Ego Death - Epiphanies.

Satyr wrote:

History is written by the victors.

Try to question the 6 million number of the holocaust, or mention how a bigger genocide was perpetrated against the native Americans, or that the Turks massacred just as many Armenians and that all people have suffered; dare to mention that the Jews had "declared war on Germany" way before the Second World War began, proposing and pressuring , politically, for a boycott of German products; say anything remotely contrary to the official narrative about blacks, women, homosexuals; try to admit that Nazism had a philosophical framework and that Hitler was not mad...see how far it gets you.

It's called social censorship...one of its titles is political-correctness.
No bullies, no names like "bossy, fag, homo, retard, cripple, nigger, stupid, bitch", not a hint of a derogatory remark, because if you mention the negative you are complaining, and not simply making a factual statement...

If you don't want to be looked at sideways, whispered about in private, or considered a whiner, just pretend all is fine and whatever the majority believes is true is true, crack a joke, have fun, make money, get laid...otherwise you put your sanity, your sexual virility, your social status your genetic potential into doubt.

Smile and nod....
Do not frown...they might call you sad, and bitter, and mad.
Smiiile....like a goofball.
Laugh often, to pretend you are funny, if you are not.
Have a drink, eat, fuck, it might help put that smile on your face.

Never think.
Memorize words and the definitions, and repeat....and one and two, and one and two...
aaaand dance...and sway, and dip, and bob, and bow, and roll, and again...
and jete, plie, and prance...
and for god's sake love one another.

Good luck with that.
Keep me posted.

Hitler wasn't the only weirdo that committed genocide, I get that. But Perpetual brought him up, so I responded. My contention is with his methods; the bulk of the Jewish children and civilians that were tortured and imprisoned had nothing to do with the politics brewing at that time. Why bother them? The Nazis conditioned the Germans into believing the Jews were sub-human Satans.

Anfang wrote:

phono wrote:

That he is only thinking that he is feeling, and not really feeling. As I see, his motivation is driven from empathy, which is a harmonization of a feeling between the self and the other.

Since you have an issue with my use of the word sentimentality -

Jung wrote:

Atrophy of feeling is a characteristic of modern man and always shows itself as a reaction when there is too much feeling around, and in particular too much false feeling. From the lack of feeling in “Ulysses” we may infer a hideous sentimentality in the age that produced it. But are we really so sentimental today?…there is a good deal of evidence to show that we actually are involved in a sentimentality hoax of gigantic proportions. Think of the lamentable role of popular sentiment in wartime! Think of our so-called humanitarianism! The psychiatrist knows only too well how each of us becomes the helpless but not pitiable victim of his own sentiments. Sentimentality is the superstructure erected upon brutality.

A humanitarian can't be heartbroken about anyone he helps - how else can he keep on doing what he does?
Sentimentality is something originating from the thinking function not the feeling function.

Jung is clearing talking about affectation. To use sentimentality as a lever, as politicians do. Thus, it is not sentimentality that is without feeling, sentimentality is by definition feeling. It is to use common public feeling in a forged artificial hyperbole used as a tactical maneuver.

The word sentimental itself, from sentiment... from latin sentire means "to feel"

Primal Rage wrote:

I posted the image because it's potent, an image that reminds sane people of how much of a piece of shit Hitler, really, was.

Let me ask you in return, what do you think of Hitler? How " high " in esteem do you hold him?

And if I answer, very highly, am I thus "insane"... I will say he was "great" however.

Primal Rage wrote:

And you know what, the teachers never did elaborate as to why the Germans were so cruel to the Jews. A lot of vague, hallow reasons were uttered such as " Oh, the Nazis just hated the Jews for the simple fact that they were Jews and nothing more - just mere vulgar tribalism". This, of course, is simplistic nonsense.

Before I was more intellectually aware of things, I bought into this Leftist mentality that was insidiously inculcated into my psyche. I thought that anyone who spoke bad about the Jews was just an ignorant, Nazi bigot. But those days are long gone. I've had a major shift of consciousness. And I've done my research and realized many things. What I've learned about the Jewish breed in general is that they are extremely sneaky

Now you seem content to present a very "simple" moral condemnation on Nazi cruelty... posting a picture for shock value, to "remind"(because they need reminding, probably) all the "sane" people what a "piece of shit" Hitler was... Seems like the same, simple "nonsense" you were critical of before...

An example:

Women complain about discrimination, or Homosexuals, or Negroes, and they are brave activists, standing up for human rights.
They are legitimate...making a rational complaint.

Men do, calling themselves MRA, in imitation of feminist tactics, and they are losers who can't get laid.
They are whiners, bitching because they can't find a woman to love them.

See the difference?
Say anything negative about something the other, the popular, thinks positive towards, and 'what is wrong with you', will come up.
Say something positive about the same thing...and nobody searches for psychological reasons to explain why you agree with the majority, like a good sheep?
You might not know why you agree, other than it feels good, and because you like to focus on the pleasure...and that's okay.
No, you are not a retard...you are healthy, because even an animal does it.
And we are animals only when it suits us, and far too complex when it does not.

It's about having your priorities straight.

See how it works?
Easy peasy.

Let's encapsulate
Love= all good...nothing negative.
Hate = all bad...nothing positive.

If you hate indiscriminately, you are ill, and should be placed in an insane asylum.
If you love indiscriminately, you are a valuable member of this community, a healthy mind, and a joy to be around.

It's called brain-washing...and you can see it in real-time right here on KT, but you can really see it on ILP.

perpetualburn wrote:

Primal Rage wrote:

I posted the image because it's potent, an image that reminds sane people of how much of a piece of shit Hitler, really, was.

Let me ask you in return, what do you think of Hitler? How " high " in esteem do you hold him?

And if I answer, very highly, am I thus "insane"... I will say he was "great" however.

Primal Rage wrote:

And you know what, the teachers never did elaborate as to why the Germans were so cruel to the Jews. A lot of vague, hallow reasons were uttered such as " Oh, the Nazis just hated the Jews for the simple fact that they were Jews and nothing more - just mere vulgar tribalism". This, of course, is simplistic nonsense.

Before I was more intellectually aware of things, I bought into this Leftist mentality that was insidiously inculcated into my psyche. I thought that anyone who spoke bad about the Jews was just an ignorant, Nazi bigot. But those days are long gone. I've had a major shift of consciousness. And I've done my research and realized many things. What I've learned about the Jewish breed in general is that they are extremely sneaky

Now you seem content to present a very "simple" moral condemnation on Nazi cruelty... posting a picture for shock value, to "remind"(because they need reminding, probably) all the "sane" people what a "piece of shit" Hitler was... Seems like the same, simple "nonsense" you were critical of before...

If you read what I wrote earlier, you would see that I still agree with my older post about teachers not elaborating on why Hitler and the Nazi party had anti-Semitic sentiments. I wrote earlier, in essence, that I understood Hitler's initial anger to what Jewish politicals were doing to Germany. But that doesn't mean he was justified in slaughtering innocent men, women, and children that had nothing to do with the " Jewification " of Germany. Hitler was a charismatic leader and great orator, I give him that. But in all other regards, a royal douche-bag, trash.

You mean Hitler was angry but not the representative of German anger?

I had no idea.

pho-no wrote:

Jung is clearing talking about affectation. To use sentimentality as a lever, as politicians do. Thus, it is not sentimentality that is without feeling, sentimentality is by definition feeling. It is to use common public feeling in a forged artificial hyperbole used as a tactical maneuver.

The word sentimental itself, from sentiment... from latin sentire means "to feel"

No.

perpetualburn wrote:

Primal Rage wrote:

I posted the image because it's potent, an image that reminds sane people of how much of a piece of shit Hitler, really, was.

Let me ask you in return, what do you think of Hitler? How " high " in esteem do you hold him?

And if I answer, very highly, am I thus "insane"... I will say he was "great" however.

Primal Rage wrote:

And you know what, the teachers never did elaborate as to why the Germans were so cruel to the Jews. A lot of vague, hallow reasons were uttered such as " Oh, the Nazis just hated the Jews for the simple fact that they were Jews and nothing more - just mere vulgar tribalism". This, of course, is simplistic nonsense.

Before I was more intellectually aware of things, I bought into this Leftist mentality that was insidiously inculcated into my psyche. I thought that anyone who spoke bad about the Jews was just an ignorant, Nazi bigot. But those days are long gone. I've had a major shift of consciousness. And I've done my research and realized many things. What I've learned about the Jewish breed in general is that they are extremely sneaky

Now you seem content to present a very "simple" moral condemnation on Nazi cruelty... posting a picture for shock value, to "remind"(because they need reminding, probably) all the "sane" people what a "piece of shit" Hitler was... Seems like the same, simple "nonsense" you were critical of before...

Thing about Hitler is he has become far too diluted as an individual with an essence, an impetus to do what Stalin, Lenin, Napoleon, and others like him did, which was to carry the burden of condemnation even at the risk of their own people.

Did Hitler stew in anxiety about whether his people would come to hate him or the entire western world? Did Joseph Goebbles concern himself with the possibility that he might be looked upon as nefarious propagandist? Did Hermann Goering think to himself, when he met Hitler in the early days of the national socialist party that this might be a man capable of killing millions of people? They served their ideals because they had to, because it was necessary, because it was worthy.

You see....when a man gives himself completely to the ideal he has committed to, he becomes something scary to the average mind, something "unnatural". His desire, and passion and total resolute ambition, overwhelms a mind that is used to thinking that what makes a leader is his ability to provide sentimental platitudes and assure economic and social change and smile and nod.

Satyr wrote:

You mean Hitler was angry but not the representative of German anger?

I had no idea.

Where did I state or imply that he wasn't?

Ah the Mooo strategy.
You are a fast learner.

Bravo!!!

stargazer wrote:

You have the temperament of exactly the self-debasing psychology he described. He also accurately observed how leftists, like you, engage in social activism as a superficial validation of their own inferiority and worthlessness.

The externalization of worth by immersing themselves in some niche that offers an affirming goal, such as civil rights, animals rights, gender equality...nurturing of orphaned children.

Simple-minded people are the first to jump to conclusions without any exploration for how that conclusion came about. You display the automatic conditioned defensiveness of the common modern sheltered sheep. This is why anarchists are such nimrods. They enjoy the "idea" of militancy and the glory of it, but not the actual reality.

Seems to me like it is you who has already jumped to conclusions before Primal has even given the opportunity to explore anything.

I feel an impulse to help others.
YOU'RE A LIBERAL, A SHEEP!

Take it down a notch, dear

Quote :

Because when it get's down to the nitty gritty, when it comes time to place a gun to someones head and pull the trigger, when it comes time to live up to their ideals, they shrivel up into that fear that was lying beneath the comfort of untested self-superiority.

Have you heard of the French Revolution?

phoneutria wrote:

stargazer wrote:

You have the temperament of exactly the self-debasing psychology he described. He also accurately observed how leftists, like you, engage in social activism as a superficial validation of their own inferiority and worthlessness.

The externalization of worth by immersing themselves in some niche that offers an affirming goal, such as civil rights, animals rights, gender equality...nurturing of orphaned children.

Simple-minded people are the first to jump to conclusions without any exploration for how that conclusion came about. You display the automatic conditioned defensiveness of the common modern sheltered sheep. This is why anarchists are such nimrods. They enjoy the "idea" of militancy and the glory of it, but not the actual reality.

Seems to me like it is you who has already jumped to conclusions before Primal has even given the opportunity to explore anything.

I feel an impulse to help others.
YOU'RE A LIBERAL, A SHEEP!

Take it down a notch, dear

Voila! I am liberal then. You've figured me out. I had no idea i was harboring such deep seated repression.

And yes sir, shall certainly watch my language.

Quote :

Quote :

Because when it get's down to the nitty gritty, when it comes time to place a gun to someones head and pull the trigger, when it comes time to live up to their ideals, they shrivel up into that fear that was lying beneath the comfort of untested self-superiority.

Have you heard of the French Revolution?

Yes.

Satyr wrote:

Ah the Mooo strategy.
You are a fast learner.

Bravo!!!

It wasn't a strategy, but a legit question. Serious.

Primal Rage wrote:

It wasn't a strategy, but a legit question. Serious.

No, now you misunderstand (see two can play that game), I was admiring your learned skill.
But you have to sharpen it a bit, by watching the bovine preform it.

See, he remains a bit more ambiguous, so no matter what he implies it can then be denied.
He can then ask you to show him where he said so.
Like:
"Your mother might have worked in the sex trade"
"What?! you called my mother a whore?"
"No man, you misunderstand; where did I say that? Show me where I said  'whore'"

See how it works?
Practice, practice...practice...
You'll get better at it.
I don't blame you he's been a coward for a long time, and so he's honed his skills.
It'll take you a bit of time.  

See this was your mistake...

Primal Rage wrote:

I wrote earlier, in essence, that I understood Hitler's initial anger to what Jewish politicals were doing to Germany.

Whereas he, the bovine, would never have been that precise.
He would have implied anger, only from Hitler, but never used the word nor been so clear.
It's a talent to be a coward and a cow...Some are born with it in their blood.
It's genetic. You might have to train yourself to be what comes naturally to others.

Don't beat yourself up.  

Next time remain less clear...ambiguity is your friend...
Say little and then when you speak use language that remains imprecise.
Never clarify, obfuscate.
Never post more than a phrase.  
Never try to clarify, that might expose a flaw in your reasoning, or the spirit of your beliefs.

The goal is to pretend you are saying something deep, when in fact you are saying nothing except repeating the common positions....which you can then deny doing.

I'm not saying you show aim at becoming a coward, and at remaining a retard, like the bovine is,but if you admire him and you want to be like him...I'm teaching you the technique.

Remember...

Ambiguity.
Laconic.
Denial.

Never explain afterwards, that might expose the ruse.

Use humor also.
"I was joking maaan"
or
"I was being facetious or sarcastic, relax."

If it really becomes heated try shaming.

Like:
"Why so negative man? Are you a loser?"
"Why so angry, try getting laid."

Along those lines.
Shit-Stain on ILP is a natural at it.
Study him, ask for his advice....train.
Kon't worry, you can do it.

Keep it light, happy, positive.
You know...fake.
Always retain the "positive" position.
It is the higher ground.

Just saying.

Anfang wrote:

pho-no wrote:

Jung is clearing talking about affectation. To use sentimentality as a lever, as politicians do. Thus, it is not sentimentality that is without feeling, sentimentality is by definition feeling. It is to use common public feeling in a forged artificial hyperbole used as a tactical maneuver.

The word sentimental itself, from sentiment... from latin sentire means "to feel"

No.

I'm floored by your eloquence. What choice do I have but to grant, under such overwhelming argument?

:rolleyes:

phoneutria wrote:

Anfang wrote:

pho-no wrote:

Jung is clearing talking about affectation. To use sentimentality as a lever, as politicians do. Thus, it is not sentimentality that is without feeling, sentimentality is by definition feeling. It is to use common public feeling in a forged artificial hyperbole used as a tactical maneuver.

The word sentimental itself, from sentiment... from latin sentire means "to feel"

No.

I'm floored by your eloquence. What choice do I have but to grant, under such overwhelming argument?

:rolleyes:

It's okay, I won't hold your lack of sophistication against you.
But you should do something about your rolling eyes - people might get offended by it.

:rolleyes:

Cute.

Erik wrote:

The sort of love I have is platonic.

"Platonic love" is between people who share same ideals; what you feel towards orphaned children cannot be called Platonic.

Quote :

What is this love then? I suppose it's just a natural overflowing of good intentions. What do you think?

Is love even an "intention"?


Note that, an emotional surge is different from a spiritual surge. And not every overflowing sensation necessarily denotes an inner strength.

An excess spirit feels triumphant at overcoming and having overcome adversities, misfortunes, and creating fortunate circumstances for itself.

When someone justifies that they want to help orphaned children because they are vulnerable, *because of the misfortune that has fallen on them, they are essentially trying to undo and negate the same conditions that marked their own "natural overflowing" state, what led to their own triumph, and so in a sense, a self-degrading.
They are essentially condemning life, for its misfortunate aspects in separating the innocence of life itself, from the innocence of such children.
When one thinks, "I am in a better position" than those less unfortunate, that also seems to erroneously imply that life is not one continuous interactivity and as if the 'fortune' of one wasn't tied and implicated with the 'misfortne' of the other...  the division of feeling, "I feel good" and "they are helpless" as if one isn't already the condition of a logic that partakes in the other is what's really 'moral nihilism',  and not the lack of empathy.

Heroism is not about feeling for the misfortune of others, but is about possessing self-integrity.

And integrity, etymologically means "to remain Un-touched'.  

From in- "not" + root of tangere "to touch" - untouched, pure.

Love is a purity.
To remain untouched, unmoved, unbroken.

So, in regards to your comment,

"The experiment is more to hit on the subjects of morality and humanity. Many people in my ' Ego Death ' thread were claiming my humanitarian desires to be unreasonable and ridiculous. I'm trying to see if there is some hypocrisy brewing around."

Remaining altruistically unmoved as the purpose of my life is no hypocrisy, and that is not the meaning of a moral nihilism.

Heroism is not about changing misfortune to fortune, but 'creating' such a fortune that misfortune finds its own place.

An emotional surge does not amount and equate to an excess spirit.

Every overflowing 'creativity' is from the "proper" use of energy.

"It is much easier to fare well under conditions of maximum stress than to be impeccable under normal circumstances, such as in the interplay with another under your care.
Impeccability is nothing else but the proper use of energy." [Castenada, Don Juan]

The Aryan and Noble Eightfold Path is "a" means of initiation to that "proper use of energy".
To be an Aryan, means to be Impeccable.

Pali Ariya descends from Proto-Indo-European *ar-yo-, a yo-adjective to a root *ar "to assemble skillfully", present in Greek harma “chariot”, Greek aristos, (as in “aristocracy”), Latin ars “art”, etc.
Thus, an Aryan is “one who skillfully assembles”.

Lyssa wrote:

Erik wrote:

The sort of love I have is platonic.

"Platonic love" is between people who share same ideals; what you feel towards orphaned children cannot be called Platonic.

Quote :

What is this love then? I suppose it's just a natural overflowing of good intentions. What do you think?

Is love even an "intention"?


Note that, an emotional surge is different from a spiritual surge. And not every overflowing sensation necessarily denotes an inner strength.

An excess spirit feels triumphant at overcoming and having overcome adversities, misfortunes, and creating fortunate circumstances for itself.

When someone justifies that they want to help orphaned children because they are vulnerable, *because of the misfortune that has fallen on them, they are essentially trying to undo and negate the same conditions that marked their own "natural overflowing" state, what led to their own triumph, and so in a sense, a self-degrading.
They are essentially condemning life, for its misfortunate aspects in separating the innocence of life itself, from the innocence of such children.
When one thinks, "I am in a better position" than those less unfortunate, that also seems to erroneously imply that life is not one continuous interactivity and as if the 'fortune' of one wasn't tied and implicated with the 'misfortne' of the other...  the division of feeling, "I feel good" and "they are helpless" as if one isn't already the condition of a logic that partakes in the other is what's really 'moral nihilism',  and not the lack of empathy.

Heroism is not about feeling for the misfortune of others, but is about possessing self-integrity.

And integrity, etymologically means "to remain Un-touched'.  

From in- "not" + root of tangere "to touch" - untouched, pure.

Love is a purity.
To remain untouched, unmoved, unbroken.

So, in regards to your comment,

"The experiment is more to hit on the subjects of morality and humanity. Many people in my ' Ego Death ' thread were claiming my humanitarian desires to be unreasonable and ridiculous. I'm trying to see if there is some hypocrisy brewing around."

Remaining altruistically unmoved as the purpose of my life is no hypocrisy, and that is not the meaning of a moral nihilism.

Heroism is not about changing misfortune to fortune, but 'creating' such a fortune that misfortune finds its own place.

An emotional surge does not amount and equate to an excess spirit.

Every overflowing 'creativity' is from the "proper" use of energy.

"It is much easier to fare well under conditions of maximum stress than to be impeccable under normal circumstances, such as in the interplay with another under your care.
Impeccability is nothing else but the proper use of energy." [Castenada, Don Juan]

The Aryan and Noble Eightfold Path is "a" means of initiation to that "proper use of energy".
To be an Aryan, means to be Impeccable.

Pali Ariya descends from Proto-Indo-European *ar-yo-, a yo-adjective to a root *ar "to assemble skillfully", present in Greek harma “chariot”, Greek aristos, (as in “aristocracy”), Latin ars “art”, etc.
Thus, an Aryan is “one who skillfully assembles”.

This is from the New Oxford American Dictionary:

Platonic |pləˈtänik|
adjective
of or associated with the Greek philosopher Plato or his ideas.
• (platonic)(of love or friendship) intimate and affectionate but not sexual: their relationship is purely platonic.

I don't want to remove obstacles from orphaned children; I want to guide them through the obstacles. Children are naive and vulnerable. If they don't have proper guidance, then self-destruction impends.

Would you save the drowning child, Lyssa?

Erik wrote:

This is from the New Oxford American Dictionary:

Platonic |pləˈtänik|
adjective
of or associated with the Greek philosopher Plato or his ideas.
• (platonic)(of love or friendship) intimate and affectionate but not sexual: their relationship is purely platonic.

The dictionary is not where you should look to understand what Plato meant by love.
These Xt. definitions of "not sexual" is not the correct meaning, as, to Plato, agape was only a refinement of (sexual) eros, not its negation as Xt. inverted it and continues on in the dictionary.

Quote :

I don't want to remove obstacles from orphaned children; I want to guide them through the obstacles. Children are naive and vulnerable. If they don't have proper guidance, then self-destruction impends.

Would you save the drowning child, Lyssa?

Tell me how are you guiding the drowning child through the obstacle?

Would you dedicate your life to PETA and defending animal rights, and their cruel treatment and exploitation?

Lyssa wrote:

Erik wrote:

This is from the New Oxford American Dictionary:

Platonic |pləˈtänik|
adjective
of or associated with the Greek philosopher Plato or his ideas.
• (platonic)(of love or friendship) intimate and affectionate but not sexual: their relationship is purely platonic.

The dictionary is not where you should look to understand what Plato meant by love.
These Xt. definitions of "not sexual" is not the correct meaning, as, to Plato, agape was only a refinement of (sexual) eros, not its negation as Xt. inverted it and continues on in the dictionary.

Quote :

I don't want to remove obstacles from orphaned children; I want to guide them through the obstacles. Children are naive and vulnerable. If they don't have proper guidance, then self-destruction impends.

Would you save the drowning child, Lyssa?

Tell me how are you guiding the drowning child through the obstacle?

Would you dedicate your life to PETA and defending animal rights, and their cruel treatment and exploitation?

I was referring to the orphaned kids when I mentioned guidance through obstacles. Saving the drowning kid is a different story.

I wouldn't dedicate my life to PETA because animals don't have rights nor do humans; rights are imaginary.

You didn't answer my question...

Erik wrote:

I was referring to the orphaned kids when I mentioned guidance through obstacles. Saving the drowning kid is a different story.

Good.

Quote :

I wouldn't dedicate my life to PETA because animals don't have rights nor do humans; rights are imaginary.

No word games; you know what I am asking.

Yes or no? Would you save vulnerable and poor animals from unfortunate circumstances, from their cruel exploitation? Would you save them?

Quote :

You didn't answer my question...

As you saw yourself the experiment you wished to conduct to check for hypocrisy is a false one, and a "different story".

I would save animals from unfortunate circumstances such as a drowning cat or someone abusing an animal.

Just answer my question now, please. Would you save the drowning child or not?

Erik wrote:

Just answer my question now, please. Would you save the drowning child or not?

Please, answer my question, I'm drowning here.

perpetualburn wrote:

Erik wrote:

Just answer my question now, please. Would you save the drowning child or not?

Please, answer my question, I'm drowning here.

What was your question?

I was joking you donkey

Erik wrote:

I would save animals from unfortunate circumstances such as a drowning cat or someone abusing an animal.

I am not asking you if you would do that as an incident - like save a poor drowning animal, but would you dedicate your life to saving all poor animals that are being exploited and treated cruelly?
Will you accept this as your mission in life, every single day live your life out to save them?

How about saving all defenceless girls from war-casualties who are being sold as sex-slaves and trafficked into bidder markets? Would you make it your mission to save such young girls from their unfortunate circumstance?

Quote :

Just answer my question now, please. Would you save the drowning child or not?

I would toss a coin.