Modernity

MonoExplosion wrote:

I understand modernity to be the hierarchical structuring of phenomena by man. This includes structuring mind, society and the world. A place for everything and everything in its place. Existence is a novel with a plot and a point and it progresses.
Post-modernity is the rejection of (but still interacting with) these structures in favour of a more... liquid state of understanding. Though this still implies a hierarchy between paradigms, and though the central plot may have been rejected in favour of a series of mini-narratives there is still an underlying structure to how we interact and order things/phenomena.

This sounds like an official position.
Exploring modernity outside the theory consists in exploring how it is applied and what it results in.
"Restructuring hierarchies" seems vague when it is detached from the reality of what this means.
I wish to explore what this "restructuring" consists of, and where it is rooted.

MonoExplosion wrote:

Describing the Big Bang as ordered is not a physical description but a metaphysical one. Take the abstract concept of space-time to its extremes: Infinite space and time, spread out along an infinity of planes, or a single spaceless, timeless point with no dimensionality/planes.

The idea of the Big Bang being ordered is to do with the possible states that it could move towards in terms of its extensity, not its intensity.
Very simply, in rudimentary euclidean geometry, If you have a single point there is one possible position (or "non-position") that you could "be" (if that point is "existence"). Whereas if there is any extensity to that point then immediately there is more than one possible position to "be", and this extension can continue in more than one dimension.

At the other extreme of ordering in terms of extensity is the idea of an infinite long plane with an infinity of possible positions to "be" on it. So long in fact that it is not long a matter of extending further, and in fact to do so would be impossible. Just as it would be impossible to move on a single point.

That is just a simple model of the universe as some kind of linear plane that has an origin and an end. In reality, I am led to believe that the universe is much more donut shaped and that the way we conceive of things is not necessarily accurate in terms of what is actually happening. It may be that living on Earth and becoming conscious on Earth has only enabled us to think in one possible way.

Anyway, it's all just metaphor for some ineffable feeling of love for a God-type benevolent creature that sits outside of our perception and tickles our existence with beautiful concepts of love and harmony and made things as they are so that we may learn about and look after the world and live in peace forever and ever and ever. Isn't it?

Definitely, all descriptions are metaphorical...artistic.
Most forget that even science is about metaphors and symbolism. This is becoming apparent now when science is reaching a perception limitation, a perceptual event horizon, if you will.

Take the #1....a pure abstraction...a human simplification/generalization.

He who controls the description or imposes the symbols, the metaphors, controls, as it were, human consciousness.

Furthermore, this elimination of the past as relevant, or its reinterpretation to abide by current morals and social myths, as well as the worship of the future, called "progress", besides being duplicitous consists in a kind of brain-washing...a loss of identity.

If we consider man, the individual, as a sum of his past, known and unknown, then he who controls how the past is taught or what parts are taken to be relevant which are dismissed, in fact controls the factors upon which self is built....he controls the Know Thyself aspect of the human condition.
We can say that this detachment of man from his past, is the absence of spirituality...he is no longer grounded, lacking self-knowledge, he finds it in materialism and superficiality.
See feminism and liberalism and what is called "progressive" secular humanism.

But now I must go out with my son and...play.

More on this alter when I have more time....as time is of the essence.

the only issues/problems with modernity is greed and unbridled ambition (hypermasculinity), a problem that has plagued mankind for ages. it's not that ambition is negative, it's that any trait that inflates without balance has hyper-results, ergo superficiality and materialism. it appears it's rooted in feminism, humanism or especially liberalism but it is not. these will be the balancing force.

under a unilateral, dogmatic, narrow and repressive authority such as christianity (spiritual movement); women (who did have more to offer than being barefoot/pregnant or would choose otherwise), gays, fringe and secularists were forced or subjugated to deny their own nature/aspects as well as oppressing their own resultant natural contributions, aesthetic and literal.

under feminism, liberalism and humanism, these issues are corrected. all the stark machinations of modernity is masculine from science, innovation, expansion, materialism and heirarchy. women today who would like to choose to be a homemaker often cannot make ends meet on one income due to economic heirarchy, not feminism. this is not feminist modern heirarchy in action but competing masculine heirarchy, i.e.capitalism.

the issue now is continued re-balance and fine-tuning, not tossing aside, ignoring or devaluing the positive progress that was gained by reversing direction. the solution is not black or white.

did ya'll know that conservativism is feminine in nature and liberalism is masculine in nature? you betcha

i mean, what's a conservative to do when a liberal is calling themselves a conservative? they have no choice but to call themselves a liberal. *scratches head*

but you know people, they are tricky and it's complicated like those conservatives who want the old ball and chain at home where a woman belongs, cavorting with mistresses, tithing to the church, aspire to riches in their career, indulge in every vice imaginable knowing they are forgiven and thanking god at every turn. it was okay to plunder other cultures/countries to make jesuslands rich using slave labor and others western in the process (humbly thanking you) but now they are singing a different tune complaining about loss of jobs and immigration (i thought everyone was supposed to be western and christian?) and calling for 'conservativism' while they denigrate liberals. i thought that's what they were all along: conservative.

it's liberals behind environmentalism, human rights movement (real ethics, not dogma), animal rights, separation of church and state, birth control and respecting other cultures, races and the spiritual paths of others, including fundamental religions. this is more attuned to real spirituality which is multi-faceted and nurture-based which is feminine.

what's a conservative approach to others? help to convert to christianity or some religion usually by throwing money at the problem (hand-out, not hand-up). liberal approach: help because they need it and understand priorities such as education.

conservative approach to human rights or animal rights: demonize others as backward and just hate or convert to some religion or impose their culture. liberal approach: educate based on ethics while still respecting differing/unique aspects of culture.

conservative approach to birth control: mother teresa comforting others that suffering and poverty due to lack of family planning is okay. liberal approach: education and birth control.

last but not least, conservative approach to equality: affirmative action. this is not a liberal policy, it's inherently conservative and christian but misapplied. liberal approach: equal 'access' to education and opportunity for everyone to better themselves.

liberals are not only more intelligent overall than conservatives but also more truly humanitarian and responsible while conservatives only seem more responsible because they only focus on themselves and their interests.

that being said, of course neither one of them are perfect and each can be better/worse depending on issue.

Modernity can be categorized in this way:

Quantity over Quality...Materialism over Spirituality...Feminine over Masculine.

I already mentioned how, if we take current cosmological models concerning entropy, that a "looking back" is a looking back towards less entropy....more order.
We also take from Heidegger that consciousness is a looking back, as it is an ordering mechanism in the growing chaos.
Chaos being defined as randomness.

We see now that the masculine spirit is the spirit of order, explaining why conservatives are obsessed with the past and the feminine spirit always projecting a "better world" in some ambiguous future. This future would be one of growing chaos, or fragmentation...which is what this leveling of he sexes is all about.

In my The Feminization of Mankind I tried to describe my views on modernity...but there are others who have noticed this.
Evola, Guenon, Yockey but also Schopenhauer, Hitler, Stirner, Spengler, Nietzsche and many more who did not dare speak as openly about it.

Now to explore the opposing view that of Traditionalism and fascism we must explore what they propose.
There is a distinctly authoritarian slant to Traditionalism which reaches the extreme of fascism; a desire to return to a state in harmony with nature and natural selection but they impose a caveat.
For the Traditionalists the "primordial one" is presumed and then represented by an earthly God-King figure, setting up an Imperium or an Empire of order.

The liberal mindset is more duplicitous and confused, as is the female mind.
It riles against human intervention, yet it proposes a massive human intervention when it speaks of world peace and some kind of ideal paradise where none are hurt and nobody is excluded - a Christian ideal.
It presumably worships nature yet deplores natural selection, calling it unjust, primitive, wrong, cruel. It's conception of nature is of a cleansed, pristine, quarantined, humane nature...one resembling the Garden of Eden before the "fall", though they profess to not believe in such childish fairy tales.
It worships something that has never come to exist and is probably impossible to exist...as it is an ideal totally detached from the real - a fantasy.
Children and women are its most staunch advocates for it falls into their psychology...and with feminization it is also becoming a male desire.

To make this futuristic, fantastic future world of total uniformity and parity possible the modern man abstracts power into a quantitative form: money, particle, government, making it accessible to all equally, if they display the "correct" social and moral demeanor.
The denial of human nature or that a child is born with certain predispositions, certain determining needs resulting in behavior (see how in ILP the effete males and the women battle to preserve the idea of tabula rasa) is part of the leveling. Inheritance is erased, the past essentially, so as to make of the individual a total product of the present, the modern, the current.
No other factor is allowed to divert the behavior and the training starts early on. See how boys are deemed troublesome or suffering from some kind of dysfunction when they exhibit the masculine attitudes. they are quickly corrected, by these defenders of nature and purity, and made to think that acting and thinking like a girl is the "right" way.
The slow decline of the family is social necessity to eradicate all other sources of identity.
The child has no blood-ties no family history, no cultural heritage, except as a quaint little insignificant detail which does not really matter since utility, production, consuming is all that he will be judged on.
Even the New Age spirituality is really nihilism masking as a positivity, and the Judeo-Christian dogma is another school of self-abasement.
se how in the Old Testament Abraham is given a choice: God or your son...and he chooses God. God supersedes even blood-ties, this is the message; God is supreme and more important than your own family and your own tribe and your own ancestors.

That in modern systems conservatives have been linked to Christianity and "family values" is part of the world denouncing twisting of reality.
Al is presented as the opposite of what it is...take liberalism.....being called "progress" when it simply advocates a surrender to what is occurring naturally: change, continuous deterioration towards chaos - fragmentation.
The metaphysical conservatives become the physical rebels.
This is made possible by separating the metaphysical from the physical...the mind from the body...the noumenon from the phenomenon...quality from quantity.
So, a man can be black and have particular characteristics, as evidence of his entire past, and none of this matters...it is but a meaningless detail...All that matter are the quantities not his qualities.
How tall is he? How large is his dick? How fast can he run? How much does he earn? How much does he produce and consume?
He becomes a statistic, a numerical value...his essence, his nature, this being nothing more than the sum of his past manifesting in his presence, his appearance, is secondary or totally meaningless.
To mention it would expose you to attacks of bigotry and superficiality.

Of course the U.S. is the most advanced modern nation on earth and this "war on terror " is really a war against spirit; against the past.
Look at the U.S. itself: a culture of no culture. A nation as caldron, cooking a soup where the ingredients, the individuals, are lowered into the status of elements, numbers, with no distinction outside their participation in the soup...the "melting pot".

Feminism is a case in point:
A socialist conception, a logical continuance of Jewish/Christian morality (all are equal beneath God), one that turned, via another Jew (Karl Marx) into the secular variation of the original (an internal Semitic battle over supremacy, or a viral competition).
It pretty much bases it's assumptions on the irrelevance of empiricism, at least when it comes to humans, on the grounds of efficacy and "complexity".
Humans are too complex to judge and so one presumes their equality in potential. Of course the senses evolved to distinguish complexity by simplifying it inot form, color, texture, odor...but nevermind, that's another issue.

Under the abstracted masculinity of State or Institution, all are emasculated...ergo a de facto "equality" is manufactured by those claiming authenticity and a hatred of eugenics and hypocrisy...like crannaple our resident bleeding heart Oriental "progressive", one of the spiritually enlightened who knows it all because he's casually had to come into contact with it in order to dismiss it. Did you watch him offer some bullshit modernistic tripe about "honesty being healthy for a relationship"?
It's one of those Dr. Phil lessons he's picked-up from somewhere else.

But you also witnessed it in the gibber-jabber of the coward d69 who had learned all the prescribed defensiveness of the liberal mindset and soon ran away crying, offering excuses, when he was forced to go outside of their text.

Back to the topic of emasculation or lies.
When many are taught to behave as if a lie were truth then it becomes, within their interactions, as good as true, though it has no reference outside their relating.
This to produce a fake kind of internal harmony...causing stress and often breaking apart in momentary lapses that "shock" everyone about the nature of man. Everyone is suddenly left to wonder 'how people could be this or that way' when they are just as capable of it under the right circumstances.

And so what is promoted is a kind of shared lie, a common play, where some know it is fake, while the many buy into the duplicity. In time, and with repetition even those that know become convinced that it was always this way and that the lie is really a "deeper truth".

Take a female outside the social contrivances she calls paternalism because along with her safety it demands her acquiescence and submission and see how long she remains "strong" and "independent" or someone males are intimidated by. She's lived so long within a protective system, she was born into it, that she knows of no other state. She can't, or refuses to, even imagine one.
For her this is not only how things should be, but this is how they always were, before those nasty men stepped in with their violence and vulgarity.
In her pristine world man is pure and good and kind....and then Satan steps in to turn him evil and selfish and violent.

Some quotes by a famous Traditionalists on the subject of Modernity:

Guenon, Rene wrote:

• By seeking to sever the connection of the sciences with any higher principle, under the pretext of assuring their independence, the modern conception robs them of all deeper meaning and even of all real interest from the point of view of knowledge; it can only lead them down a blind alley, by enclosing them, as it does, in a hopelessly limited realm.

• The term “physics”, in its original and etymological sense, means precisely the “science of nature” without qualifications; it is therefore the science that deals with the most general laws of “becoming”, for “nature” and “becoming” are in reality synonymous, and it was thus that the Greeks, and notably Aristotle, understood this science. If there are more specialized sciences dealing with the same order of reality, they can amount to no more that “specifications’ of physics, dealing with one or another more narrowly defined sphere.
Already, therefore, one can see the significant deviation of meaning to which the modern world has subjected the word “physics”, using it to designate exclusively one particular science among others, all of which are equally natural sciences, and this is an example of that process of subdivision we have already mentioned as being one of the characteristics of modern science.
This “specialization”, arising from an analytical attitude of mind, has been pushed to such a point that those who have undergone its influence are incapable of conceiving of a science that deals with nature in its entirety. Some of the drawbacks of this specialization have not passed altogether unnoticed, especially the narrowness of outlook that is its inevitable outcome; but even those who perceive this most clearly seem nonetheless resigned to accept it as a necessary evil entailed by the accumulation of detailed knowledge such as no man could hope to take in at once; on the one hand, they have been unable to perceive that this detailed knowledge is insignificant itself and not worth the sacrifice of synthetic knowledge which it entails, for synthetic knowledge, though this too is restricted to what is relative, is nevertheless of a much higher order; and on the other hand, they have failed to see that the impossibility of unifying the multiplicity of this detailed knowledge is due only to their refusal to attach it to a higher principle; in other words, it is due to a persistence in proceeding from below and from outside, whereas it is the opposite method that would be necessary if one wishes to have a science of any real speculative value.

• Under such conditions, industry is no longer merely application of science, an application from which science should, in itself, remain completely independent; it has become the reason for, and justification of, science to such an extent that here too the normal relations between things have been reversed. What the modern world has striven after with all its strength, even when it has claimed in its own way to pursue science, is really nothing other than the development of industry and machinery; and in thus seeking to dominate matter and bend it to their service, men have only succeeded, as we said at the beginning of this book, in becoming its slaves. Not only have they limited their intellectual ambition – if such a term can still be used in the present state of things – to inventing and constructing machines, but they have ended by becoming in fact machines themselves. Indeed, it is not only scholars but also technicians and even workers who have to undergo the specialization that certain sociologists praise so highly under the name of “division of labor”; and for the “workers”, it makes intelligent work quite impossible. Very different from the craftsmen of former times, they have become mere slaves of machines with which they may be said to form part of a single body. In a purely mechanical way they have constantly to repeat certain specific movements, which are always the same and always performed in the same way, so as to avoid the slightest loss of time; such at least is required by the most modern methods which are supposed to represent the most advanced stage of “progress”. Indeed, the object is merely to produce as much as possible; quality matters little, it is quantity alone that is of importance, which brings us back once more to the remark we have already made in other contexts, namely, that modern civilization may truly be called a quantitative civilization, and this is merely another way of saying it is a material civilization. -- Anyone who wants further evidence of this truth can find it in the tremendous importance that economic factors take on nowadays, both in the lives of peoples and of individuals: industry, commerce, finance – these seem to be the only things that count; and this is in agreement with the fact already mentioned that the only social distinction that has survived is the one based on material wealth.
Politics seem to be altogether controlled by finance, and trade competition seems to be the dominant influence in determining the relations between peoples; it may be that this is only so in appearance, and that these factors are really not so much causes as means of action, but the choice of such means is a clear sign of the character of the period to which they are suited.
Moreover, our contemporaries are convinced that it is almost exclusively economic conditions that dictate historical events, and they even imagine that it has always been so; a theory has even been invented according to which everything is to be explained by economic factors alone, and has been named, significantly, “historical materialism”. Here also may be seen the effect of one of those suggestions to which we referred to above, suggestions whose power is all the greater in that they correspond to the tendencies of the general mentality; and the result of this suggestion is that economic factors have really come to decide almost everything that occurs in the social sphere. It is true that the masses have always been led in one manner or another, and it could be said that their part in history consists primarily in allowing themselves to be led, since they represent a merely passive element, a “matter” in the Aristotelian sense of the word.
But, in order to lead them today, it is sufficient to dispose of a purely material means, this time in the ordinary sense of the word, and this shows clearly to what depths our age has sunk. At the same time, the masses are made to believe that they are not being led, but that they are acting spontaneously and governing themselves, and the fact that they believe this is a sign from which the extent of their stupidity may be inferred.

• While on the subject, there is yet one more point needing to be explained more precisely: the partisans of “progress” have a habit of saying that the “golden age” is not in the past but in the future; nevertheless the truth is that so far as our own Mantavatara is concerned it is in the past, for it is nothing other than the “primordial state” itself.

• Among the features characteristic of the modern mentality, the tendency to bring everything down to an exclusively quantitative point of view will be taken from now on as the central theme of this study.
This tendency is most marked in the “scientific” conceptions of recent centuries; but it is almost as conspicuous in other domains, notably in that of social organization — so much so that, with one reservation the nature and necessity of which will appear hereafter, our period could almost be defined as being essentially and primarily the “reign of quantity”.

Myths of Western Modernity


- All are born with the same potentials and it is environment that creates differences in performance.
This myth implies that, in fact, natural selection and Evolution theory is a sham...at least when it comes to humans, because this is never applied, except by the very foolish, to animals.
Speciesm as a discrimination is on the rise, as an idea. It is the logical step once you've destroyed empiricism and made appearance a superficial detail which says nothing about the individual.


- The future is better than the past.
This is a highly childish notion, which has no basis on reality.
In effect it implies that the coming, the yet to be realized, ideal, will be "better", preferable, to the real.
Nihilistic with a hopeful antidote to the fear which underlies it and which it cannot cope with.
fear is, of course, present in all individuals, but not all deal with it in the same way. It can be destructive but it can also be constructive...just as love or jealousy or hatred can be.


- All is quantifiable.
Some have called this "rationalism". The idea that all can be known or that all can be reduced to code: math, words etc.
Immediately we see the anti-spiritual nature of this stance.
Quality can be reduced to a mathematical abstraction.
This, at first, seems innocuous, if not a bit naive, but it is also what is terribly wrong with modernism. From this starting fallacy the idea that pride, value, honor, masculinity, femininity, power, intelligence, beauty, can be purchased, follows.
In the area of intelligence, for one, it is quantified into knowledge. Intelligence is the same as knowledge and so all can purchase it or are equally able to access it.
No matter how stupid your parents are you can be more, by knowing and regurgitating information, statistics, famous names, etc.
To know becomes synonymous with 'to understand'.


- Happiness is the goal of life.
This has got to be the quintessential idea of modern western thinking.
Hedonism and materialism in a hidden box.
If you cannot find it you must, at least, pretend to have already found it, for the sake of appearing to be "successful" and "good" to the neighbors.
All need/suffering is deemed unimportant; something to be avoided and eliminated.
This is connected with eastern philosophies concerning suffering.

Strength and value is now a product of avoidance; of inebriation.
Need'/suffering should not be endured, but eliminated....for what does not kill you, ....does not kill you and you should avoid because it might kill you.

Whereas strength is a measure of one's ability to deal with a level of need/suffering (athletics, ascetics) in the modern mind's psychology it is to be protected from.


- Life is sacred.
Life feeds upon life, yet for the modern man it is a holy cannibalism.
It is sacred because....life says it is. Subjectivity raised to the level of godliness.
It is a method of ensuring that one's own life is considered too holy to trespass upon.
It eventually grows into a psychology of entitlement and self-importance - narcissism and a total lack of respect.

What is respect? A form of intimidation.
Take away fear and the mind loses all care - it becomes careless, naive, stupid....infantile. It regresses or is retarded in developing into maturity. This serves the system as stupidity is easier to manipulate.


- Individuals deserve things.
The concept of "deserving" a good life or to grow up in safety or a good education or a job or respect, is another self-serving modern myth.
On the grounds of these presumed "rights" the modern man builds his sense of self-importance and enhances his sense of entitlement.
He no longer must earn respect, demand it, but deserves it just for being alive...being born suffices even if this birth is itself a result of manmade interventions and assurances.
The feeble can now stand toe to toe with their superiors as they "deserve" to.


...there's more but this is enough for now...

Quote :

This is ascertained through measurement of the Doppler shift and computer modelling.

Maybe if we observed the universe from other planets, it would not look as if it was expanding, maybe the majority of the light would be blue shifts or an equal amount of red shifts and blue shifts.

Quote :

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our Universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space.

Well, I choose not to fully buy into this, it seems like an awful lot of speculating is going on, I'll wait for more data.

For me, science should function more like other industries. Instead of being monolithic, different scientists and groups of scientists could have their own methodologies, their own areas of expertise, and their own data and interpretations of it, as opposed to this consensus building. If the majority of scientists throw their hands up in the air and say yes, I support this theory, it has my vote, that doesn't sway me, I'm looking for the man with best argument and the best data, I don't follow crowds, I follow lone wolves and mavericks who aren't afraid to challenge the status quo. The way science functions now is too democratic, too herdish. Well, most of us believe this, so you should believe this or you're a cook. Fuck their herd mentality, I mean I like science and empiricism, but this is not empiricism, this is going along to get along.

Show us the goods and let other scientists make up their own minds, and let me make up my own mind.

Quote :

But it's also true that the temperature considered the lowest possible - absolute zero, where entropy reaches its minimum value - is only −273.15° C or 0° Kelvin, whereas the hypothesized upper limit on temperature is the Planck temperature of 1.416785(71)×10^32 Kelvin or 141678999999999999999999999999727° C.

My point - similar to yours - is that we inhabit the narrow range of temperatures between 0°C and 50° C, which is far, far closer to absolute zero than to the upper limit. The golden mean, however, is a liberal conceit. When we look at life on earth we see that what is more primitive and savage is found in hotter climates and is able to tolerate these temperatures better than those beings possessing more intelligence and living further north where it is colder. We find that entropy decreases as temperature decreases, hence the disorder of the jungle giving way to the order of the cool forests and tundra further north.

The energy and matter released in the Big Bang (the Planck temperature) was primordial... primitive. Those first stars were hot and huge, just like the first organisms on Earth were large and elementary. Time and space have worked to cool things down and allow the emergence of a more diverse and delicate range of stars and life.

The cold is our ally, just as it wipes out insects and vermin and bacteria. The average temperature of the universe, some 14 billion years after the Big Bang is now only about 2.75° K. Do you think it only coincidence that it is whites who have unlocked the secrets of how the cosmos functions?

My thoughts led me to conclude that blacks must have a higher body temperature than whites, which has since been proven by medical research:

I agree, it seems cold is better for life than hot, and this makes sense, since life is the ultimate form of order, for nothing is more organized than it. Cold tends to preserve this delicate order, heat tends to disrupt it.

If interactivity is disorder, then inactivity is order. Inactivity is a form of order because it is predictable, stable.. but so is the monolithic one, as opposed to the pluralistic many. Therefore, if space is expanding (big bang is a misleading term), we're not moving to or from disorder or order.

The ultimate form of material order would be a single, solitary, cosmic metal cube, cold, dense and solid, with nothing outside of it, eternally inert and inactive. This, my friends, is paradise. Here, nothing could disturb our dark slumber. We'd be forever frozen, timeless. Pristine, serene.. a tranquil ecstasy.

If the universe is moving towards a cold, dark plurality, then perhaps Nordics, polar bears and penguins will have an easier time adapting. Is fire not more reminiscent of emotional niggers, is ice not more reminiscent of rational Nordics? Damn my inferior genes, I wish I was fully Scottish and Irish, why did I have to be cursed with this inferior, Sicilian and Calabrian blood?

Icy logic beats fiery feelings.

Yes Satyr, it is basically the idea that we can wipe the slate (nature) clean and start 'fresh'. This idea that individuals within our 'species' and our species as a whole, has near unlimited, God like potential, and everything we touch, transform and intervene in with our meddling turns to gold, that through selective reason, observation, experimentation and collaboration, we can forge a paradise out of interactivity/nature. This is what unites communism, capitalism, fascism, and all the rest of them (utopianists), they all believe we can correct government, nature, society, and make it holy, orderly, fair, and just (according to their conceptions of justice), instead of leaving everything the way it is, or was.

The conservative holds onto the current order, or regresses back to an older way of doing things, where as the liberal comes up with new ways of doing things, and the conservative doesn't try to make things perfect, just keep things from getting worse, where as the liberal wants to make things Godly, by transcending or transforming this world into something it probably never was, and probably never will be.

For each problem we emancipate ourselves from, a new one often arises, so 'progress' seems evasive and illusory, and some (you) even question the very notion of progress itself, that life could exist without pain, suffering, death, and challenge. It is a case of the conservative vs the liberal, the pessimist vs the optimist, the realist vs the idealist, and the localist vs the globalist.

You have even equated the Dionysian, the one who wants no order, with the progressive, the one who wants a new, perfect order, in opposition to the one who wants to maintain the old, imperfect order. You have equated the one who calls for absolute chaos and void with the one who calls for absolute order and being, for existence is this relative middle, betwixt nonbeing and being, which is probably why we find the Dionysian cult at times behaving like wild animals and at other times behaving like Christians. They are mad dreamers, rejectors of all that is and could ever be.

However, that being said, I think man requires both in order to be whole, the 'feminine' (absolute order/disorder) and the 'masculine' (relative order/disorder). We need dreamers, visionaries, too. It is just a case of going too far towards the feminine and neglecting the masculine.

Before, you were painting a lovely picture of your ideal society with a God king like figure on top. Please continue.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Before, you were painting a lovely picture of your ideal society with a God king like figure on top. Please continue.

It's called Traditionalism...It's major representatives are, as was already noted: Evola...Yockey...Guenon....Hitler....Mussolini (the last too being extreme representations of its political application in the last century)....but many more have advocated similar ideas....I count Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and Heidegger as part of this group. They were organic philosophers.

I'll get into my positions on the matter later on.

Well in my view, moderns believe the absolute good (immortality, omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, aka God) is absent. They hope to attain the absolute good by radically rearranging society (social technology) and nature (natural technology). This philosophy can be summed up in a word- humanism. Now different factions of modernity propose different methods for attaining the absolute ideal, but few question the need or the inevitability of the absolute ideal itself. Humanism (the idea man, through various means, can emancipate himself from pain, suffering, death, disease and war, through his unique faculty, his reason) is the philosophy of our age. Now it is important to realize there is right wing humanism (elitist idealism, we're all extremely, extremely unequal in virtually every way (races, sexes, individuals, etc) in addition to left wing humanism (egalitarian idealism, we're all equal in virtually every way (races, sexes, individuals). For the moment, left wing humanism has prevailed, however, the new world order is plotting the destruction of left wing ideologies and institutions in order to bring about a one world transhumanist dictatorship, a right wing humanism. Such a society would consist of a few God like (immortality through genetic engineering, bionic implants, etc) oligarchs on top, in possession of all the wealth, resources and technology, and of the many worker peons on the bottom, who will eventually be replaced by servile robots. The elite will eliminate 99.9 % of us and use the remaining to work for them, and then exterminate the remaining when the robots are sufficiently capable of maintaining their civilization for them. The elite will then travel to the stars, colonize other worlds, and eventually attain Godhood. This is a form of humanism, though it may sound like antihumanism, it is form of self worship.

In contrast, Judeochristianityislam teaches us that God shall resurrect us at the end of the world, and grant us immortality, if we're good and we worship it.

In contrast, Hinduism and buddhism teach us that the absolute good is present (atman is brahman, we are God), and that this world of impermanence is an illusion. Hinduism and buddhism are close to humanism.

Then there's pessimists and realists. Pessimists believe we're fucked, that there's no use, may as well commit suicide or go out in a blaze of glory (drink fight and fuck). Then there's realists, who believe the absolute good is unattainable, but who do the minimum amount to get by in this world, preserving themselves and their family, if they have one. They do not trouble themselves with utopias, their goals are modest. I suppose there could be left and right wing variants of pessimism and realism.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Well in my view, moderns believe the absolute good (immortality, omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, aka God) is absent.

I think you missed the boat on that one.
God is dead, for the liberal, progressive, New Age modern atheist, because no absolute authority will be tolerated, but...the idea of God has been transformed into an ideal. An attainable, knowable, idea(l).
This has also been called rationalism. Not that all is known, but that all can be known, reduced to a measurable quantity and the reproduced.

Read Stirner...Man is the Ideal, the Idea of Man. God is brought down to earth, he is humanized. His son is not sent down to save mankind, He comes down Himself.
He becomes man.
Now man is the ideal we must live up to.
And who defines this ideal man, this ideal citizen, this ideal father, mother, lover, brother, son?
Why, the liberals of course.
Man is inherently good, if he is given the proper education and freed from his animal greed and violent tendencies and selfishness - cleansed of his primal past. You see man, as Thoreau claimed and Pinker reminded us, is a "Noble Savage".
According to this view primitive man is pure, kind, loving, selfless. It is civilization, paternalism, the wrong kind of education which makes him bad; culture, the wrong kind, corrupts man. Man is the snake in the garden.
Man is the fallen angel...who must be returned to his goodness....his authenticity.
He must forget...as he has bitten from the fruit of knowledge and this results in sorry state.

Still worse, the more daring ones, claim that man is a Blank Slate, totally innocent, and it is nurturing that makes him "evil".

eyesinthedark wrote:

They hope to attain the absolute good by radically rearranging society (social technology) and nature (natural technology).

Yes, social eugenics, given to you by those that despise those Hitler worshiper's and their "blond beast" misunderstandings.
You see these kind-hearted reactionaries, these proper well-intentioned, do-gooders and defenders of children's rights, are really wanting to edumucate godliness back into the souls of men; remind them of how tender and tolerant they are in their souls.
They want the lion to lie down with the sheep, because they are the sheeple....and castrating, de-clawing, filing down their teeth, and maiming lions is how this is made possible. How else will they get a good night's rest in such a cruel, vicious, unfair universe?
Technology is technique...a technique for tearing those balls free from the body, severing those small ties and letting the estrogen take over.
How ill little boys are who behave in such un-girlish ways? They should learn that such behavior will not be tolerated by the preachers of tolerance.

eyesinthedark wrote:

This philosophy can be summed up in a word- humanism.

Philosophy is routed in environmental conditioning. A people's attitude towards all things in a product of their history.
Jews were the downtrodden, the landless, the hated for centuries. They developed that meekness and turned it into a sword. They were the chosen ones and their suffering was evidence of their mission, given unto them by God Himself.
Later this pathogen of the soul came into contact with a more masculine form of thinking: Hellenism.
The multifarious forms this attitude took on, because it was free to explore, and the decadence it was going through at the moment of contact (the pathogen must have had contact with it in the past, but the body was too strong and the antibodies fought it off) made it susceptible to external contacts.
The pathogen came to find elements in Hellenism that were ripe for exploitation, and Platonism, with its Idealism and its Socratic skepticism, merged with this Jewish slavishness, in time morphing into what is now called Christianity.
Some claim, Heisman for one, that Jesus, the very symbol of the faith, was a bastard child of a rape scene. Some Roman centurion taking advantage of Jewish meekness, playing into their victim psychology, and the mother had to lie....telling all her friends and family that it was due to immaculate conception.
At the time such shit could stick,; the place was full of messiahs and paranormal practitioners preying upon human stupidity.

The pathogen, like all viral strains, hid in the body itself, taking on its smell...infiltrating its weakest part: the downtrodden, the losers, the sick, the slaves, the emasculated, the impoverished.
Is not Christianity he religion of the lowest of the low: the meek shall inherit the earth.

But human knowledge advanced and that old crap did not stick anymore. It smelled badly to noses that had become more subtle.
Then it morphed again, like all good adaptive viruses do...into socialism, communism....via another Jew.
Same principles delivered on a different silver platter.
The war was an internal affair....one viral strain against another. This is why it was fought coldly....without much passion.
One strain won out...the one which was closest to the primitive....the more visceral mimetic strand.

Today it goes by its western name: liberal, progressive, humanism.
Around certain more avant guard circles it has taken to calling itself by other names: Venus Project, New Age....the Western Buddhism and so on.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Now different factions of modernity propose different methods for attaining the absolute ideal, but few question the need or the inevitability of the absolute ideal itself.

Indeed, but then neither do Traditionalists question the absolute's existence.

We see here a different kind of nihilism.
The manly kind, also called positive, offers a God...a deity....and an earthly representative: the God-King of old.
The tribal leader, the shaman....

The womanly kind, also called negative, offers emptiness...the void or the inevitability of a return to the source: the pool of non-distinct nothingness where all disappear in a uniform muck...also described in Buddhism as a conscious-unconsciousness.

Ego is a vice...pride is a sin...selfishness is suffering...intolerance is a waste of time.
The mind must contain itself in the moment - meditate itself into a point where it is no different than an amoeba or a dog, forgetting all that occurred, expecting, thinking of nothing but the basic....breathing one's self into oblivion.
Land of the living-dead!!!
This is the immersion into the emptiness of existence.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Humanism (the idea man, through various means, can emancipate himself from pain, suffering, death, disease and war, through his unique faculty, his reason) is the philosophy of our age.

Yes, and what do those traits remind you of?
Paradise?
A paradise on earth. Eden retaken; the snake cast out.

The Devil returns to his master; the prodigal son is welcomed back to sit for an eternity next to his father.

eyesinthedark wrote:

In contrast, Judeochristianityislam teaches us that God shall resurrect us at the end of the world, and grant us immortality, if we're good and we worship it.

In contrast, Hinduism and buddhism teach us that the absolute good is present (atman is brahman, we are God), and that this world of impermanence is an illusion. Hinduism and buddhism are close to humanism.

The common ground between these dogmas is stark:
Monism...Unity....Salvation....Suffering as avoidable....Ego as a vice....Pride as a sin....Tolerance.....Non-Discriminating Love....

All are political tools for mass population control.
How do you control millions of hypothetically free-willed, sexually driven, smart apes, without genocide because you require their hands, parts of their minds and their work?
You instill in them a self-correcting, self-censoring, self-castrating ideal....a mimetic scalpel to sever those balls and lobotomize the brain.

The environment makes them "enlightening".


They say that the Devil's biggest trick was convincing mankind that he did not exist.
I say that nihilism's greatest trick was when it turned itself into a positive message of hope.
Nature is cruel....not all are born smart or beautiful or wealthy.
Most would not even be alive if not for the protective shield of society, offered because chained hands and lobotomized minds are needed.

so how are all these individuals made to cope with an existence they would not have to under natural circumstances?
You invert principles...Orwell called it double-speak. You know war is peace, slavery is freedom etc.

Why not, man is woman and woman is man?
Why not, death is life and life is death?
Why not, progress is the conserving and conservatism is progressive and rebellious?
Why not, order is chaos and chaos is order?
Why not, stupidity is intelligence and intelligence is stupid?
Why not, strength is weakness and weakness is strength?
Why not, dependence is independence and independence is dependence?

And...
Why not....sickness is health and health is a sickness?

Quote :

It's called Traditionalism...It's major representatives are, as was already noted: Evola...Yockey...Guenon....Hitler....Mussolini (the last too being extreme representations of its political application in the last century)....but many more have advocated similar ideas....I count Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and Heidegger as part of this group. They were organic philosophers.

I'll get into my positions on the matter later on.

I think it's important to distinguish 'organic' elitists and traditionalists from inorganic ones. There's nothing necessarily holistic or monistic about traditionalists. Some of them relegate the flesh, just as liberals do. For example, I notice you didn't include Fichte, Hegel or Gentile in your list, because they're idealists, yet you included Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, even though Schopenhauer wasn't an elitist or a traditionalist, and Nietzsche wasn't a traditionalist, if I'm not mistaken. You included them because they were "organic philosophers", now I'm going to decipher your meaning. One, I think you mean to say they were monists, for them, there was no precise division between spirit and flesh, two, they didn't reduce flesh to spirit (the way idealists do), nor spirit to flesh (the way materialists do), and three, they believed the world is essentially interactive and linear (without direction, teleological or otherwise), not inactive or cyclical. Theoretically, there could be organic liberals and egalitarians in addition to inorganic ones. Schopenhauer was a kind of egalitarian, not necessarily in terms of belief, but in terms of action. I think you relegate the flesh a little, even though you acknowledge and celebrate both.

Quote :

I think you missed the boat on that one.
God is dead, for the liberal, progressive, New Age modern atheist, because no absolute authority will be tolerated, but...the idea of God has been transformed into an ideal. An attainable, knowable, idea(l).
This has also been called rationalism. Not that all is known, but that all can be known, reduced to a measurable quantity and the reproduced.

No, humanists don't believe in a literal God, but they believe man can become like God, in time, through progress, science and technology.

Quote :

Read Stirner...Man is the Ideal, the Idea of Man.

I've read Stirner, I've always liked him, because he didn't believe in absolutes or that our ideals could exist apart from us and command us. I always liked being in charge, but as a human being, I have limits, I have mental disorders and often my flesh gets the better of me, though I don't hate my flesh like it was some alien attached to me soul, I try to work with it or around it, not against it. The way some stern conservatives treat their flesh is similar to the way they treat their women. Perhaps there's a correlation.

Quote :

God is brought down to earth, he is humanized. His son is not sent down to save mankind, He comes down Himself.
He becomes man.
Now man is the ideal we must live up to.
And who defines this ideal man, this ideal citizen, this ideal father, mother, lover, brother, son?
Why, the liberals of course.

Quote :

Man is inherently good, if he is given the proper education and freed from his animal greed and violent tendencies and selfishness - cleansed of his primal past. You see man, as Thoreau claimed and Pinker reminded us, is a "Noble Savage".
According to this view primitive man is pure, kind, loving, selfless. It is civilization, paternalism, the wrong kind of education which makes him bad; culture, the wrong kind, corrupts man. Man is the snake in the garden.
Man is the fallen angel...who must be returned to his goodness....his authenticity.
He must forget...as he has bitten from the fruit of knowledge and this results in sorry state.

Still worse, the more daring ones, claim that man is a Blank Slate, totally innocent, and it is nurturing that makes him "evil".

Yes, for most liberals, man is a work in 'progress'. They're very unhappy with man and the world, so they must radically alter them somehow, in accordance with their vision. Their vision isn't relative to a particular time, space and people, they arrogantly believe all people everywhere ought to adopt their vision, a new 'man' for a new 'world'.

The religions of old believe man descended from Godhood into manhood, through some accident or some sin. Eventually he can regain his Godhood by being nice and not naughty, or through faith, or gnosis. The new age believes man will ascend from manhood into Godhood on our own, from earth to heaven, never having been God or been in heaven before, without the aid of the supernatural. In essence, they have spiritualized the material, they've lost their faith in the Gods, so they've adopted science, empiricism and materialism, yet they have sanitized, sterilized and castrated matter, for they could not accept it as it is. Where as the religions of old (Judaism, Platonic Christianity, Islam) believed the spirit is willing i.e. hyperfeminine, passive, nonviolent, servile, subservient, submissive, sympathetic, compassionate, altruistic, rational (sober, ascetic) and the flesh is weak i.e. hypermasculine and irrational, the new age minimizes the role race, sex and instinct plays in our daily lives (the flesh is willing).

As you've pointed out, some have gone so far as to completely and utterly deny the carnal side of man (blank slate), and some even believe the carnal is actually good i.e. feminine and rational, that the spirit rarely has to intervene, nor do children have to learn to be good, in fact intervention and education i.e. 'cynicism' and 'pessimism' often rob children of their innocence and do more harm than good, which is where the notions of zero discipline and all 'disorders' are caused by traumatic experiences and are not innate, not inherited, come from.

They believe children ought to be left alone, that their instincts are holy and ought to be encouraged. Some stupid motherfucking retards go so far to say, and I shit you not, that even spiders are rational creatures (blank slate), and that they learn how to build webs, and that they may be able to learn how to build other things, like rocket ships, or maybe they can learn to love, dance and play the trombone.

Yes, so we see this threefold denial of the role the carnal plays in our lives, some minimize the role the carnal plays in human nature, some deny it altogether, and some say it is good, that our instincts are in fact good, and therefore, society is to blame, noble savage, 'free will', and all that cow dung, like we choose to do 'evil', instead of just being evil. In short they have spiritualized the carnal, they have adopted Aristotelian and Epicurean metaphysics and epistemology, seemingly doing away with the supernatural, but it was a selective adoption, they adapted Platonic Christian conceptions of the spirit and heaven to the flesh and to earth. The founding fathers of America were more like Aristotelians or Epicureans, but these new agers have warped Aristotle and Epicurus with Platonism, Stoicism, Christianity and eastern mysticism to concoct this mutant hybrid. When it comes to metaphysics and epistemology, they're realists, when it comes to human nature, they're idealists, and I think that's the best way you can sum up modernity, this hybrid of realism and idealism, and this idea that man can somehow build the supernatural out of the natural, heaven from earth.

I included Schopenhauer and Nietzsche because they were anti-modernistic and yes they were anti-rational and organic.

The Traditionalists believe in a "primordial one", their version of the monist God.
I'm not so sure Nietzsche did believe in such an "idol", although Sauwelios claims that he was, like he is now (because he follows his master like a mangy dog), on the side of Spinoza on this.
I, for one, can't recall him, Nietzsche, mentioning such a concept, but it has been over three years since I've read him so I offer him the benefit of my doubt.
I think it actually goes against his anti-idol positions but I could be wrong. Nietzsche might very well have been a closet Judeo-Chrsitian.
But who cares? He is not my god.
Schopenhauer sided with Buddhist and Hindu monism, I believe...the "absolute" as the total void, emptiness.

For me the "primordial one" indicates this near-absolute, nearly completed "point" in space-time, science currently calls the Big Bang.
Spinoza's "immanence" and "substance" and his overall secular Jewishness is more of a word-game than anything else. The Jewish faith brought into the modern cycle; kept up to date just in case events make it obsolete as a method of population control and human husbandry.

Whomever claims something which is contradicted by experience is, in my mind, a nihilist. He negates the world, as it is sensed, so as to propose a concept that is not experienced or sensed...but only hoped for.
They do so by making it all part of a big hoax, or, worse, some kind of testing ground where there is an ultimate goal, projected into the nothing, so as to justify how and why the senses evolved to trick us, rather than aid us, and why reality, as we know it, is the opposite of what is the "truth", or what "is", as it were.

I've called this a top<>bottom way of thinking.
You begin with a concept which, for whatever reason, you like or you think it preferable calling it reasonable or logical, and then you work backwards trying to harmonize it with the perceived. This method already "knows" the conclusion and must only find a way to explain how he knows and how to justify what he already knows...and knows of absolutely.

That's where you get "substance" or "thing-in-itself" or "oneness" or "God" or any "ideal" for that matter.
The "ideal" is by definition what is contrary to the "real".

Over-skepticism is used to introduce a possibility which gains emotional ground by offering something to relieve us form the world as it is, and uses "doubt", no matter its degree or what arguments are present on any side, as evidence that there is a parity of probabilities.
Emotion deals with whatever logical misgivings might be present. it tips the balance so that where some doubt is present then the overwhelming deciding factor is feeling or preference or efficacy or utility.

In my mind flesh and mind are the same phenomenon views within a different context or perceived using a different sense organ.
For instance, because the processes of the brain can primarily be perceived using the ears, later developing the capacity to become encoded into symbols which the eye can pick up as an abstraction, and because the form is primarily perceived by the eyes, this idea that they are different "things" gains ground.

I guess I agree with some of these famous thinkers about some things and I disagree with them on others. My interest is not to position myself amongst them.
I only care about making sense of the world around me, as I experience it.
If someone thought the same way, then fine; if they disagreed then also fine.
I try to learn form some while from tohers I try to defend myself and my positions.
I'm not saying that anything I say is unique or even valid. When I come across those who follow one or the other famous thinker or some established school of thought I test myself and my views against them.

As I wrote in my earlier posts and in my metaphysical thesis Interactions and Interpretations (which I am presently integrating along with The Feminization of Man into one single piece, streamlining it to reduce redundancy) I consider existence as another term for activity.
There is no difference for me.

Matter and energy are but different rates or activity (energy) varying degrees of oscillation.
Oscillation when one takes space as being possibility (turning spatial dimensions into the possibilities derived from (inter)activity between different rates of flow, linear time experienced as change (flux in he multidimensional field).

The question: What is changing? asks for exactly what is absent, and ti represents a limitation in the human method of conceiving (binary logic...built upon an on/off dichotomy).
There is no thing flow as there is only flow exhibiting different degrees, different speeds.
It is this human primitive, yet good enough, method of conceiving which is expressed in language.
All of language - language being a symbolic representation of mental abstractions) is built on fabricated absolutes.
So, how do you describe the fluidity of the world by using static models?

Same way an artists paint four movement on a two-dimensional canvas or a musician with an ephemeral vibration symbolized with a dot on a paper.
Artistry....Reality can only be expressed indirectly, using artistic methods.

The word "thing" is just that...a word.
It simply refers us back to a human abstraction.

What is an abstraction?
A simplified/generalized model build by collecting and integrating sensual data into a mental model; a model dependent upon a priori concepts of space/time (projected possibility - imagination; rates of change change, based on biorhythms or cellular diastolic/systolic rates...in other words on binary processes of on/off).
These abstractions are then projected, using the imagination, upon the unknown. This provides the advantage of efficiency and this is why it has proven to be a dominating survival tactic.

We take the known, the abstracted past, and we project it towards the yet to be.
This is idealism.

The further ahead we project the more difficult it becomes, requiring a more detailed or more precise mental model...ergo intelligence is always superior.
This does not occur one time or a few times...it happens constantly.This is why consciousness is also fluid, like the world it tries to make sense of.

-------------------------

eyesinthedark wrote:

No, humanists don't believe in a literal God, but
they believe man can become like God, in time, through progress,
science and technology.

But this is it...what does it matter if one wishes to sit beside God or at His feet or if one wishes to take up the position?
The difference is one of masculine/feminine attitudes...the nihilism is the same. The concept God, like all absolutes, when taken literally represents an end...alpha/omega....the cessation of existence, no matter what clever ways they come up with to avoid this.
Whether you dream of being God's bitch or a God the outcome is the same. there is nowhere to go from there...end of activity...no movement...and consciousness is process.
You can't make consciousness into a mystical thing to save it because you want to die but not be dead.
Consciousnesses is a tool, not some magical thing.
Take away need and you take away the reason it evolved.

Let's take the idea of free-will.
You cannot both claim to be free and contingent or free and urged to find god or godliness.
A purpose, a singularity, would be a restriction to your freedom.

When I say man strives towards the ideal, whether he calls it Power or Life, in the absolute sense, I am saying that he is projecting a preference as object/objective. He will never attain it, nor should he, for this would mean the end in itself...but by striving towards a particular projection he gains a direction, in others words an identity.
What am I projecting?
The continuance and increase of what I already am.
When I am moved towards power I am taking what power (energy) I have control over and I project its continuance or its increase....towards its absolute omnipotent hoped for state.
When I will life I take what life I am, life being an ongoing process, projecting its continuance and its increase...towards the ideal state of absolute life....immortality.
Man is not identifies not only by the sum of his past, but also by what he strives to reach...it is not the destination but the trip there.
It is this striving towards and what this "towards" is projected to be, which distinguishes you as a Becoming.

I think this was an interesting debate between Alex Jones (documentary film maker, conspiracy theorist, radio talk show host) and Peter Joseph (documentary film maker, New Ager, Venus Project stooge) that has some baring on what we're discussing here. Although Alex Jones is a professing Christian, I think he's much more of a humanist, though his brand of humanism seems much more aligned with reality than Peter Joseph's. Alex Jones believes both nature and nurture play a more/less equal role in human psychology, where as Peter Joseph believes nature plays no role whatsoever in not only human, but in animal, in arachnid psychology. Very 'scientific', Peter Joseph, sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

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

I'll address your other points tonight or tomorrow.

I'm not sure how to post videos here.

eyesinthedark wrote:

I think this was an interesting debate between Alex Jones (documentary film maker, conspiracy theorist, radio talk show host) and Peter Joseph (documentary film maker, New Ager, Venus Project stooge) that has some baring on what we're discussing here. Although Alex Jones is a professing Christian, I think he's much more of a humanist, though his brand of humanism seems much more aligned with reality than Peter Joseph's. Alex Jones believes both nature and nurture play a more/less equal role in human psychology, where as Peter Joseph believes nature plays no role whatsoever in not only human, but in animal, in arachnid psychology. Very 'scientific', Peter Joseph, sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

Yes...Venus Project is a renaming of Communism to be marketable in a post-Cold-War population.

eyesinthedark wrote:

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

I'll address your other points tonight or tomorrow.

I'm not sure how to post videos here.

At the bottom of the vid on YouTube there's a "share" button.

You click on it giving you options, one of which is "embed". You copy and paste the code they give you.
You can even adjust the dimensions of the screen.

Quote :

Yes, social eugenics, given to you by those that despise those Hitler worshiper's and their "blond beast" misunderstandings.
You see these kind-hearted reactionaries, these proper well-intentioned, do-gooders and defenders of children's rights, are really wanting to edumucate godliness back into the souls of men; remind them of how tender and tolerant they are in their souls.
They want the lion to lie down with the sheep, because they are the sheeple....and castrating, de-clawing, filing down their teeth, and maiming lions is how this is made possible. How else will they get a good night's rest in such a cruel, vicious, unfair universe?
Technology is technique...a technique for tearing those balls free from the body, severing those small ties and letting the estrogen take over.
How ill little boys are who behave in such un-girlish ways? They should learn that such behavior will not be tolerated by the preachers of tolerance.

Indeed, they have no trouble with eugenics, so long as it feminizes, weeding out all aggression, competition, individuality. As you've mentioned in your feminization of man, and elsewhere, the ideal is to feminize man, but why, why not masculate him, or let him be? One possible explanation is- just as man has domesticated plants, animals and the earth, man is domesticating man, adapting her to himself. Why domesticate him, why make him a more docile and obedient? Well the answer is fairly obvious, greed.

Some men want more from this world for less, so they decided it would be more efficient to domesticate their prey, enslave it, rather than hunt it down every night. Just as wise man began farming nature, wiser men began farming other men. Where as before, there existed a kind of monism in the world, a kind of equilibrium between plants and animals, rock paper scissors, though I guess you could say some carnivores, like the lion, wolf and bear, were at the top of totem pole, having no predictors. This state of affairs affected man's world view, from his metaphysics to his ethics, he wasn't a humanist the way most modern men are. Of course he cared more for his kind than others, particularly his family, his tribe, but he didn't believe he was entitled to more than what he believed to be his 'fair share', he was content with little, and he hadn't yet devised a means of obtaining a surplus.

Then this new order emerged, a more hierarchical one, with a king on top, his warriors and priests in the upper middle, his worker peons in the lower middle, and animals, plants and worker peons on the bottom. A metaphysical dualism or hierarchy coincided with this social dualism, spirit, mind or heart was believed to be distinct from matter, man was believed to be distinct from woman, the lighter races were believed to be distinct from the darker races, and man was believed to be distinct from animal. Where as before, all things were believed to be essentially one, with little or no distinction, civilization was born from greed, from man taking advantage of this intellectual disparity between him and other species, and other species of men. This I suppose, was the original civilization and worldview, the masculine paradigm, and this is why idealism and dualism are so popular with traditionalists and elitists.

There is an apparent dualism in your thought as well, albeit more subtle, more.. modest, or cynical, as you believe feminine interactivity, chaos, Eris is the greater force in the universe and the mother of all lifeforms, to which the king, pawn and worm return to, though they may arrest this development for a time, particularly the king.

To reiterate- prior to the advent of civilization, man had yet not deified himself, there was no fundamental difference between man and other men, or beast, man had no special place in the grand scheme of things. Then suddenly, almost overnight, man or some men believed they had an immortal soul, believed they could trace their lineage back to the divine, and it was the duty of pawns, who were little or no better than animals, to serve them. These warrior kings and Brahmin priests wanted it all, adoration from the masses, wealth, power, wine women and song, victory in battle, and immortality. They were authoritarians, traditionalists, and they devoted themselves to art, science, philosophy, literature and magic whilst the peasants toiled day and night to provide them with the necessities and luxuries of life.

The Greeks and the Romans had a similar outlook as the Egyptians and the Babylonians, but there were differences. If I'm not mistaken, it seems they were more oligarchic, by contrast the great kingdoms of the east were monarchies. In addition, the average man had more freedom. I don't think they were more feminine than the Egyptians, Babylonians and Chinese, certainly not the Romans and the Spartans, if anything they were more masculine. The difference being, there was less of a gap between the Roman, Athenian and Spartan elite and the commoners, Greeks and Romans were more on equal terms. Greece and Rome were less dualistic than their Asiatic cousins and neighbors. They placed the masculine above the feminine, spirit above matter and reason above emotion, but the divide between the two was less substantial.

But all was not well in paradise. You see, men are not as easy to tame as beasts. This monopoly on intellect that has made man the ultimate predator for the time being, this divide between man and animal, was not as pronounced as the divide between man and other men. The slave religions and philosophies crept in slowly. At first, they did not directly challenge the status quo. Philosophies like Stoicism, Epicureanism (I think Platonism and Aristotelianism were more masculine), Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. I guess as empires grew richer, some of that wealth and education was bound to trickle down, and the upper classes grew fat and tired.

The philosophies of the axial age didn't demand emancipation just yet, what they wanted was a more 'just' king, one who would look out for the sheeple, sheer them, drink their milk and protect them from wolves, rather than eat them, they only permitted the kings to eat the black, wayward sheep. These philosophies may or may not have been orchestrated by the upper classes themselves, in either case they were forced to adopt them, to placate the jealous masses. This I believe, was the origin of Yahweh and Moses, Ahura Mazda and Zarathustra. In fact, maybe Platonism and Aristotelianism too, maybe all the axial age philosophies. I think the real philosophies of the upper classes persist until this day, underground, they had to occult their true philosophies, which are ones of contempt and hatred for the masses, worshiping 'demons' in secret, which there is some evidence for. The only philosopher who preached outright disdain and hatred for the weak and inferior was Callicles.

Anyway, I didn't anticipate this taking so long. To shorten, the people eventually emancipated themselves from serfdom and slavery. Their philosophy is the opposite of their opposition. A philosophy of quantity, of feminism, egalitarianism, malleability, democracy, collectivism, liberalism, communism, materialism in both the philosophical and common usage of the word. You see all these isms fit like pieces of a puzzle. Now individuals, races, classes, and their philosophies battle for dominion over the earth, and then some, like me, choose not to get involved, we prefer to sit on the sidelines and observe the participants. The moderns are humanists, particularly left wing humanists, for they believe human beings are special, that we have virtually unlimited potential, that we can reach the stars (optimism) in contrast with conservatives who just want to keep things from getting worse (pessimism). There's something inherently more temperate and modest about the masculine ideology, despite it's excesses.

I'd like to classify myself as an Ahumanist, neither left, right or center in qualitative (fascism, oligarchy or communism, democracy) or quantitative (big government or small government) terms. I guess I think humans should meddle with nature, human and otherwise, less, or less recklessly. Well, there's a brief history of ideology for ya.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Indeed, they have no trouble with eugenics, so long as it feminizes, weeding out all aggression, competition, individuality. As you've mentioned in your feminization of man, and elsewhere, the ideal is to feminize man, but why, why not masculate him, or let him be?

Why does man domesticate, tame, plants and beasts?
Farming....

Have you understood the nature of "masculine" versus that of "feminine"?
Your question seems to indicate that you have not.

The sexual types of male/female have particular roles, and so they develop particular body types and mental types and psychologies and attitudes to facilitate this role.
The female's demeanor is more conducive for internal harmony as this plays in0t her sexual strategy and her desire to exists with a safe and predictable unity.
The male's sexual role I to usurp, to challenge, to overcome, to think outside the box so as to dominate and stand out.
Can you imagine a system built on the masculine attitude?

All social behavior, therefore, entails a certain degree of emasculation for the non-dominant males.
The size of the group determines the degree of the emasculation.

Quote :

Why does man domesticate, tame, plants and beasts?
Farming....

I consider mafias and protection money and governments (to a lesser (democracy) or greater (oligarchy) extent depending on the form) and taxes to be a form of farming, human farming. In this relationship between farmer and farmed, the former plays the part of the male, the latter plays the role of the female. Now, civilization itself may be feminine, but there's different degrees of femininity and masculinity within that femininity.

You yourself said males love order, is civilization not a form of order?
Do kings and nobleman not stand out amongst thousands, millions of people? Are tribal societies not more communal in nature? What could be more masculine than the notion of property (what's mine is mine), and who has more property than the king? Is man not the innovator, is civilization not a form of innovation?

I think there's two ways to look at it. In some ways, civilization appears feminine, but in others, it appears masculine. I'd say it is a product of both.

eyesinthedark wrote:

You yourself said males love order, is civilization not a form of order?

Indeed...now consider who makes the rules and who controls this "civilization".
What principles govern this system?
What kind of person do they produce?

I also said males usurp power, in that they challenge the status quo or the one, or the many, who dominate.
Do I, or you, dominate?

eyesinthedark wrote:

Do kings and nobleman not stand out amongst thousands, millions of people?

Originally, yes...do their children?
Does not the kingdom pass from father to son, or daughter?

In nature, being born of a dominant pair does not guarantee you a place on the top...nor will the others be obliged to support you just because you were born from a high pair.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Are tribal societies not more communal in nature?

No, they are more homogenous, genetically speaking.
also in smaller groups nobody is expendable.

eyesinthedark wrote:

What could be more masculine than the notion of property (what's mine is mine), and who has more property than the king? Is man not the innovator, is civilization not a form of innovation?

Nothing, if this is not guaranteed by a system of institution.

Quote :

Modernity can be categorized in this way:

Quantity over Quality...Materialism over Spirituality...Feminine over Masculine.

I already mentioned how, if we take current cosmological models concerning entropy, that a "looking back" is a looking back towards less entropy....more order.
We also take from Heidegger that consciousness is a looking back, as it is an ordering mechanism in the growing chaos.
Chaos being defined as randomness.

We see now that the masculine spirit is the spirit of order, explaining why conservatives are obsessed with the past and the feminine spirit always projecting a "better world" in some ambiguous future. This future would be one of growing chaos, or fragmentation...which is what this leveling of he sexes is all about.

In my The Feminization of Mankind I tried to describe my views on modernity...but there are others who have noticed this.
Evola, Guenon, Yockey but also Schopenhauer, Hitler, Stirner, Spengler, Nietzsche and many more who did not dare speak as openly about it.

Now to explore the opposing view that of Traditionalism and fascism we must explore what they propose.
There is a distinctly authoritarian slant to Traditionalism which reaches the extreme of fascism; a desire to return to a state in harmony with nature and natural selection but they impose a caveat.
For the Traditionalists the "primordial one" is presumed and then represented by an earthly God-King figure, setting up an Imperium or an Empire of order.

The liberal mindset is more duplicitous and confused, as is the female mind.
It riles against human intervention, yet it proposes a massive human intervention when it speaks of world peace and some kind of ideal paradise where none are hurt and nobody is excluded - a Christian ideal.
It presumably worships nature yet deplores natural selection, calling it unjust, primitive, wrong, cruel. It's conception of nature is of a cleansed, pristine, quarantined, humane nature...one resembling the Garden of Eden before the "fall", though they profess to not believe in such childish fairy tales.
It worships something that has never come to exist and is probably impossible to exist...as it is an ideal totally detached from the real - a fantasy.
Children and women are its most staunch advocates for it falls into their psychology...and with feminization it is also becoming a male desire.

To make this futuristic, fantastic future world of total uniformity and parity possible the modern man abstracts power into a quantitative form: money, particle, government, making it accessible to all equally, if they display the "correct" social and moral demeanor.
The denial of human nature or that a child is born with certain predispositions, certain determining needs resulting in behavior (see how in ILP the effete males and the women battle to preserve the idea of tabula rasa) is part of the leveling. Inheritance is erased, the past essentially, so as to make of the individual a total product of the present, the modern, the current.
No other factor is allowed to divert the behavior and the training starts early on. See how boys are deemed troublesome or suffering from some kind of dysfunction when they exhibit the masculine attitudes. they are quickly corrected, by these defenders of nature and purity, and made to think that acting and thinking like a girl is the "right" way.
The slow decline of the family is social necessity to eradicate all other sources of identity.
The child has no blood-ties no family history, no cultural heritage, except as a quaint little insignificant detail which does not really matter since utility, production, consuming is all that he will be judged on.
Even the New Age spirituality is really nihilism masking as a positivity, and the Judeo-Christian dogma is another school of self-abasement.
se how in the Old Testament Abraham is given a choice: God or your son...and he chooses God. God supersedes even blood-ties, this is the message; God is supreme and more important than your own family and your own tribe and your own ancestors.

That in modern systems conservatives have been linked to Christianity and "family values" is part of the world denouncing twisting of reality.
Al is presented as the opposite of what it is...take liberalism.....being called "progress" when it simply advocates a surrender to what is occurring naturally: change, continuous deterioration towards chaos - fragmentation.
The metaphysical conservatives become the physical rebels.
This is made possible by separating the metaphysical from the physical...the mind from the body...the noumenon from the phenomenon...quality from quantity.
So, a man can be black and have particular characteristics, as evidence of his entire past, and none of this matters...it is but a meaningless detail...All that matter are the quantities not his qualities.
How tall is he? How large is his dick? How fast can he run? How much does he earn? How much does he produce and consume?
He becomes a statistic, a numerical value...his essence, his nature, this being nothing more than the sum of his past manifesting in his presence, his appearance, is secondary or totally meaningless.
To mention it would expose you to attacks of bigotry and superficiality.

Of course the U.S. is the most advanced modern nation on earth and this "war on terror " is really a war against spirit; against the past.
Look at the U.S. itself: a culture of no culture. A nation as caldron, cooking a soup where the ingredients, the individuals, are lowered into the status of elements, numbers, with no distinction outside their participation in the soup...the "melting pot".

Feminism is a case in point:
A socialist conception, a logical continuance of Jewish/Christian morality (all are equal beneath God), one that turned, via another Jew (Karl Marx) into the secular variation of the original (an internal Semitic battle over supremacy, or a viral competition).
It pretty much bases it's assumptions on the irrelevance of empiricism, at least when it comes to humans, on the grounds of efficacy and "complexity".
Humans are too complex to judge and so one presumes their equality in potential. Of course the senses evolved to distinguish complexity by simplifying it inot form, color, texture, odor...but nevermind, that's another issue.

Under the abstracted masculinity of State or Institution, all are emasculated...ergo a de facto "equality" is manufactured by those claiming authenticity and a hatred of eugenics and hypocrisy...like crannaple our resident bleeding heart Oriental "progressive", one of the spiritually enlightened who knows it all because he's casually had to come into contact with it in order to dismiss it. Did you watch him offer some bullshit modernistic tripe about "honesty being healthy for a relationship"?
It's one of those Dr. Phil lessons he's picked-up from somewhere else.

But you also witnessed it in the gibber-jabber of the coward d69 who had learned all the prescribed defensiveness of the liberal mindset and soon ran away crying, offering excuses, when he was forced to go outside of their text.

Back to the topic of emasculation or lies.
When many are taught to behave as if a lie were truth then it becomes, within their interactions, as good as true, though it has no reference outside their relating.
This to produce a fake kind of internal harmony...causing stress and often breaking apart in momentary lapses that "shock" everyone about the nature of man. Everyone is suddenly left to wonder 'how people could be this or that way' when they are just as capable of it under the right circumstances.

And so what is promoted is a kind of shared lie, a common play, where some know it is fake, while the many buy into the duplicity. In time, and with repetition even those that know become convinced that it was always this way and that the lie is really a "deeper truth".

Take a female outside the social contrivances she calls paternalism because along with her safety it demands her acquiescence and submission and see how long she remains "strong" and "independent" or someone males are intimidated by. She's lived so long within a protective system, she was born into it, that she knows of no other state. She can't, or refuses to, even imagine one.
For her this is not only how things should be, but this is how they always were, before those nasty men stepped in with their violence and vulgarity.
In her pristine world man is pure and good and kind....and then Satan steps in to turn him evil and selfish and violent.

wow, so much bullshit, where should i start..

to equate quantity and materialism as being feminine is laughable, on it's face, for starters. as if greed/quantity, wealth and decadence is just a feminine trait.

projecting the future is not chaos, fragmentation or feminine/masculine either.

your view of traditionalism is as exaggerated as calling the liberal mindset duplicitious and confused, as if wishing to go to the past isn't confused and wishful thinking or that male minds are not duplicitous.

the projection or desire for world peace or working towards that agenda is not feminine or masculine. it's human, some want it and some don't. as for paradise or natural selection, both traditionalists and liberals agree and abhor it, depending on what is in their interest or personal taste. traditionalists will seek out modern medicine just the same, so your point is rather duplicitious here.

as for being emasculated to literal equality, that's bullshit. that has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. that is just ignorance to believe everyone is the same which can be liberal or conservative. they can be both ignorant and objectify others in their own way. for instance, a conservative may group categorize others and it's convenient. it's a lot more work to distinguish the individual traits or complexity of people. the point being is that conservatives and traditionalists can be simple, retarded and view people as mere statistics too.

reducing power to quantitative form, objectifying, efficiency and statistics is more masculine, so i don't know why you would paint that as feminine. that is what males tend to do more often ignoring the spiritual aspects or details but of course females can do this too.
again, your point is duplicitious.

your view that modernism is quantity over quality and feminine doesn't make sense to me.

this is because i don't think there was more quality in the past, this could be likened to wishful thinking or delusion as well.

today, there are a bounty of choices, so it seems as though it's more chaotic but it probably isn't. there wasn't as much choices in the past so it seemed as though it was more orderly. i think this part you did mention before which i agree with.

life is more fast-paced today and we do make products that don't last as long but that's because they don't need to as technology and trends advances much faster but we have a solution for that, recycling.

as for breakdown of family, there may have been a time when divorce rates weren't so high and homelife was more traditional or at least on the surface but evidently that was not to last so obviously there was more going on that met the eye. throughout history, families have been displaced, torn apart as well as having problems anywhere from abuse of women and children to infidelity. so the idea that the past was better, even on this issue is a fantasy.

one thing i would agree on is that cultures take a long time to develop and life was more localized for most and sense of identity and community. that being said though, we all lament and have nostalgia for some things or how we would have liked it to be or stay.

even today, culture is in the midst of changing into something else and redefining itself which is more technological. this is not feminine but masculine.

Thank you for the attempt.

I would respond but your reply is so void of content pertaining to my positions lacking even a rudimentary understanding of what I call masculine/feminine or why the past is order while the future is chaotic that I do not know here to start.
But you knew that already.

So, let us take this piece by piece.

First off, man-child, when I say masculine and feminine I do not claim that females lack all masculinity or makes all femininity.
Both these attitudes can be found in all people.

So what is feminine as opposed to masculine?
It is a set of physical and mental (psychological) traits which facilitate the female role in the heterosexual method of reproduction.

Females are more pragmatic and willing to tolerate. They want to integrate within systems and to belong to strong protective unities.
Just the act of allowing an alien organism to penetrate them, then followed by the self-repression necessary to allow genetic material not of their own making to gestate and to grow within them necessitates a certain mindset.

Males, on the other hand must stand out within a crowd...get noticed and selected. In the procreative game females purchase, if you will, genes, and males sell them.
To facilitate this role they must think outside the box; challenge authority and be competitive and intolerant of authority.

As for conservatism/liberalism or chaos/order I'll leave that for another time.
I would not want to bore you with what you "already know".

But, just for the fuck of it, I'll give you a hint:

If we take current cosmological models as a starting point then entropy is increasing, right chink?
Good...so the Big Bang, or the past, represents a period of less entropy whereas the future, taking the arrow of time to be this linear conception of "increasing disorder" (complexity, randomness, chaos, possibility etc.), would be one characterized by more entropy.

ok, honkey. the big bang would signify disorder. this increasing disorder of society is your interpretation. if condensed singularity is considered order to you, then all this verbosity and nit-picking differentiation is the antithesis of your stand. what are you complaining about then?

now you are just equating the feminine with reproduction. you equated quantity and materialism to the feminine as well as an increasing technological culture as feminizing. that just doesn't make sense.

females are pragmatic? i thought they were emotional, confused, and unrealistic?

wow, i've never heard a conservative call a female pragmatic. if females are more pragmatic and males constantly want to usurp (chaos), then you would have to call increasing disorder/chaos masculine

here's a hint for you: your definition of feminine does not make any sense, especially applied to modern society.

there is nothing inherently feminine about statistics, objectivity, categories, logic, or technology.

the feminine is rooted in emotions, nurturing and spirituality. females tend to view things more holistically and with attention to subtle details whereas males tend to think in fragments and objective logic. males are more concerned with the physical and material, in general. males are more individualistic and branch out, society is becoming more masculine not feminine.

this means you tend to misplace blame on the 'feminine' whereas it should be masculine.

The Big Bang, chink, is a metaphor for a state of near-absolute order, a singularity, exploding, due to an imperfection, into what is known as the universe, and then exponentially expanding towards chaos.

The forces of nature were united, we are told by physicists, and since then they've been fragmenting...this is entropy at work, little china-girl.

But you knew this.

The quantity/quality dichotomy is straight from Guenon, little chink. It signifies the "rationalistic" versus traditional worldviews.
The rationlaistic worldview claims that all is quantifiable, measurable, replicable, and that they can be lowered down to a code.
Then they could be sold and bought by little nitwits, to compensate for the absence in themselves.
Like a man who lacks intelligence, purchasing knowledge to compensate and confusing one for the other...quality/quantity.
Like a china-girl who is ugly...buying beauty at the cosmetics counter or in the surgery room, because she lacks the qualities of beauty so she purchases the mathematics of it.

This confuses the noumenon with the phenomenon.
Nietzsche, Evola, along with Guenon and many others commented on this.
But you know this, right?

Females are pragmatic in their approach, china-girl...emotionalism is part of that approach; pragmatic in that their perceptions are limited to the here and now...to the immediate.
Emotion, little china-girl, is an automatic response to stimuli which has proven to be successful in bringing about a certain outcome.
It's power lies in its non-thinking efficiency.

They represent nature....they are, as Weininger said, sex personified.
They represent the soil awaiting plowing and seeding....the given, the norm, the increasing chaos.
They are conservative, by nature.
Have you watched documentaries, little girl? The female linos fight alongside the dominant male when a challenger arives...this is because they wish to conserve the norm. Then, if that male is defeated, despite their help, they quickly forget and switch allegiances.
This is pragmatic, boy...no thinking involved, no reasoning or profound judging, only emotion and instinct...automatic responses as these have been ingrained in them through natural selection.
They are malleable, like the soil.

Men wish to overcome nature...in themselves first. they are mind separating (attempting to) from the entropy. But that's too much to get into here.

Take you, for example...you are pure femininity...almost faggish.
You compensate for it by over-exaggerating the masculine in you, making you sound shrill....a butch-bitch.

Male is always spirit...mind....female is physical, matter.
God, the monist kind, is the authority, the One, King of all; the supreme Being is always male...all are lowered to the level of female before Him.
That's why females are attracted to the God-King idea...and why more females are religious. For men God is a challenge...they don't want to belong to God they want to BE God.
God as supreme order: omnipotent, omniscient, immortal.

Are you wet yet, my little china-girl?
I think you are.

The system, girl, is an abstraction of this metaphor, this projected idea(l). The institution is this representation of supreme authority and order...all are emasculated before it.
It represents the primal alpha-male...girl.
Conservatism...get it girl?

Females, like you, want to belong to it, give in to it easily...are loyal to it, just as long as it remains virile and strong and protective.
This is why social living is emasculating to males, just as religion is when it is absolutist.

I never called women confused, girl...you must be mistaking me for the autistic-boy Dragon. They are simple, dim, with little iamgination but also clever and cunning because their entire being is focused on the corporeal; they are completely dedicated to fitting in, to belonging, to internal social games and social-climbing. They work within the system, whereas males want to reinvent the system with its contrived rules and regulations.
That's why they, little china-girls like you, seek out or are attracted to overpowering intelligent men....they are drawn to what they lack in themselves.

Get it, simpleton?


You being a fag means that in natural environments you would be considered unfit. The mutation which makes you girly is what prevents you from playing out the sexual role of male.
Like a bird born with no feathers...you can't fulfill your role or utilize the advantages of your kind.
But you exists within a protective shield making featherless birds just as viable as the feathered kind...because they deserve and have a "right" to exist like all birds do, whether they can fly or not. They must be respected and offered the opportunity, by reinventing what "birdness" means to reproduce, passing on their defective gene to future generations...lowering the overall quality of the genetic pool, while the quantity increases in inverse proportion, and eventually resulting in decadence (decay).

A field of pollution technologies must be invented and dedicated to cleaning up, continuously.

In time the system implodes just as an old man dies: when the energies demanded to corrects the attrition of time, to self-maintain, exceed the energies at his disposal.
Modernity is the last phase of decadence...the senior citizen phase of the super-organism's life.
And you are but a wrinkle on that old man's balls.

you mean you call me china-girl, chink and faggot because you were incorrect?

nothing you have wrote has anything to do with the point. modernity is not feminine but masculine, even if it's the last phase of decadence. i don't understand why you don't get this.

as for overpowering intelligent men, you view it that way. i don't agree with your opinion that society is being feminized, that is the point. the only reason why i'm arguing is because you've had this recurring stance on the feminizing of society and modernity.

women are more conservative by nature and males more liberal but your point of view has always been that society needs to be more conservative equating it with the masculine. basically what this means is you are drawn to what you feel is diminishing/lacking which is the feminine: conservative, community, and the absolute. for instance, conservative males tend to prefer absolutism such as fundamental religion as they feel it grounds them, even if untrue or contrived. for you, it is not about religion but that people are disconnected from their past but that is not feminine but masculine. masculinity is all about usurping the past, redefining the present and forecasting the future as they wish.

i don't think females are attracted to a god/king idea as much as males are. if they do, it's just out of necessity just like males. males want to make their own way which is why there are so many differing factions today, what you consider feminine and disorder. society is more masculine. it's also interesting how you are always referring to some past philosopher when making a point as if without their approval and sanction, it's not legitimate. as for verbosity, here is some more: we recognize what has been noted because of our own experience and observation to be true but that doesn't mean we need to refer to the past to know what is true today either, though it's not necessarily wrong.

as for me sounding shrill, i already know that as it's very obvious. if i was really trying to compensate, i wouldn't be so obvious, simpleton.

Here's a few thoughts.

If civilized = feminized, then does it follow european males are more feminine than africans, native americans and australian aborigines?

Your typical man is more adept at surviving in the wilderness than your typical girl, I mean, there will probably never be a show entitled survivorwoman, then does it follow females are more adept at surviving in civilization than males, particularly high civilization, and if so, will males go extinct? Perhaps some of us will be kept around purely for the sake of reproduction, lest females find a way to reproduce without us. I think you may have already addressed this in your essay, it has been a while since I've read it.

Can the word (inter)activity meaningfully = (inter)dependency? If so, males being the rebellious conservatives (but also ingenious?) are moving from disorder, interdependency, desire and to order, independency, satisfaction, and females being the complaisant progressives are moving from order, independency, satisfaction and to disorder, interdepency, desire.

In other words, males try to deacrease interactivity (chaos) and interdependcy on people, places and things by deacreasing their desires and satisfying only their needs, where as females try to increase interactivity and interdependency on people, places and things by increasing their desires and satisfying their wants and their needs. This would mean want fewer relationships with subjects and objects and to dominate, where as females want more felationships and to submit. This would make the upper classes of a global civilization, bull dykes and the lower classes of a global civilization, dykes.

cranapple wrote:

you mean you call me china-girl, chink and faggot because you were incorrect?

No, it is because you are an oriental effete little man.

Dear girl, is this the only way to save your pride?

cranapple wrote:

nothing you have wrote has anything to do with the point. modernity is not feminine but masculine, even if it's the last phase of decadence. i don't understand why you don't get this.

Girls, modernity is a product of masculinity, but it creates effete little girls as part of its stability.
A nation, for example, is a masculine construct, but it depends of effete women for internal stability.

cranapple wrote:

as for overpowering intelligent men, you view it that way. i don't agree with your opinion that society is being feminized, that is the point. the only reason why i'm arguing is because you've had this recurring stance on the feminizing of society and modernity.

No shit?!

cranapple wrote:

women are more conservative by nature and males more liberal but your point of view has always been that society needs to be more conservative equating it with the masculine.

Little girl, I describe en environment.
If I were living in a jungle I would describe the forest and the apes and I would analyze the behavior of snakes and spiders.

Besides that, why do you assume, little china-girl, that the masculine entity of today's system is mine?
Did I not say that the masculine does not submit or conform but tries to usurp and replace authority?
What part of that is hard for you to understand, little girl?

Now, I understand that your girlishness makes you more inclined to feel that females are more to your style, but leave the thinking to men.

basically what this means is you are drawn to what you feel is diminishing/lacking which is the feminine: conservative, community, and the absolute. for instance, conservative males tend to prefer absolutism such as fundamental religion as they feel it grounds them, even if untrue or contrived. for you, it is not about religion but that people are disconnected from their past but that is not feminine but masculine. masculinity is all about usurping the past, redefining the present and forecasting the future as they wish.

cranapple wrote:

as for me sounding shrill, i already know that as it's very obvious. if i was really trying to compensate, i wouldn't be so obvious, simpleton.

See what a simple modern mind you have?
I know they told you that all it takes is effort, but this is the lie you bought into.
Trying does not automatically lead to success...it only increases its possibility.

As for men being attracted to God-Kings...duh
What part of feminization do you not get?

But you know all this...like you know what role heterogeneous populations versus homogeneous population splay in all of this.
So I wont waste "your" time and tell you what you already know.