to be, there's gotta be death. And putting death at the end is a mere human standard measurement. Our calander year for example ends in the middle of winter. The astrological spring doesn't start until near the end of March. The modern atheist has an attitude: "après moi, le déluge". They don't care for future generations, because they have no sense for nature. They don't care about nature. Like these MRA. They hate nature. (the feminine) And that's why they debate fundamentalist believers, but feel so comfortable in their midst. Because they are not opposites. They both hate nature. They are anti nature. Atheism isn't a sub-category of Paganism. Atheists ridicule Paganism, from their "superior rationality". They look down upon nature from their modernistic high horse of science-worship. Atheists don't procreate either. Their family is the state. And their parents: politicians and other officials. You will never get an atheist to "convert" to Paganism. Pagans however likely would call themselves atheists.

This is the most famous youtube atheist talking about Paganism or what he understood of it. (Nothing.) His foul language is exemplary of the majority of these people. Dawkins just has british manners, that prevent him to use these words.

Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13771
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:59 pm

This turd seems to have confused paganism with emo kids.


Another victim of modernity.
Sleep

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

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1496
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 30
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:06 am

He was molested as a child.

Satire (NSFW): [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13771
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:30 am

affraid

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



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:14 am

Atheism is but an interesting facade people put on to appear more intellectual, than they are. It has become synonymous with the "New Atheists" that intellectally debated and defeated the fundamental Religions of the Middle Ages, in recent years. Mostly modern sceptics. With one evolutionary Biologist, a journalist, a philosopher, a neuro-scientist, a physicist. Mostly harmless nerds. Nice consumers and next door democrats. Humanists.

Paganism on the otherhand...can't have that in a society. Must ridicule these individuals...make fun of their gods like Zeus or Odin...

They don't get the difference between the pagan gods and the judeo-christian one god. They don't even try. Why are there multiple gods? Why do they act like regular humans? Why do they have human features, drink beer or wine, have women, ...? Why do they have the same emotions and problems that we do? Why do they experience the same struggles? Why do these stories of the gods exist? Why are there no commandments? No mission? No converting? Why are there so many references to nature within these stories? Why is nature painted as being alive? Isn't it sinful in the Bible?

So these intellectuals haven't even dealt with Paganism. They just put it together with the Arabic Culture, so they don't have to deal with it's fundamental difference and can place THEMSELVES as this fundamental difference towards Judeo-Christianity. WHICH THEY ARE NOT. As humanists. They simple are scientifically more ambitious, but hold the same humanitarian beliefs, that are devoid of human nature, want to suppress it and extinguish it, to paint their nice picture of the "good man", the man that is above his nature.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:30 pm

Then we have the Gnostic tradition. That was kept secret throughout the ages. But they have an esoteric quite contrary interpretation of the Bible. There the old testament god being Lucifer. (See John 8,44

Jesus to the Jews:
Quote :

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

or the temptation of Jesus in the desert or the Book of Job). That clearly underline this reading. So the "New Atheists" ignore this whole hermetic occult tradition also. The Kabbala as well. Goethe revealed some of it within his Faust. Today it's more common knowledge. More openly available. Also horrible diffused and confusing.

Paganism today is merely to be found in the genre of "Fantasy" and thereby belittled and ridiculed. Pushed aside into the "fiction" area of unscientific superstition. The Fantasy genre draws heavily from Paganism. For example the Lord of the Rings is influenced by the Nibelungen Saga and the Nordic Edda.

What the New Atheists try to do is paint every Religion as anti-scientific and hindering progress, even those that are pro nature and describe real natural processes and real human nature as well. New Atheists like to think of themselves as purely rational, with no kind of sexdrive whatsoever. (Dawkins as the most obvious example of suppressed nature, as Apaosha pointed out correctly.) No emotions either. Pure intellect.

This suppression gives leeway to tibetan Buddhism (and new-age nonsense also), which is considered harmless, because it promotes the same judeo-christian, humanitarian ideals. Which is also an export from Asia and can not connect westerners to their national territorial roots.

Regarding the superstition:

"Magic" is Philosophy. It's just the natural more female side of it. To study it bears power. Take Thors hammer. It was described as some kind of a super weapon. But why does it have to be considered fantasy? Look at todays weapons, they too would have looked "supernatural" to people 100 years ago. But they were developed by scientific research.

We must take into consideration the fact, that the Middle Ages in Europe were a dumbing down, and that cultures/civilizations with advanced technologies may very well have existed long before our modern times. See Erich van Däniken and others for infos.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:46 pm

Heroes

The New Atheists promote no kind of heroism. Instead you are lead to believe that this bunch represents the scientific elite and has your best interest at heart. And you should instead follow them, like in Communism. They even work on unitarian and humanitarian manifestos. For the good of all people, except maybe muslims. It's a Brave New World of scientific government they are aiming at, with them as the elite. No psychological insides are promoted. No races, no sexes, no male-female dynamic. Instead: Egalitarianism. Just genes. Just material, that can be mixed however you like. No sexuality, just stimulation of nerves. A transhumanist future. Transcending the human, making him superhuman, but unlike the Titans from the greek Mythology, w/o any knowledge of their past and where they came from, who they are. And no goal but progress itself. Progress for the sake of progress.

In Paganism on the other hand heroism is the other side of the gods. It's the same stories, just in the human realm. And it doesn't have to be about slaying dragons. For example the tragedy of "Oedipus the King" would be considered a heroic journey. It is representing every mans archetypical journey through life. Making the tragedy (play) by Sophocles a spiritual/psychological cleansing for the audience experiencing it, back in those days, like todays Batman-Movies. It works better than any psychotherapie, and is in fact just that, because it offers role-models, a path to go and shows someone who has the courage to do so. (Like Prometheus, but he was a Titan, so half-man and half-god, that's why I stick with Oedipus here.) The 3 stages in life being: Corinth, Thebes and Colonus. Representing: Childhood, Adulthood, and (wise) Old Age. Not everybody leaves Korinth, because it's the childish place, without very much responsibility. Today many people don't go the whole path of Oedipus and stay in Corinth. From the parents, to the father state, the father in heaven. Parents just get switched. But the "grown-up" person of adult age stays a child, even after his/her parents are long gone. It's a state of delusion. This is because today we lack an initiation ritual into adulthood. The initiation ritual in puberty (usually accompanied by a task to prove courage, like in the Movie "300") set the initiates off to adulthood. Which is a phase of rebellion against the established order, seeking for answers, creation, procreation, but also many mistakes and stumbling, falling and confusion. (Which is necessary to reach the 3rd phase though. And a part many of todays man-children would like to skip, by becoming academics and getting diplomas instead.) The last part in life is a coming back. Looking back at what was achieved and ordering the useful and cutting off the not useful. It is the most aware phase of realization. Seeing beyond the outer appearances of phenomena. Represented by the blind seer Thereisias and the blind Oedipus in the last part of the tragedy.

Todays Batman myth as told by the movies, hasn't reached this 3rd phase yet, but certainly plays in Thebes and not in Corinth anymore, because the Batman challenges his fears and is struggling in the world. That is significant for the second phase, beyond childhood. Maybe at the end of "Dark Knight Rises" he has overcome the second phase and entered the realm of Colonus.

Oedipus is the archetype for the heroical journey of man. The essence of any mans spiritual journey in life, in whichever form it may manifest itself in reality.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13771
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:01 pm

And isn’t every pop-cultural icon a caricature playing out this journey to a crowed that experiences it second-hand, and so remains adolescent but feeling like he has gone through the trials?

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



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:20 am

For one thing "pop-cultural" icons are based on ancient pagan tales. They are all deeply rooted within a past, aside from the judeo-christian narrative.

Secondly YES, the viewer of, for example, a Batman movie or a Sophocles play in the old days, feels like he goes through the trials. Aristotle describes this in his "Poetics", the recipient lives through the experience on the stage/the screen and experiences a Catharsis in the end. But all life is based on Mimesis ("imitation" or "representation").
That's why the Jesus myth has grown so popular. Don't we all feel like we have to carry a heavy cross? and so on. So I agree with the part of your statement, where you state that the viewer feels like he himself has gone through the trials, even if he has just watched a movie sitting on his sofa. And he also remains adolescent for the time being. But there is a seed implanted within him, that can now start to grow and that wasn't there before. An idea has been put in his mind. A role model, that he can now imitate, within his own limits and niche in life. The adolescent watching a Batman-movie does not become Batman himself, but he might find a sense for his life, a purpose in that case to do good, help others ect.. He might also feel inspired by a villain like the Joker and be exceedingly active in a egoistic way. It is a form of "magic" that is happening here, it is not a conscious process, but a subconscious transformation process, that occurs involuntarily. It is not like a philosophy lecture or a rule book, but something that effects the subconscious of a person. A connection that these icons establish with the viewer. Something that makes this form of "entertainment", more valuable than any Psychotherapy, that just looks at the problems, the symptoms, but cannot offer solutions, because they lack the tools that only art like this can provide in their full spectrum. Today movies are great with images, sound and special effects, that work themselves deep into the psyche of the viewer.

So the "second hand" metaphor doesn't fit. It's an engaging experience with all senses (like the clip I posted in "Height of courage", that makes my hands sweaty watching it), that engages more than one sense and lets you experience the struggle yourself. It's not first hand, because you are safe from falling or getting hurt yourself, as a mere viewer. But you grow more confident. This is the reason why I do not totally dismiss video games either. Even if I don't play them myself and haven't much done so in the past either.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13771
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:49 am

Second hand because the experience is transmitted by an otherness and lived vicariously.
The experience is easy, and so the mind grows irrationally confident and begins to belittle all experiences which are then associated with this fake one.
He sits there, watches a hero go through trials and tribulations, and he feels empowered, as if he were the hero.
The experience seems simple, easy, until he tries to replicate it. Then the mind fails and belittles the second-hand experience as nonsense and fantasy. Now anything associated with the images or the terms used are considered a joke. The mind is jaded, primarily because it cannot meet the criteria he experiences vicariously.
The mythoplasts are in on the joke.
They want the spectator to know that it’s all fake.
In this way the ideas, ideals, connected with the storyline are slandered. The Hollywood ending also offers a moral message: it accepts the ideals, belittles them and then presents a negative outcome for whomever might still remain inspired by it.

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



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:45 pm

Quote :

The experience is easy, and so the mind grows irrationally confident and begins to belittle all experiences which are then associated with this fake one.

No. Not irrationally confident. The mind can still distinguish between the "reality" on the screen and the real world.

Quote :

He sits there, watches a hero go through trials and tribulations, and he feels empowered, as if he were the hero.
The experience seems simple, easy, until he tries to replicate it.

No one tries to replicate it one by one. It's an impulse. A metaphysical impulse.

Quote :

Then the mind fails and belittles the second-hand experience as nonsense and fantasy. Now anything associated with the images or the terms used are considered a joke. The mind is jaded, primarily because it cannot meet the criteria he experiences vicariously.

No. That's a too pessimistic view.

Quote :

The mythoplasts are in on the joke.
They want the spectator to know that it’s all fake.
In this way the ideas, ideals, connected with the storyline are slandered. The Hollywood ending also offers a moral message: it accepts the ideals, belittles them and then presents a negative outcome for whomever might still remain inspired by it.

I don't understand this passage fully, but it's too pessimistic. The Matrix Trilogy never inspired me at all. I understand your cricism of the Hollywood Hannibal ending. The first Batman of the trilogy left me pretty unmoved. But the second and third are off the charts perfect. The second one, with the Joker, who turns the White Knight into a Dark Knight...
Batmans weakness is his compassion for the masses (growing up as an orphan he depended on the masses, so he feels like he is in karmic debt), so that's why the Catwoman is introduced in this latest movie, as someone who shows Batman that he is being altruistic and making a fool of himself for people who are not worth it. No happy ending there! Just more work to become whole. After all the action is over, Bruce Wayne has to face his demons. Merging with his shadow.

C.G. Jung - The Shadow
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13771
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:52 pm

Pessimistic?
Now that’s funny.

Batman is a Platonic figure.
He sacrifices self for the salvation of the many.
He returns from the desert a changed man.
He is moral, in the Christian sense of the word.

What is dark about him is that he knows it, like Jesus did, that he fights for those that will never understand or appreciate his pains.
He’s Socrates killing himself to make a point to the blind.
A tragic comedic figure…and the Joker laughs at him.
The audience is Batman’s redemption. They can appreciate his goodness and his suffering, like you do.
Through him they avenge themselves against those who are beyond good and evil, or at least beyond the Christian version of good, but also against those they remain moral and good towards but who can never appreciate it in them.
Batman is a Christian figure.

Jesus, too, had to “face his demons,” or THE Demon….his own Joker.
The Joker is a modernistic version of the Satyr

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



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:50 pm

And we all help you to become more of a Satyr on here, Apollo. At least I do. Open yourself up to the female side. The wisdom of nature. It's not all rationality like those New Atheists preach, but instincts. Perception on all levels. I love the Joker. He got me interested in the movies in the first place. I didn't come to "like" the Batman until the last movie, because now I see his journey. And the tragic comedy about it. (Plus the documentary you posted.)

You're Apollo, so your shadow is Dionysus and the Satyrs. (You've made your Avatar your goal. That's what I did too: Laconian.)
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:41 pm

Have you ever thought that there are way more Jokers out there, than Batmans or Jesuses or Socrateses. Whatever they call themselves: Christians, Atheists, whatever. All labels without meaning. Fucking fashions, lifestyles, no more. Pretentious peer pressure, mostly inherited. You know how you shouldn't listen to womens words, but look at their actions instead... The 2nd movie was so well received, because of the Joker. He's within all of us and way more in those, that deny him completely, than in those that are aware of his qualities. So you are a Jesus figure, a male hero, a tragic comedic ... sorry, I'm a little drunk. Cheers to you, Apollo! You are my hero! And I bet for many on here too. You are the rarity. And that is no Satyr. I know plenty of Satyrs and you're not one, like I am no Laconian, but a chatterbox. I'm drinking whiskey. Fuck normal people.



In an insane society the Joker in that movie was the sane one and Batman the villain for trying to stop him, that's why Batman couldn't kill him in the end. Couldn't do it, because he hadn't yet learnt his lesson from the Joker. So the Catwoman in the next part represents the same principle in a lighter fashion. More reachable and understandable for the Batman. "similia similibus curentur" (lat.) "Let similar things take care of similar things." She is more similar in her outlook with the Batman than the Joker was. So he may learn his lesson from her. She also looks hot, so he might get closer with her.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13771
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:56 pm

But of course there are more satyrs than Apollos out there.
This on-line persona is me being more of a Satyr than they are. It's a caricature of their normality.

Satyr is my mask.
My internet personae; my social personae.
In many ways it is contrary to my real self, or perhaps it is but a part of me; the part I express the most in public.

Maybe it is my Apollonian side which is being hidden.

Very few have managed to see that this persona is really the opposite of who I am in real life.
I never lie about my opinions but the way I express them and the character I am on-line, or was on other forums, is really an extreme side of me.
Here, in this forum, I am more myself.
This is why I’ve chosen a different avatar.



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

avatar

Gender : Male Aquarius Posts : 256
Join date : 2012-05-25
Age : 32
Location : East via West

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:43 am

Satyr wrote:
Originally the Greeks (and many other pagan tribes, I'm sure) worshipped no gods. They paid homage to their ancestors, offering them food and wine – pouring it over their graves – and from them they asked for guidance.

This is what I do.

If I pray and at times seek help and guidance it is not from some fantastic, supernatural;, projection of human nihilism, but from a known persona and figure in my own family.
In his image I see my entire past. When preying I ask for my past to come to the aid of my consciousness, which is struggling.
This past is me, since I am the result of it. So, in effect, I am digging into my psyche, connecting to my entire past through every cell in my body.

It is this concept which attracted me most to this forum.

I went through an "atheism" phase as a teenager. I'm so thankful Youtube didn't exist then or I would have been caught up in this internet "Skepticism" guru orgy. Richard Dawkins would have been my ersatz father figure. Shocked I've had a few arguments with friends who are only now reaching this phase. They worship the likes of James Randi, Christopher Hitchens, and Dawkins. It's been good exercise for me to talk with them, finding how to pick the right battles. Or if it's even worth it.

On my winter vacation I'll be visiting some old friends back in the States. If I were to explain to them this ancestral piety, my longing to connect with my past--and my despair that I may never find such "personas" as Satyr says--they would just joke that I have spent too much time in Asia. Think about how sad that is for the West. Americans in particular are actually PROUD of this. Germans as well, perhaps, Laconian?

Laconian wrote:
Quote:

"The experience is easy, and so the mind grows irrationally confident and begins to belittle all experiences which are then associated with this fake one."


No. Not irrationally confident. The mind can still distinguish between the "reality" on the screen and the real world.


Not the feminine or feminized mind. Not children's minds. Think about it; if you are correct here, then Hollywood would not have the power it has. Mass propaganda and advertising wouldn't be able to mold people's prejudices as well as they do. Women in particular, and of courses children, are the easiest to mold. Your mind may be able to discriminate, but you must remind yourself that most dumbfucks do not analyze the shit they let into their brains. They emerge from the cinema feeling enlightened and smug because they saw Morgan Freeman roll his eyes at his clueless white sidekick and say something quasi-profound. Considering I barely escaped this kind of life, I know how strong the movies are. Especially in America. Surely you get what I'm saying here?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Cold Weasel

avatar

Gender : Male Aquarius Posts : 256
Join date : 2012-05-25
Age : 32
Location : East via West

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:53 am

Maybe that's not really the point...Satyr says the viewer tries to replicate what he has seen on the screen, finds it too difficult, and then dismisses it all as useless fantasy. I would agree for many people this is the case. As a result the myth becomes like the transcendent God, like Yahweh...inaccessible. The viewer has a love/hate relationship with these myths of the modern hero like Batman, just as the Jew or Christian has a love/hate relationship with the God who remains hidden and irrelevant to their material lives. Jadedness, nihilism, etc., follow in the wake of this disillusionment perhaps. In a real Culture, the cinema would reflect the living traditions of the society.

For instance, in much Korean pop cinema the hero is a husband or wife who struggle to maintain their sanity against overwhelming odds and hold their family together. Keeping the family together is THE most important thing. I'm thinking of the movie "Yeongasi" in particular. I imagine a family man saying to himself: "If I were in this situation, I would have to do that. Or I would die trying." And I believe he really would. No nonsense about saving "humanity." You save your family. That's what you exist for.

Such heroism would not even make sense in modern urban America. I defy any Hollywood team to produce such a thing, using the majority white population as its template.

Not to sharply compare and contrast as if Korea is a "real" culture and the Anglosphere is not. But the family-centeredness is a stark difference. Asian culture has not been infected so deeply with the Judeo-Christian virus.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13771
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:09 am

Yes...the movie presents the viewer with a caricature.
The writer, director winks at the audience, letting him know that he is in on the fallacy. He knows the movie is a fantasy and that the audience shares in this knowledge.

The imagery is so fantastic, even if the ideas and ideals are more real than the world outside the theater.
It is now forever connected with the movie. The average movie watcher is introduced to certain ideas only through these mass media pop-cultural mediums.
The idea(l) is now ridiculous, even if for those two hours it absorbed him.

Some do connect on a more visceral level, but are now ensconced by the images and the methods used to introduce these ideas and ideals to him.
These ideas speak to him, but they are forever connected with the medium through which it was made tangible to him.

Does anyone think that the system would allow, promote, and disseminate material that challenges its premises?
Who funds these productions?
Who writes them?
Why are they all “happy endings” or moral stories of good versus bad?
Why do they all share the same premises even if they momentarily entertain some challenging ideas?
Why are these ideas immersed in fantastic violence and brutality and action?

The one who know “know” that certain ideas are out there, and that certain minds are more sophisticated to fall for the usual materialism hedonistic propaganda crap.
Repressing it would pressurize these ideas and make them explosive.

This is the modern sophistication of mass population control or human husbandry at work.
No authoritarianism, violence, required because this only makes things worse in the long run. The first stage is indoctrination, from a young age.
Then the minds institutionalization within principles and premises it cannot think outside.
The few who get away are then placated using these last methods.

They feed the dissatisfaction, the blooming awareness, then leading it back to the original premises.
Certain ideas are never challenged: equality, the notion of one humanity, rights, deserving or entitlement, the absolute (good/evil, bad/good, friend/foe).
The mind is mesmerized by the images of ideals he feels in his own self or has come into contact with through other sources (books, alternative culture, underground sharing, peers, and most often family, particularly the father etc.)
They cannot repress this. They deal with it with these methods.
They feed into them, turn them into consumer goods, symbolisms, and then lead them back to the status quo by insinuating the common morays into the storyline.
There’s almost always also a hint of a threat. The one representing the unwanted ideal suffers some great tragedy in the film, or the book.
The herd exacts tis vengeance upon al that do not fall into line.


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

avatar

Gender : Male Aquarius Posts : 256
Join date : 2012-05-25
Age : 32
Location : East via West

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:27 am

Satyr wrote:
The first stage is indoctrination, from a young age.
Then the minds institutionalization within principles and premises it cannot think outside.
The few who get away are then placated using these last methods.

They feed the dissatisfaction, the blooming awareness, then leading it back to the original premises.

I think of the villains in Dark Knight Rises. Ra's al Ghul represents the return of Traditionalism in a Dark Age. It was impossible for me to watch this movie and not see the connection. They think Gotham, the modern megalopolis, is wretched and pitiful, let's just push it over. Let it burn and start all over again. They even cynically exploit the proletarian mass, telling them to take over the city, because they know this will turn the place upside down and destroy it.

But HEY! HERE COMES BATMAN to reassure us all that No, no no no no no......HUMANITY IS WORTH SAVING!!! They took it to such an extreme that he detonates a fucking atom bomb. And somehow survives. For what? As I sat in the theatre I couldn't imagine how anyone wouldn't want Bane to have his way. But then again I'm not an urbanite and have always felt a disconnect from the cultural centers of the U.S. (That's a strength we midwesterners and southerners have.)

Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents said somewhere that he has gotten orders for titles by Savitri Devi et al, from Hollywood screenwriters. You are always being watched.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 983
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 26
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:22 pm

Satyr wrote:

The imagery is so fantastic, even if the ideas and ideals are more real than the world outside the theater.
It is now forever connected with the movie. The average movie watcher is introduced to certain ideas only through these mass media pop-cultural mediums.
The idea(l) is now ridiculous, even if for those two hours it absorbed him.

Some do connect on a more visceral level, but are now ensconced by the images and the methods used to introduce these ideas and ideals to him.
These ideas speak to him, but they are forever connected with the medium through which it was made tangible to him.

I've experienced this with ideas presented here as well, mostly through video games. Just by an idea being presented through a video game, it automatically makes it 'unreal' because of the medium it was presented in. The closest the average white male in the USA has contact with cruelty now is through video games where they vent their masculine energy. Remaining children, they wouldn't see the difference between the virtual world and the real world. Just like a boy is scared by the thought of boogiemen in their closets. They're told a story and imagine it as real. Ideas become real to them.

Any form of media is then equated to this - it would be considered laughably immature to fear (respect and thus take seriously) any message presented from a source that isn't socially accepted as being trustworthy. Your only options to take seriously are news TV stations and government approved books (college, high school, etc.) Anything else is considered unreliable, including your own senses, instincts and rationality.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13771
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:59 pm

This is an insidious method of mind manipulation.
You make the real seem unreal and the unreal real.

This is what Nihilism does.
It turns the world on its head.

It’s also a way of expunging pre-existing natural inclinations.
You set up an artificial world within which the participants can react naturally.
This feels pleasing to them.
But by associating it to medium and artificial avenues you discredit it.

Meanwhile outside this medium you establish an artificial reality where all are equal, deserving, protected, certain…safe.
In other words you set-up a false reality. It is obvious that the seductiveness of the latter exceeds the pleasure of self-expression in the first.
The path-of-least-resistance is used here to exploit a basic, natural, organic tendency to minimize costs and to be attracted to any semblance of order, and its parameters of certainty, predictability, safety.
The mind, being a product of more severe, austere, circumstances, is naturally attracted to safety, order predictability, abundance….just as it is inclined towards sugars and salts and fats, because it evolved in environments where these ingredients are rare, or, at least, not as easily accessible.

This makes it easily manipulated by the easy answer, the comfortable outcome, the least resistant.
Watch predators, what do they hunt?
The strongest, fastest, biggest, in relation to them….or the weakest, the slowest, the most vulnerable?
This is the tendency towards the path-of-least-resistance on display.
In inanimate reality this is exemplified by the vacuum. Actions always occurs towards the weakest point.
Air flows towards a vacuum; water flows downward and always through the weakest points in matter.

This is also why flow is characterized as a towards chaos….or a towards the void.
Will, guided by awareness interested in preserving and increasing order is the only thing which can go against this trend, this natural, feminine, tendency.
Only the Will can choose the path-of-most-resistance. It evolves to do this, of course, so as to gain an advantage over others.
This Will is the masculine drive.

The manipulation of this natural tendency for ease and comfort, is what underlies nihilism and the modern methodology of population control.

This is why in many of my posts I use the analogy of a river flowing down a mountain side, to describe what is occurring.
No conspiracies required. Man does not create the circumstances or natural processes. Man simply finds them, understands some aspects of their qualities, and tries to manipulate them to his advantage.
Therefore no grand scheme is necessary.
When a man creates electricity he does not invent this energy nor the liquid that he exploits to bring it about. He simply analyzes, understands, to some degree, and then manipulates, redirects, represses and releases…this is how man using dams and turbines and magnets and water and slopes and gravity can produce electricity.

Therefore man does not invent sexual differences or racial differences, he exploits them: repressing or releasing them at will, in accordance with his desirable outcome.
Those that imagine a human hand behind every natural event, like earthquakes or floods, or meteorites, are weaklings wanting an easy answer for a phenomenon that they cannot fully comprehend or come to terms with its unpredictability.
This need for certainty, even if it is one rooted in “evil,” is a by-product of this desire, this attraction to the path-of-least-resistance.
God is a perfect example of this…but amongst the secular kind He is sometimes replaced by rationalism or conspiracies that want to imagine a human hand behind every damn natural occurrence….this is a metaphor for wanting to think that there is an order, a meaning, a purpose, a reason, a Will, an ordering, behind every random event.
And what is another term for ”random”?
Yes…chaos.

The weakling unable to create and to be content with whatever level of order he can create must find it in otherness. This is the slave morality, the slave, herd, tendency in all its glory.
The uncertainty, the unpredictability, the chaos of existence must be remedies with fantasies about a Will, whether a God or a Human, lying behind and beneath and above it all.

But let me be clear, I am not saying that there are not men, groups, manipulating or trying to, processes and phenomena…but only that they do so with phenomena that already exist naturally.
Men did, indeed, invent marriage and monogamy but they did so by studying species who were monogamous by nature and by imposing a manmade ideal, morality, to impose a restriction of human nature…which they then denied as being real.
They did invent culture which resulted in symbols and traditions in dress code and spirituality and gender roles…but they did not invent the sexual types which were integrated within these gender roles.

It is nihilism, modernity, which attempts to discredit sexual types and racial types by convincing others – who are more than willing to be convinced – and themselves that all these natural categories are human constructs…when it is the elimination of them which is now becoming the prevailing, desirable, preferable, human construct.

They are not trying to redirect a naturally occurring phenomenon, give it a new symbolization, meaning, purpose, they are trying to eliminate it altogether.
This is what nihilism is.

They are not trying to convince all that the river should be taken this way, or that it should be exploited in that way, but that the river is a human fantasy…it does not actually exist.
In this case you do not need armed prison guards outside huge prison complexes, violence, authoritarianism….you’ve imprisoned the mind within cells it then upkeeps and remains within willfully.
Using peer pressure, morality, fear…indoctrination/institutionalization, you make of the individual his own prison guard. He restricts himself and punishes himself for breaking the rules.

Prisons and violence are used as a second level control for those that did not fully take to the training.

A basic element of institutionalization is that the ones exposed to it become enamoured with it. The regimentation, routines, ORDER, makes them feel safer than in a world of unpredictability.
This is order imposed and maintained from without….a submission to otherness, as an effect of this path-of-least-resistance.

Imagine…What makes infants and adolescents fearless?
The absence of experience with the world itself; the parent, the authority, stands in the way, blocking any negati8ve repercussions to their thoughtless curiosity.
This is a necessary part of development, but one men manipulate for their own reasons.
Maturation means stepping out of the parental protective shadow…no longer to play, blissfully, but to take care and to survive.
But it is easier to remain a child…it is seductive. This is why we worship youth in our time. It is like worshiping inexperience, naiveté, unfocused activity, stupidity…which we do.

This is how modernity becomes attractive to the average moron.
It is easy; it exploits his fears and preferences, and directs them; it knows human nature so as to dismiss it, from being knowable.

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



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:19 pm

Good movies all deal in the grey areas. There is a cult around the Joker and Anakin Skywalker, just as around the Batman and the Jedis.

I learnt the most from movies, more than in school. I learnt that life isn't black or white, like the idea I was presented with in school. In movies I see other people struggle in similar ways than I do and I therefor am better capable to manage my own life, seeing them succeed one way or the other.

Samuel Hahnemann used the phrase: "Similia similibus curentur" (like cures like). It's a universal principle. You have to find the medicine that is the most similar (!) to your "disease", not different or the opposite. To find the cure you have to find the similar. (Homeopathy) For example if I am feeling depressed: I don't watch a funny movie. Because it would be a medicine that is opposite to my "disease": depression. So it wouldn't help to cure me. No, I have to find a movie that is sad too. This way I can get cured. The very good movies contain a lot of medicine and thereby cure from all kinds of "disease". The most common "disease" of modernity being: lack of finding meaning or purpose in life, for a lack of role models.

If I am angry, I watch an angry movie. If I am happy, I watch a happy movie. It's all to get back into balance. Which is ultimately the state of health and wellbeing.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:14 pm

Satyr wrote:

In my mind Paganism is the absence of A God.

I consider myself a Pagan. And I do use the term "God". I even at times pray to "god". It just doesn't have anything to do with biblical stories. I pray to the whole cosmos. Nature as a whole. For me the term god is representative for this whole. I wouldn't know of any other suitable term. It comes naturally. So I don't imagine a deity there. I just go with the flow. Todays Paganism has become a fashion label (like everything else also) saying:" We are not Christians". But how better to SHOW you're not Christian, than to not constantly mention Christianity and how uniquely different you are from them as a Pagan. This is the path I am going with my Paganism.

Quote :

It worships nature, which is a vague reference to the processes (forces, conditions) that participate in existence or, more precisely, in the emergence of an ability to perceive (sensation, consciousness) existence.
In Paganism there is no overruling authority, for all are part of the same entropic decay.

I agree.

Quote :

Originally the Greeks (and many other pagan tribes, I'm sure) worshipped no gods. They paid homage to their ancestors, offering them food and wine – pouring it over their graves – and from them they asked for guidance.

Do you have any sources for that? That sounds really interesting. You also mentioned somewhere else, that the gods of ancient Greece actually came later and there was earlier Paganism.

You linked Paganism somewhere else heavily to Not-Knowing, so agnosis, which is close to scepticism. This might be a point where I'd disagree with you. Not claiming that I know, but the ancient Pagans knew a lot about nature and its processes and forces. And applied this knowledge too.

Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13771
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:02 pm

Spoiler:
 

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



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:18 am

The first thing that comes to my mind is that the hearth was replaced by the TV screen in the second half of the 20th Century and has been replaced by lots and lots of Computerscreens and Smart Phones and the like in the 21st Century. Even family members cannot focus on one another anymore, the way they did before these new technologies.

If the families were still at the center (the basis) of politics and the state, we would't face the problems we face today, with out of control statism and markets. Todays religion is worship of money and work. Youth. The future. Progress. And the anti-nature god and otherworldly fantastic unorganic beliefs in a soul and paradies.

Just looking over a text like this: I feel its moral weight. And I feel like a featherweight compared to that. Like a liberal. This ancient time is gone for good. What of it is still manageable for our time? How do we get the out of control women back on track?, seems the most urgent question to me.

Drop out like the MGTOW (men going their own way)? Become cynics (or manwhores) like the playas? Try to change female nature like the MRAs?

I'd say to be really discriminatory in the own choice of women. Work with those that you get into contact with. (To even get into contact and them interested, do something to get in shape, to look a little more like an Apollo statue. Don't spoil them with money or presents. But show them an incentive on your side, that they possible might reach. Your own wealth is good enough. Don't share it with her.). And try to get them on track as best as possible. But don't waste time on the completely brainwashed ones, you cannot reach. Like cures like. Find someone like you. Tell women how to improve. Modernity is completely upside down. Sex was made into something women have and men want. (Peter Sloterdijk) In reality -and I believe this corresponds with the ancient greeks- the male is the truly aesthetic ideal of beauty. Not the woman. I think we should instruct women more on what they could do to please us. They are completely lost. The media kind of makes them narcissists... of course they have the potential in them. I've always seen myself as a teacher of women. Men should be teachers of women. Until they are married, then the husband should be her only teacher. My last experience was with the Buddhists. But I was lost there, because they were modern. So their ideals didn't match mine. That's a waste of time then. Even though I reached some women there, the indoctrination by the Lama(s) was too strong. They were the alphas and I was just supposed to be another follower.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:34 am

I think we should instruct women more on what they could do to please us. They are completely lost.

I personally don't care about those women or men who are lost. The more I have contact with people, and learn what they are about, the less I care. Every experience teaches me that I have to take care of my self above all. I don't dream about any Utopias.

As long as I get through this world on my own, I could care less.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:20 am

I don't know how you found this forum. In Spring/Summer this year Satyr made some youtube vids discussing different subjects, including the differences of the sexes. That's how I found him. He replied to and adressed some of the MRA (mens rights activists) directly in his vids and wrote in some of their comment sections. That caught my attention. (You find a link to his vids on this forum, someone saved them after they were flagged. youtube.com/user/stickysound)

We've witnessed with the rise of Feminism in the 70th up till now a breaking up of the family structure. The idea was to integrate women into the workforce, to get them to pay taxes too. This vid here explains it really good:



Since a few years or so there has been a growing counter movement. This MRA or MRM (mens rights movement). There are some youtubers who talk about it.

That's the background of me talking about this subject.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13771
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:44 am

Family stands in the way of total and more effective assimilation within heterogeneous systems.

The male was the representation of the bloodline's, the family's past. Since the past is what identity is (we are the sum of our past) to be detached from it is akin to losing your identity, your sense of self.
Once this is achieved the child is ready to be integrated into the system's principles and identifications.
This is what Modernity is.
To be modern is to identify and to find self in the immediate, the common, the most current, the fashionable: materialism, hedonism.

This "living in the moment,” this trained forgetfulness is what amounts to be an animal.
The lesser species lack a sense of self because they have little knowledge, memory, of their past, and cannot project into the future, as man can.
This is a form of retardation.

Memory is what genius is.
Timelessness…living with expanded event-horizons and not being immersed in the immediate.

This is why dumbing-down is what we call this state of affairs.

A child being detached from its own past is vulnerable to any “current” and currency.
It has nothing to ground itself with. It has no place to draw stability, guidance, strength, validation from…other than from the immediate.

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



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:29 pm

What I notice though (being 32 years old), is that a lot of people of my generation have way more family spririt than their parents do. That is over here. So it is not a thing the "younger" are mainly "guilty" of. It is a current that started here with the post WWII generation already. And the younger ones today are either real cynics with a tendency for violence, or they are overly pragmatic, or tend to be autists for knowing "too much", but in general they favor family more than their parents do, who still profited from statism and the economic boom of the 50ties, 60ties, 70ties, 80ties and even early 90ties in Germany. So todays youth depends on family for support, way more than their parents did. The experiment with the state taking care of everything is crumbling and even failing in more and more parts of Europe. And with my parents generation, that still employs lots of the dinosaur media to get their news of the state of the world, they don't get the big picture. Frankly speaking they are dumb. Todays younger generation is in many ways smarter than the older generation. My grandmother, who is almost 100 years old now, still has more family spirit than my parents. Lots more. It's from her that I know most about "my" past that was before me on that side of the family. But she is of course totally lost to the mainstream medias soothing message: that everything is alright. My parents kind of know what is going on, having been exposed to at least some internet news, but they push it as far away from them as they can and too worship the Mainstream, because it is more pleasant. People today live to work, and not the other way round (work to live). The workplace has become a replacement family. In my old job, our bosses were behind their backs even quite openly called "Mom" and "Dad" (they probably overheard it too and didn't object). This was meant as a joke of course, but it had more truth to it, than would have been admitted. When Angela "Angie" Merkel (our Chancellor) was at the "Wiener Opernball" (Vienna Opera Ball) a couple of years back, she showed her cleavage in a dress. Before that she was always made fun of for looking kind of masculine and unattractive, but with that event she became "the mother of the nation". We got the term "Doktorvater" in German, which means doctoral adviser (acad.) at the University, but has in its German form, the word "father" (Vater) in it. Then we got the "alma mater", which has mother ("mater") in it. "Mater" of course being related to the term "mater-ialism". Then we have the term "Vater Staat" ("father state"), which is synonymous to in american english: "Uncle Sam". (There it is "Uncle"). So even in our language, the state and its orans do take over the biological families function. Family has lost all meaning. In Judeo-Christianity family of course is slandered as well. Not only are you supposed to follow Jesus and leave your family behind, but you should love the god more than your biological parents. Jesus even proclaimed to bring the sword and split a father from his son, a mother from her daughter and so on. I don't exactly know what the Koran says on the subject of family, but it's of course rooted in Judeo-Christianity, so it can't be much better. In Germany our government issued identity cards are called "Personalausweis" which translates to "staff-" or "personnel-card", indicating you are employed with the state. Citizens are called "Bürger", which is also synonymous for "somebody who vouches for another", so here the citizens vouch for the state.

For more info here:

Germany is a fraud
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:37 am

I believe in Darwinism myself (the "origin of man" part of it).

But the "survival of the fittest"- rhetoric has become kind of the backbone of this system. No cooperation, everyone against everybody else. So I want to offer a criticism of this part of Darwinism, which is also used by Libertarians.

I therefor cite a thinker of the "New Right" Francis Parker Yockey ("Imperium", from the year 1948, starting page 68). The link to the pdf can be found on Satyrs blog. I think it is good to read this without prejudices, since the masses have had a lot of indoctrination by the "New Atheists" (Dawkins) on this subject. I think it is interesting at least to read a different viewpoint with an open mind:

"[...]
The basic idea of Darwinism — evolution — is as little novel as the
particular theories of the system. Evolution is the great central idea of the
philosophy of the 19th century. It dominates every leading thinker and
every system: Schopenhauer, Proudhon, Marx, Wagner, Nietzsche, Mill,
Ibsen, Shaw. These thinkers differ in their explanation of the purpose and
technique of evolution; none of them question the central idea itself. With
some of them it is organic, with most purely mechanical.
Darwin’s system has two aspects, of which only one is treated here,
for only one was effective. This was Darwinism as a popular philosophy.
As a scientific arrangement it had considerable qualifications, and no one paid
any attention to these when converting it to a journalistic world-outlook.
As the latter, it had a sweeping vogue, and was effective as a part of the
world-picture of the age.
The system shows its provenance as a product of the Age of Criticism
in its teleological assumptions. Evolution has purpose — the purpose of
producing man, civilized man, English man — in the last analysis,
Darwinians. It is anthropomorphic — the “aim of evolution” is not to
produce bacilli, but humanity. It is free trade capitalism, in that this struggle
is economic, every man for himself, and competition decides which lifeforms
are best. It is gradual and parliamentary, for continual “progress” and
adaptation, exclude revolutions and catastrophes. It is utilitarian, in that
every change in a species is one that has a material use. The human soul
itself — known as the “brain” in the 19th century — is only a tool by which
a certain type of monkey advanced himself to man ahead of his fellowmonkeys.
Teleology again: man became man in order that he might be man.
It is orderly; natural selection proceeds according to the rules of artificial
breeding in practice on English farms.

II
As a world view, Darwinism cannot of course be refuted, since Faith
is, always has been, and always will be, stronger than facts. Nor is it
important to refute it as a picture of the world, since as such it no longer
influences any but day-before-yesterday thinkers. However, as a picture of
the facts, it is grotesque, from its first assumptions to its last conclusions.
In the first place, there is no “Struggle for existence” in nature; this
old Malthusian idea merely projected Capitalism on to the animal world.
Such struggles for existence as do occur are the exception; the rule in Nature
is abundance. There are plenty of plants for the herbivores to eat, and there
are plenty of herbivores for the carnivores
to eat. Between the latter there can hardly be said to be “struggle,” since
only the carnivore is spiritually equipped for war. A lion making a meal of a
zebra portrays no “struggle” between two species, unless one is determined
so to regard it. Even so, he must concede that it is not physically,
mechanically, necessary for the carnivores to kill other animals. They could
as well eat plants — it is the demand of their animal souls however to live in
this fashion, and thus, even if one were to call their lives struggles, it would
not be imposed by “Nature” but by the soul. It becomes thus, not a “struggle
for existence,” but a spiritual necessity of being one’s self.
The capitalistic mentality, engaged in a competition to get rich, quite
naturally pictured the animal-world also as engaged in an intensive
economic contest. Both Malthusianism and Darwinism are thus capitalistic
outlooks, in that they place economics in the center of Life, and regard it as
the meaning of Life. Natural selection was the name given to the process by which the
“unfit” died out to give place to the “fit.” Adaptation was the name given to
the process by which a species gradually changed in order to be more fit for
the struggle. Heredity was the means by which these adaptations were saved
for the species. As a factual picture, this is easier to refute than it is to prove, and
factual biological thinkers, both Mechanists and Vitalists, like Louis
Agassiz, Du Bois-Reymond, Reinke, and Driesch rejected it from its
appearance. The easiest refutation is the palaeontological. Fossil deposits
— found in various parts of the earth — must represent the possibilities
generally. Yet they disclose only stable specie-forms, and disclose no transitional types,
which show a species “evolving” into something else. And then, in a new fossil hoard, a
new species appears, in its definitive form, which remains stable. The
species that we know today, and for past centuries, are all stable, and no case
has ever been observed of a species “adapting” itself to change its anatomy
or physiology, which “adaptation” then resulted in more “fitness” for the
“struggle for existence,” and was passed on by heredity, with the result of a
new species.
Darwinians cannot get over these facts by bringing in great spaces of
time, for palaeontology has never discovered any intermediate types, but
only distinct species. Nor are the fossil animals which have died out any
simpler than present-day forms, although the course of evolution was
supposed to be from simple to complex Life-forms. This was crude
anthropomorphism — man is complex, other animals are simple, they must
be tending toward him, since he is “higher” biologically.
Calling Culture-man a “higher” animal still treats him as an animal.
Culture-man is a different world spiritually from all animals, and is not to be
understood by referring him to any artificial materialistic scheme.
If this picture of the facts were correct, species ought to be fluid at the
present time. They should be turning into one another. This is, of course,
not so. There should actually be no species, but only a surging mass of
individuals, engaged in a race to reach — man. But the “struggle,” again, is
quite inconclusive. The “lower” forms, simpler — less fit? — have not died
out, have not yielded to the principle of Darwinian evolution. They remain
in the same form they have had for — as the Darwinians would say —
millions of years. Why do they not “evolve” into something “higher”?
The Darwinian analogy between artificial selection and natural
selection is also in opposition to the facts. The products of artificial
selection such as barnyard fowls, racing dogs, race horses, ornamental cats,
and song-canaries, would certainly be at a disadvantage against natural
varieties. Thus artificial selection has only been able to produce less fit lifeforms.
Nor is Darwinian sexual selection in accordance with facts. The
female does not by any means always choose the finest and strongest
individual for a mate, in the human species, or in any other.
The utilitarian aspect of the picture is also quite subjective — i.e.,
English, capitalistic, parliamentarian — for the utility of an organ is relative
to the use sought to be made of it. A species without hands has no need of
hands. A hand that slowly evolved would be a positive disadvantage over
the “millions of years” necessary to perfect the hand. Furthermore, how did
this process start? For an organ to be utile, it must be ready; while it is
being prepared, it is inutile. But if it is inutile, it is not Darwinian, for
Darwinism says evolution is utilitarian.
Actually all the technics of Darwinian evolution are simply
tautological. Thus, within the species it is individuals which have a
predisposition to adapt themselves that do so. Adaptation presupposes
adaptation.
The process of selection affects those specimens with definite
aptitudes which make them worthy of selection, in other words, they have
already been selected. Selection presupposes selection.
The problem of descent in the Darwinian picture is treated as finding
the interrelations of the species. Having assumed their interrelationship, it
then finds they are interrelated, and proves the interrelationship thus.
Descent presupposes descent.
The utility of an organ is a way of saying it works for this species.
Utility thus presupposes the existence of the very species which has the
organ, but lacking that organ. The facts however, have never
shown a species to pick up a certain missing organ, which
seemed necessary. A Life-form needs a certain organ because it needs it.
The organ is utile because it is utile.
The naive, tautological, doctrine of utility never asked “Utility for
what?” That which serves duration might not serve strength. Utility is not a
simple thing, but entirely relative to what already exists. Thus it is the inner
demands of a life-form which determine what it would like to have, what
would be useful to it. The soul of the lion and his power go together. The
hand of man and his brain go together. No one can say that the strength of
the lion causes him to live the way he does, nor that the hand of man is
responsible for his technical achievements. It is the soul in each case which
is primary.
This primacy of the spiritual inverts the Darwinian materialism on the
doctrine of utility. A lack can be utile: the lack of one sense develops
others; physical weakness develops intelligence. In man and in animals
alike, the absence of one organ stimulates others to compensatory activity —
this is often observed in endocrinology in particular.

III

The whole grotesquerie of Darwinism, and of the materialism of the
entire 19th century generally, is a product of one fundamental idea — an
idea which happens also to be nonfactual to this century, even though it was
a prime fact a century ago. This one idea was that Life is formed by the
outer. This generated the sociology of “environment” as determining the
human soul. Later it generated the doctrine of “heredity” as doing the same.
And yet, in a purely factual sense, what is Life? Life is the actualizing of
the possible. The possible turns into the actual in the midst of outer facts,
which affect only the precise way in which the possible becomes actual, but
cannot touch the inner forcewhich is expressing itself through, and, if necessary,
in opposition to, the outer facts. Neither “heredity” nor “environment” determine
these inner possibilities. They affect only the framework within which something
entirely new, an individual, a unique soul, will express itself.
The word evolution describes to the 20th century the process of the
ripening and fulfilling of an organism or of a species. This process is not at
all the operation of mechanical-utility “causes” on plastic, formless,
protoplasmic material, with purely accidental results. His work with plants
led de Vries to develop his Mutation theory of the origin of species, and the
facts of palaeontology reinforce it to the extent of showing the sudden
appearance of new species. The 20th century finds it quite unnecessary to
formulate mythologies, either in cosmogony or biology. Origins are forever
hidden from us, and a historical viewpoint is interested in the development of
the process, not in the mysterious beginning of the process. This beginning,
as set forth by scientific mythology, and by religious mythology, has only an
historical interest to our age. What we note is that once these world-pictures
were actual and living.
What is the actual History of Life, as this age sees it? Various species
of Life exist, ranked, according to increasing spiritual content, from plants
and animals, through man, to Culture-man, and High Cultures. Some of the
varieties, as shown by fossils, existed in former earth-ages in their present
form, while other species appeared and disappeared.
A species appears suddenly, both in fossil-finds, and in the
experimental laboratory. Mutation is a legitimate description of the process,
if the idea is free from any mechanical-utility causes, for these latter are only
imagined, whereas mutations

are a fact. Each species has also a Destiny, and a given Life-energy, so to
speak. Some are stable and firm; others have been weak, tending to split off
into many different varieties, and lose their unity. They have also a life
span, for many have disappeared. This whole process is not at all
independent of geological ages, nor of astral phenomena. Some species,
however, outlast one earth-age into the next, just as some 19th century
thinkers have survived into the 20th century.
Darwinians offered also an explanation of the metaphysics of their
evolution. Roux, for instance, holds that the “fit for the purpose” survive,
while the “unfit for the purpose” die. The process is purely mechanical,
however, and is thus fitness for purpose without purpose. Nägeli taught that
an organism perfects itself because it contains within it the “principle of
perfection,” just as Moliere’s doctor explained that the sleeping potion
worked because of a dormitive virtue inherent in it. Weismann denied the
heredity of acquired characteristics, but instead of using it to destroy
Darwinism, as it obviously does — if every individual has to start anew,
how can the species “evolve”? — he props up the Darwinian picture with it
by saying that the germ-plasm contains latent tendencies toward useful
qualities. But this is no longer Darwinism, for the species does not evolve if
it is only doing what it tends to do.
These tautological explanations only convinced people because they
believed already. The age was evolutionary, and materialistic. Darwinism
combined these two qualities into a biologico-religious doctrine which
satisfied the capitalistic imperative of that age. Any experiments, any new
facts, only proved Darwinism; they would not have been allowed to do
otherwise.
The 20th century does not see Life as an accident, a playground for
external causes. It sees the fact that Life-forms begin

suddenly, and that the subsequent development, or evolution, is only the
actualizing of that which is already possible. Life is the unfolding of a Soul,
an individuality. Whatever explanation one gives of how Life started only
reveals the structure of his own soul. A materialistic explanation reveals a
materialist. Similarly the imputing of any “purpose” to Life as a whole
transcends knowledge and enters the realm of Faith. Life as a whole, each
great Life-form, each species, each variety, each individual, has however a
Destiny, an inner direction, a wordless imperative. This Destiny is the
primary fact of History. History is the record of fulfilled (or thwarted)
destinies.
Any attempt to make man into an animal, and the animals into
automata, is merely materialism, and thus a product of a certain type of soul,
of a certain age. The 20th century is not such an age, and looks upon the
inner reality of the human soul as being the determinant of human history,
and the inner reality of the Soul of the High Culture as being the determinant
of the history of that Culture. The soul exploits outer circumstances — they
do not form it.
Nor does the 20th century, not being capitalistic, see any struggle for
existence going on in the world, either of men or animals. It sees a struggle
for power, a struggle that has no connection with cheap economic reasons.
It is a struggle for domination of the world that the 20th and 21st centuries
see. It is not because there is a shortage of food for the human populations
of the world — there is plenty of food. The question is power, and in the
decision of that question, food, human lives, material, and everything else
that the participants can dispose of, will come into play as weapons, and not
as stakes. Nor will it ever be decided, in the sense that a lawsuit can be
decided. Readers living in 2050 will smile when told that there was once a
rather widespread belief in the Western Civilization that the First World War
was the “last war.” The Second World War was also so
regarded, all during the preparations for the Third. It was a case of wishthinking
pacifist idealism being stronger than facts.
Darwinism was the animalization of Culture-man by means of
biology; the human soul was interpreted as a mere superior technique of
fighting with other animals. We come now to Marxism, the animalization of
man through economics, the human soul as a mere reflex of food, clothing
and shelter."
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:00 am

The marxist roots of Libertarianism:

It was Karl Marx, who invented the "homo economicus". (Man as "worker bee", "human resource", "productive unit", "to be a small cog in a big wheel / machine".)
______________

Survival of the fittest (often called: natural selection, which is the better term) is a simplification af Darwinism and misleading. As if physical strength was most significant. People survive in their niche & have been doing so, for centuries. One observation I made is that physical beauty can be detrimental to survival. See the movies "Zorba the Greek" and "Malena". But also the "witches" of the middle ages were often the beautiful women, whose beauty was called "magic" by the religious fundamentalist masses & the church. But I too was good looking in my late youth (and beyond until I got increasingly overweight. Maybe partly to adapt. I now realize some of this as I am on a diet and have lost some extra pounds already). From the age 17-20, the guys in my school class all wanted to have me around, but not as a friend, but on a distance as a trophy. They feared for their girlfriends. So I was an outsider really, alone with everybody. Besides maybe 2-3 male friends. (And one or more girlfriends all the time.) These male friends were very confident masculine. And that's not avarage. It is a form of outsider too. In the movies "Zorba the Greek" and "Malena" these women would have survived (better) in a bigger city of course. But in their small communities, they were regarded as a threat to the harmony. And they were cast out or even harmed or killed.

Just an observation: Darwinism applied to mankind. Evolutionary Psychology is more complicated today. See today how beauty is exploited and treated. Especially eastern european young women. Girls of merely 20 years for nude pics and porn productions, prostitution as shown in the movie "Lilja 4 Ever".

[The movies mentioned above are all artsy and not pop-culture.]
___________

The spiritual decline in the west cannot be stopped by mere intellectualism, though it may help. The intellectual atheists are easy prey to resentment. They have no source of identity. They have merely understood the flaws of the fiat money system. But this is only one part. It is one tool to break peoples spirits. But there is a whole set of other ways to break mans spirit in modernity, that Libertarianism alone does not account for. That's why I am closer to the ideas of the "New Right", even if they sometimes refer to a "heavenly father", who from my perspective is but a symbol for the "One", "Unity", like I explained in my "Esotericism 101" topic. Every attribute you attach to this "Oneness" is manmade. Spiritual groups (of eastern, esoteric, gnostic, or new age kinds) are increasingly replacing the dogmatic religions today. Their lure is that they claim to offer tools for man to experience this "Oneness", by meditation of various methods or simply by the transmission through an enlightened master/guru. I've experienced some of this myself.

The "oneness" is only logical. Where there is polarity, there has to be unity. Where there is black, there has to be white, to perceive it as black and so on. The unity (god) is always present, but cannot be experienced. Maybe "felt" to some degree. Experienced.

The above mentioned "spiritual groups" are not elitist enough and therefor all fall and become cults of mere guru-worship and like dogmatic religions themselves.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13771
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:33 pm

In Zorba the Greek the beautiful village woman is stoned because in mediocrity the exceptional is despised.

_________________
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: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 pm

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

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

[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
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:52 pm

Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:31 pm

"The dominant moral system in the West is liberal morality. To understand this system we need to understand the structure of liberalism.

In liberalism, the historical subject is the individual. The individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to “liberate” the individual from anything that is external or transcendent to him, such as faith, tradition, and authority. The transcendent implies hierarchy: subordination of the individual to something higher. Absent this higher something, one is left only with the individual, and without faith, tradition, or higher authority, an individual becomes like any other individual. Thus, equality.

When individuals are equal, they have an equal claim to a slice of the pie. Thus the ideal type of government becomes democracy, in its most radical form. Concurrently, where there is equality, what applies to one individual applies to all equally, everywhere and always. This means universalism.

The abandonment of the transcendent leads to a worldview that is entirely secular, rational, and material. The way to happiness then becomes material increase, pursued by rational means. This results in production, consumption, and economics. It becomes necessary to produce and to find ways to maximize production. Individualism, equality, democracy, universalism, secularism, rationalism, materialism, and economism constitute the foundations of liberal morality.

Not all of these values have equal importance. Two of them—liberty and equality—are privileged above the others, and have produced two strands of liberalism in modern times. The strand that favors equality incorporates the Marxist critiques of liberalism formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries; this is the dominant strand of liberalism today.

The strand that favors liberty is closer to Classical Liberalism, and its purest expression is libertarianism; this represents an important oppositional view within liberalism. It is important to note, however, that both strands regard equality as an absolute moral good. In liberalism, in both its dominant form and its main oppositional form, the moral goodness of equality is taken for granted and stands beyond discussion or criticism. Liberal morality considers the questioning of the goodness of equality a serious moral defect.

Liberal morality therefore deems race realism an evil because race realism asserts the essential inequality of man. In this way liberal morality puts race realism outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and race realists outside the realm of civilized society."
[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
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:32 pm

"Aggression
Some libertarians, including Murray Rothbard and Walter Block, hold the view that the non-aggression principle is an irreducible concept: it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy but, rather, is self-evident as any other axiom is. Rand, too, argued that liberty was a precondition of virtuous conduct, but argued that her non-aggression principle itself derived from a complex set of previous knowledge and values. For this reason, Objectivists refer to the non-aggression principle as such, while libertarians who agree with Rothbard's argument call it "the non-aggression axiom." Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalists hold that government requires non-voluntary taxation to function and that in all known historical cases, the state was established by force rather than social contract. They thus consider the establishment and maintenance of the night-watchman state supported by Objectivists to be in violation of the non-aggression principle.

Objectivism's rejection of the "primitive"
Jennifer Burns in her biography Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, notes how Rand's position that "Native Americans were savages", and that as a result "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights", was one of the views that "particularly outraged libertarians." Burns also notes how Rand's position that "Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism", was also a controversial position amongst libertarians, who at the time were a large portion of Rand's fan base.

Foreign policy
Libertarians and Objectivists often disagree about matters of foreign policy. Rand's rejection of what she deemed to be "primitivism" extended to the Middle East peace process in the 1970s.
Following the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, Rand denounced Arabs as "primitive" and "one of the least developed cultures" who "are typically nomads." Consequently, Rand contended Arab resentment for Israel was a result of the Jewish state being "the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their (Arabs) continent", while decreeing that "when you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."
Many libertarians were highly critical of Israeli government at the time.
Most scholars of the libertarian Cato Institute have opposed military intervention against Iran,while the Objectivist Ayn Rand Institute has supported forceful intervention in Iran."
[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
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:32 pm

[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
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism

Back to top Go down
 
Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» PASTOR GREG LOCKE - ATHEISM DISPROVEN IN 39 SECONDS
» Teaching Passive Voice
» Anarchism And Political Atheism
» Is astrology based on theism or atheism?
» THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWS - THE CLINTON CAMP IS STILL CHALLENGING THE "LEGITIMACY" OF TRUMP ELECTION

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