Forums

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

Read as the herd of nitwits misconstrue the alpha-male for the charlatan, the flatterer, the one that seeks their approval.

Did I claim such a position?
Did I claim to be any kind of "ideal", male or otherwise?
At what point did I ever declare myself alpha or ideal?

Yet the word-players, the gilrish men, who hide behind semantics feel inferior so they assume that I had merely declared my self so.
They blame the feelings of vulnerability they feel upon the one that sparks them, never taking responsibility for them themselves.
No, hatred is not what they feel, for this is a sin, they despise me, loath me....are disgusted by me.

Their hatred is sanitized and made noble with a mere change in terms: despise, they say, but do not hate.

I remind them of what they really are....and toy with the weakness they sometimes admit, openly, when surrounded by meekness and self-hating humble ones. They feel safe amongst the self-deprecating ones, and then they expose what they really think of themselves. There they can open up amongst their own kind.

Imagine being unable to understand why the men they speak of, as if they would seduce such weaklings as them, and feel proud of it, would be unlike Plato's Philosopher Kings, never mind Nietzsche's free-spirits.

As if being king of the apes would make Tarzan proud of himself, or that it would be a position he would covet and find a lifetime of value in.

Imagine the baseness these manimals have fallen to.
They hoot and holler, in the jungles of their minds, and throw feces everywhere, but when confronted with a mirror they attack with hatred, thinking the image there is not themselves but another who has come to lead them.
Now that the absolute God does now bow low over them, seeking their worship, they imagine men, exceeding their capacity to understand, begging for their valueless approval or their shallow friendships or their fearful respect.

For them the one that shows humility before them, is worthy of their loyalty, as if playing with their emotions is such a difficult thing to do, if one could prevent one's self from vomiting after licking such pestilent forms, swallowing the vile endorphins they emit.

I, for one, choose solitude to the acquisition of their most desirable positions of authority, knowing that it is a position of show rather than of substance; a position that demands that I castrate myself and humiliate myself before mere manimals.
The institution is supreme male, and all others pretenders and groveling worm tongues.

One must be an actor, so good that he convinces himself that his own act is honest, to be respected by such baseness.
One would have to be ill to even consider doing so.
Look upon your politicians, vile manimals and how even you hate them, no despise them, knowing that they toy with your feebleness. Whores selling themselves to creatures that deserve nothing but exploitation.

To lie, to be coy, to hide one's true opinions - like the retard admitted - to pretend they are worthy of such efforts or that the outcome is fulfilling...such is the talents of their preferred "leader".

First the douche-bag Faust enters, like after a long slumber, being awakened by the rush he feels after finding a reason to flex his "power" by banishing the one that irritates him the most, implying that his ideal man is the one who seeks, like a woman, inclusion...for what is power or value outside the group....his group.
His idea of an alpha-male is the one that seduces him with pretty words and pretenses and lies; he wants to be charmed like all women do, by her man, before she bends over for him and accepts his penile domination; she wants to be wined and dined, told how pretty and smart she is, before she sucks his dick.
You see the creator must create fore the masses, for mass consumption. His art must be pop-art. The majority must buy it.

He cannot imagine anything outside of this possibility, as he is enclosed within communal premises, and so the idea of a pack mingling amongst the sheep but not wanting to be like them, does not even enter his tiny little sheepish mind.
He feels pleasure when one of the alien ones is discovered, willfully or not, walking amongst his herd; he exacts his revenge by kicking it out, thinking that the herd is where it wants to belong, rather than where it is forced to hunt.
Sheep, being sheep, will always consider membership in the herd as the primary goal of all living creatures. Not out of necessity, but out of psychological and emotional desire.

the motive has to be cleansed - purified to make it more of a unifying glue.

His fellow herd-member takes up the cause wanting to exact revenge, herself, after being exposed as the semantically obtuse little bitch that she is, and declares, not knowing that this exposes her qualities:

"I turn away from the solitary ones!"

This along suffices to damn her ni the eyes of those that can see.

For her all creativity goes through the one and only herd. For to willfully exclude one's self from it, or to choose solitude rather than such an insulting membership, so she pronounces herself and her kind as the ones who decide whom is the dominant one.

Ironically, the dominant one must submit to their judgments and cow-tow to their morals and lower himself to their common feminine needs.
For such a bitch, a worthy man would only be the one that can "make a difference" within the herd, and not the one that chooses to "make a difference" amongst his own or to himself alone, if no other, like him, exists.

The Feminization of Mankind, at work.

They would be flabbergasted if one were to tell them that soldiers, their idea of a dominant male, are the epitome of effete thinking.
For these imbeciles the image is mistaken for the substance, and the soldier instead of being a defeated ego doing the work of an institution that has broken him - boot camp - and made him into a mindless follower, willing to kill and die for reasons he can never know.

Don't ask, don't tell.
The modern army is full of feminine males.
Guess how many there are in those forums that are supposedly dedicated to "free-thought" and to "the love of wisdom".

------------
Do you know how you exposes weaklings and retards, comfortably munching and regurgitating the fodder they were given, as what they truly are?
Do you know how you make them drop those masks, and civilized acts?

You run amongst them, simply displaying your essence, which contradicts their own, and you snap at their haunches, causing them to bleed, riling them up, terrifying them, as they muster up their courage and forms circles.

From the start until they settle down in their most stable form they reveal their true natures.
That's when despite high-brow talk about Plato or Heidegger or Spinoza they begin scrambling for cover in semantics like hate/despise, or actual/real, desperately wanting to preserve their fake identification, the one that guarantees their membership.
It happens quickly...the masks drop and quickly they are raised again...but in that brief moment you see their scared cow-eyes, and those dull retinas, dilated in terror.

They are the first to declare victory...for in their mind they have successfully survived exposure, when in fact they dropped their trousers for all to see.

Did you see?
Sometimes it takes a keen eye...but even if your eyes are slow, the image has had an effect, like a subliminal image flashed on a screen before you.
Maybe you don't really know what you saw or if you saw it...but you're getting this feeling.


----update----

And then the flies gather with their little buzzing, to settle it down to the usual shit.

Real-time proof is, by far, much more revealing and entertaining.

The douchbag and the little girl do not understand that they are not my intended audience.

Yes...and genetic, as you join with those you most resemble.

But lions are a bad example, they are more solitary masculine creatures. Wolves would be a better example.

In the link you see an example of feminization at work - real time.
Their idea of a male, besides the usual hyper-masculine variant - itself a reaction, a compensation, to diminishing masculinity - and association with muscle and size, amounts to an association with the political male: the one that seduces them, plays along with their games, flatters them, lies to them etc.

In Plato's Repulbik the Philosopher King must be forced into leadership, for these reasons alone, whereas he would reluctantly accept, if he would at all.

If you notice in that forum - ILP - the Silhouette, girl (I know its a gut but what a fag!) has to assume both that I am socially inept, in real life, and "unsuccessful" within socioeconomic contexts.
The turd thinks that the act of weeding through the sheeple on that forum is my "real" character, and not merely an aspect of my character.
She needs this to project her hatred, which she hides form, and make me bearable to her.

Otherwise you find her scrambling to save herself with word games of the "I do not hate you; I despise you" kind.

Of course anyone who has sp0ken to me on the phone or via Skype or has actually met me will tell you that the Satyr is a part of myself which I keep under control...well most of the time.
He is in need of these forums for three reasons:

1- it allows this part to run free, for a while, because in real life it must contain and suppress itself...or face the consequence in a world that does not allow for anything besides humility, lying and repeating the common myths.

2- it allows me to cut-off the weak-links in the herd, making examples of them, or to isolate the "dominant" ones amongst them, the protectors, the ones that fancy themselves heroes.

3- it announces me to those who would be of my kind, or who are torn in their youth between the bullshit and their own growing awareness. It a world monopolized by the bullshit, fee-good, slavish crap, I inject a, hopefully, corrective dose of reality outside the common, mediocre, "self-evident", principles of conformity.


---------------
The Douche-bag Faust now enters the fray offering his all-inclusive recipes of how to bake a delicious cake, of blandness.

Douche-bag, high on his two-by-two foot area of control, announces that his community of simpletons is not following a philosophical school of thought, presumably affected by the illusion that the many variations of the same theme constitutes a major difference, proving "free-thinking".

Engulfed in the Judeo-Christian dis-ease he is unaware how the virus mutates...but he react intuitively when a serum denouncing them all is injected into this on-line body politik, reflecting modern day western decadence.

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

Quote :

Ummm...Sil.....I think I'm pretty good the way things are. I'm interested in power....the power to have a good time, which i mostly do, here. Other than that, I'll surely stay tuned to see what you come up with.

Mmmmm, one can smell the need, the hedonistic values, aching to excuse themselves.

Can you see the retard begging for a reason to explain why his every performance can never raise itself to his station?

He is there, here, for a "good time", and in this his role is that of announcer and director, with the world being that undesirable element that makes his plans fall on their proverbial face.

Are you having a "good time"?
Well then, THIS is philosophy!!!
In the 21st century.

That forums is the last one with an endless supply of such unadulterated stupidity.

They are dumb, in a forum run by idiots and populated by mostly retards, and what is enticing is that they are proud of it!

Can you imagine how much ego this post alone is offering?

More evidence of human retardation in the post-industrial age:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mmmm, this one is tastier.
It defines the overall quality the administrator and moderators are nurturing there.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And the usual dick-waving without me in the mix to castrate some nitwits:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

kriswest wrote:

It occurs to me that your dick waving is in its own universe.

And here you are.

kriswest wrote:

One species does not mean one breed and one set of abilities.

And?

kriswest wrote:

To put all humans under one breed of species is like saying a Chihuachua is a Mastiff.

Is that what you got, or the opposite, you stupid bitch?

No, wait...you just wanted a response....and here it is.

kriswest wrote:

Humans maybe a species but the interbreeding and inbreeding causes the same differences mentally and physically as it does with dogs , cats etc.. You cannot , if you are sensible,, think that all humans , all dogs all cats, etc . have the same brain functions /abilities..

A simple member of a breed, an average one, like you, should not go into this.

kriswest wrote:

What works for you is not what works for another.

No shit.

kriswest wrote:

Oh and since I know you are a dad, so happy belated father's day and Yes I know You are not USA but I also wish you a happy independence day you sanctimonious old fart.

you already got what you needed, no?

Given that I have been banned, yet again, from ILP, for doing nothing less than imitating what they do everyday over there, I am forced to respond to some who took the trouble to respond to me hopnig that they will come to read my reply here:

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

eyesinthedark wrote:

I've done it, I've figured out Satyr's moral theory. I believe it is a combination of social darwinism and virtue ethics. A behaviour doesn't necessarily have to maximize the survivability of the actor in particular, nor of society in general, but it has to arise out of the will to live and remain free and independent, in order to be deemed moral. Satyr is not a utilitarian (not of the altruistic, survivalist variety, nor of the egoistic, hedonist variety), he's fundamentally a virtue ethicist, but he despises the traditional virtues (faith, hope, love, humility, etc). He's a radical, as opposed to a conservative virtue ethicist. So how does he decide which behaviours or intentions are to be deemed virtuous and which are to be deemed vicious? By whether they have their biological, evolutionary origin in the struggle for survival, the will to live and remain free and independent (virtuous), or not (vicious).

Bingo!!!

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

Fixed Cross wrote:

In short: woman is civilization, man is barbarian.
Culture exists in the interplay between the two.
(it is often wrongly assumed that civilization is culture, or that culture needs civilization)

Wrong!
Woman is nature, many is the domestication of nature, upon which all civilizations rest.

When man dominates woman he dominates her inside of himself first...in other words he takes control over his nature.
When he loses control, he reverts back to a primal state.

We see this in the slow disintegration of western civilization.
One of the symptoms is the emancipation of women.

Fixed Cross wrote:

An often taken option for a woman wanting the best of both worlds is to let herself be impregnated by a barbarian type, and marries a civilized type.

I've gone through the "bad boy"/"nice guy" effect.
I've tried to clarify it further in the version of the thesis I am currently writing.

In short the effect lies in the hypocrisy involved when a female denies her nature, playing along with what she is told a "civilized", good, modern woman is supposed to like but still being controlled by her natural instincts and her sexuality, being that she is sex incarnate and ceases to be female outside her sexual role.

The conundrum produced by being wholly female but this urging her to submit to the modern ideals of what this means, leads to a compromise which she is not completely aware of: she "sows her seeds", particularly in her younger years when she is still discovering the extent of her sexual power and what is allowable in her current environment, but then settles for the social climber, the one who, like her, is totally committed to the norms, making him both successful and the ideal mate - effete, sensitive, caring, funny, dependable, tolerant, understanding, a good provider, available....the nice guy.
Still she is not happy, even though she knows she should be.
She explains it in various ways and sometimes settles for a comfortable predictable life of the average.
But more and more she might opt for a way out or for cheating on the side with those irresistible bad-boys.

Fixed Cross wrote:

It seems that for man to survive this scenario, he would have to form small bands again and withdraw from the mores of civilization. I think that the modern world actually provides opportunities for this. To be a tightly knit organization of barbaric drives, means to be able to invade civilization and plunder it, perhaps even impregnate some of it with new blood.

This, too is an evolutionary "tactic". Only the extraordinarily capable and assertive barbarian/male is able to dominate.

The first error is now resulting in compounding errors.
The "barbarians" in fact are the ones who play at being civil, because they've been trained, taught, to mimic the behavior. they try to mimic it as accurately as possible, but it is still an act and so it exposes itself as one in those moments of stress or inebriation or passion.

The "bands" spoken of are actually forming as we speak, via the Internets.
As uniformity increases, or the illusion of it, fragmentation and discrimination reacts in equal measure, become even more refined and stringent, yet not exposing itself openly in an environment where this would result in obvious personal costs.

The like-minded are and have always banded together in open or secret unions and this will continue to be the case.
More so now than ever.
Each unity within the unity, or each cell within the greater body which now becomes the environment within which it acts like a parasite, or a cancer, has its own common set of values and interests.
How well they organize, or if they do at all, depends on the circumstances and the desire to do so.

Unfortunately for the fabled "free-spirit" this would be a contradiction of nature, as a free-spirit is a solitary creature to begin with and the environment causes him to seclude himself further.
I'm afraid the free-spirit is not cut-out for such environments no for the survival game in general.
His/Her demeanor makes him reclusive and hesitant to enter into any commitment or long-term bonds.

He is a spontaneously emerging type of man, and nobody has figured out, as of yet, how he emerges and what grounds help him grow and remain un-warped by the often inhospitable conditions he emerges within.

As far as I an tell it is a combination of heightened intelligence, hypersensitivity, a delicate and easy-going demeanor and courage and will-power to endure and to persist in total isolation.

Fixed Cross wrote:

I am glad someone says this. Where do you see these effects, and where you draw the line between justified and exaggerated intellectual scepticism?

The line I draw is in between the world, at large, and the accepted ideals of the mind in question.
When a mind realizes that there is no such thing as perfection but only superior and inferior ideas and organism and attitudes and ideals, then Socrates becomes an exploiter of youth and an infection of the feeble.

A man eventually takes a stand upon his preferred ideals; the ones he deems essential for his well-being and his potential growth.

Skepticism can either freeze him in his tracks or force him to defer to minds whoa re inferior to him causing the weak to persevere where the strong wallow in their insecurities and their castrating self-doubts.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Sexual attraction can not so easily be separated from the eros of dominance.
Physical attraction in the aesthetic interpretation of the object of desire is secondary to the males attraction to himself as a dominating power.

True, but then self-love is the primary and most enduring love of all, in a healthy and strong individual.
A man does not love another unless this other contributes to him or services him or is a means towards an end for him or adores him, and through this adoration he can love himself via another and see himself in ways he cannot on his own - through a reflection.

This, of course, is borderline narcissism if not for the corrective effects of reality, that knows of no love or of any desire.
A man loves himself as himself, warts and all, and this does not mean he closes his eyes to his faults and his ugliness and his limits, but that he accepts them as a necessary aspect of himself.

Only such a man can be loved, as his self-love is infectious when it is honest and unpretentious, and only such a man can share with the excesses of his self-love by loving another in a similar if not an equal measure.
we can say that such a man loves a woman who is loving him (eros) and loves a friend because he reminds him of himself (agape)...the combination of the two being the magical kind of love, combining erotic pleasure with the connection of amity.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Males, at least those operating within the system on moral grounds, will be slaves to females. That much seems certain.

Yes, they will demean and embarrass themselves, becoming a carpet for her to step on. Ironically this diminishes her sexual attraction to him. But persistence, being at the right place at the right time and the compromises a female must make due to social pressures and enforce limitations on her sexuality, sometimes results in success...a wearing down of the female.

It is common to meet a professional, demanding woman, one which could be called a bitch or a "strong woman" who males are intimidated by, who having waited to find that "perfect" mate settles for her second choice just to fit into the social norm or to have a child or two.
Divorce quickly follows.

Of course the notion of a "strong intimidating female" is absurd, given that a female is as strong and intimidating as the institution which protects her and provides for her those inalienable rights.
Outside these institutional controls she is helpless, and must find a substitute authority, an alpha-male, to protect her from other males, preserving her sexual choices.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Except those men who will have nothing of this, there is no conscious force compelling us to participate in the leveling, only the mechanisms of civilization under increasing population. There is no reason to think that this apparatus will include all males. In fact it might in the end be used - this system of well educated slaves - by smaller bandes of more consciously masculine men.

You must factor in the possibility that this is more a kin-selection ploy, where the threatening males of a different clan are rendered innocuous and castrated by a system that promotes values and standards that mentally castrate them.

Thing is all social cooperative unities, such as a pack of dogs or a tribe, which include males rather than casting them away into the periphery, produces a feminization.
Population size only increases the degree of emasculation.
The larger the group the more effete male it produces as part of its internal stability.

Nice piece by apaosha here:

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

Thanks for that. But it's just this old one: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] .... edited and pasted in.

I noticed that little girl Silhouette has degraded further into popular sensibilities. At least she is being more honest. The rest are still the wearying crowd of nonentities they always were. I wonder why you waste your time with them.

Because it is fun, at times, to run through the herd.

It stirs them out of their lethargy and their fears come out.
I love watching it develop in their eyes, their posts.
I love watching the herd psychology in real-time.
I love nipping at their hooves and seeing them kick and squirm.

But yeah it gets boring.

One added factor:
Where else but in a more popular watering hole, full of dull stones and thick rocks, can you hope to find some tiny, shy, gem worth polishing?

But what's the cost?
Not much time wasted and the outcome is always inevitable.

One must learn to wash oneself in dirty water I suppose.

Look at this little gem, about London:

Silhouette wrote:

No.

They do not embrace capitalism, they forsake society's system - which is capitalist (in this case) - by taking what it has produced, but does not give to them. To fully embrace capitalism would be to partake in it in its full form. When one stops to pick up a piece of litter, they are not embracing littering.

You seem to forget that another type of economy would produce material too. Seizing material does not necessitate embracing capitalism, it entails an economy producing material separately to those acting outside of it in order to obtain the material that other people produce, who DO embrace the system.

You reduce this to "not getting their share". Yet there was also wanton destruction of private property and police disrespect.

Had they not been getting their fair share of destruction and disrespect? These do not involve material gain. An empowered gesture against police, property law, as well as commercial exclusion indicates they would not be content under fascism. They want more than just inclusion in society such that they would get their fair share.

Parliament is a little hard to burn down these days, and I doubt most of the rioters are aware of even the names of big banks. I severely doubt many of them have the education to understand how exactly it is that the Capitalist system keeps them down - hell, most people who DO have an education don't understand this!! It reminds me of the Luddites who destroyed the machines who replaced their jobs - without understanding that this was simply how Capitalism rolls. Smashing the surface doesn't solve things.

And this goes for the common simplistic interpretation of the riots - smashing the surface (the individuals without respect for law) through punishment, moral condemnation and further oppression likewise does not solve things.

Here the little faggot rationalizes the actions of a mob according to the Marxist narrative.

The metaphor is good.

I used to say that when wrestling a pig you must get into the cesspool and endure its shit and the mud it wallows in.
Thing is, if you keep your mouth closed, and you do not swallow, none of it can enter your core, and so the filth stays on the outside, where you can wash it off and be yourself again.
I never had a problem with getting down and dirty, and wrestling pigs in the shit can be fun, but I can get out and go home, have a shower, a nice clean meal and sleep in my dry bed, while they remain in the cesspool in the shit, eating crap in the mud.

You can't fight a retard with politeness, and showing him up with your good example is futile.
Swine must be dealt with on their terms, not because you wish to change them, or because you think changing them is possible, but to make an example of them; to expose him for what he is to whomever has the eyes, and the time, to take notice.

If nothing else I think I've more than once caused the swine over at ILP to show their true colors, behind all the philosophical bullshit, which they regurgitate without understanding a thing.
I've always find it pleasurable to be accused of being a bully by those who believe in the biggest lies and the most vile authoritarian bullshit out there...just as I've been entertained by being accused of hatred, cynicism, sexism, racism and nihilism.

Just the douche-bag's (Fausty) obsession with banishing me from his little party, where all are invited. The justifications he offers and the argument he uses is reward enough.

Imagine if you will a party where the host wishes to indulge in intellectual discourse - hypothetically - but then invites any moron out there, reducing the get-together to an orgy of social banter, sexual overtones and the usual social conventions.
Imagine you crashing the party and telling him, and them, the truth and then getting kicked out of it, time and time again, with the excuse that all should be included because noise is better than silence and that you are too disruptive to the many.

See, the douche-bag and his ilk thinks more is more, and given that discrimination is beyond them, a bad word altogether, even if they could manage it, they find their comfort zone in disappearing into the crowd of popularity, where their slightly elevated mediocrity can find solace in many who are less sophisticated in their stupidity than they are.
They would endure the nonsensical just to be considered open and popular.

Quantity over quality.
Such retards cannot endure the solitude. they need something to distract them from the emptiness in their skulls.
They would rather be with someone, anyone, listen to the stupidities and offer their own, just so as to not be alone with their thoughts...with themselves.

I, for one, prefer to be alone rather than to be with anyone just to say that I am with someone and that I am appreciated or loved or acknowledged, but that vast majority cannot handle the existential void.
They wish to hear voices, inane infantile talk, just to not have to deal with the silence.

Listen to the douche-bag find pride in servicing an arena which is popular.
See him find purpose and self-esteem in being amongst many.

We must talk though we have nothing to say, because repeating the same bullshit in the same ways, is preferable than shutting our mouths and thinking....perhaps thinking long enough so that we might, later on, have something interesting to say.
He would rather have idiots debating the difference between spirit and soul or asking "Does nothing exist?" than being alone.

The douche-bag Fausty and his clan is not there for philosophy.
That's just the pretext.
In his tiny mind the important issues are already settled and if he is to consider something else it better come from "reliable sources" with the appropriate credentials, making his stay there, year after year, a persistent duplicity.
He just wants to feel included; like he's involved in interesting work and that when the dullness confronts his delusion that he's there just to have fun.
But have you seen him post anything interesting?

He's the door-man who hands out the condoms at the orgy, but never gets to fuck.
He just makes sure nobody get's it up the arse without his approval.

Philosophy used like a pop-cultural music festival: you know the music will be crap, repetitive, shallow, self-involved, irrelevant but it is still characterized as music and, if nothing else, you can hop around to it's sampled rhythms and find little snippets to get lost in.
Have you seen the frenzy music can cause?

Here is the kind of music not to elucidate and inspire and lift the spirit up, but one to inebriate, unleash the suppressed instincts, lowering one to a state of an animal - Dionysian hysterics.
This is what philosophy is used as.

apaosha wrote:

Look at this little gem, about London:

Silhouette wrote:

No.

They do not embrace capitalism, they forsake society's system - which is capitalist (in this case) - by taking what it has produced, but does not give to them. To fully embrace capitalism would be to partake in it in its full form. When one stops to pick up a piece of litter, they are not embracing littering.

You seem to forget that another type of economy would produce material too. Seizing material does not necessitate embracing capitalism, it entails an economy producing material separately to those acting outside of it in order to obtain the material that other people produce, who DO embrace the system.

You reduce this to "not getting their share". Yet there was also wanton destruction of private property and police disrespect.

Had they not been getting their fair share of destruction and disrespect? These do not involve material gain. An empowered gesture against police, property law, as well as commercial exclusion indicates they would not be content under fascism. They want more than just inclusion in society such that they would get their fair share.

Parliament is a little hard to burn down these days, and I doubt most of the rioters are aware of even the names of big banks. I severely doubt many of them have the education to understand how exactly it is that the Capitalist system keeps them down - hell, most people who DO have an education don't understand this!! It reminds me of the Luddites who destroyed the machines who replaced their jobs - without understanding that this was simply how Capitalism rolls. Smashing the surface doesn't solve things.

And this goes for the common simplistic interpretation of the riots - smashing the surface (the individuals without respect for law) through punishment, moral condemnation and further oppression likewise does not solve things.

Here the little faggot rationalizes the actions of a mob according to the Marxist narrative.

Was there any doubt that she was a bleeding heart liberal?
I saw it the first time I came across her and that shit about me "hating" while she despises.

Classic.

Maybe her Judeo-Christian bullshit escapes her, since it is now hidden behind this anti-materialistic, New Age, spiritual sophistry.

Making the masses feel like they are equal investors in the system has proven to be problematic. Mainly because it is a lie that crumbles when things take a downturn and the sheets of hypocrisy are momentarily lifted to reveal the stinking underbelly of the same old system wearing a new guise.

We are life, we are not what is given life.

Your dichotomies are becoming tiresome.
To be "slave" to one's self is to be true to one's self.

Poison IV wrote:

The idea that you're in full control is a tempting one, and it's this very attitude that makes a slave.

As always and like most simpletons you resort to absolutes, or exaggeration, to pretend you are making a point.
Who said "full" control?
Who said absolute freedom?
Who said absolute power?

I didn't.
Still, we all know people with more self-control than us, and we admire them.

Poison IV wrote:

I live because I have needs I did not choose. I was born into slavery of the flesh. It feeds on weakness, and it feeds on itself. I am weak, but the recognition of this is what makes me stronger.

I never lose focus of my bondage.

Excellent princess. You are echoing my own words.
Echo was your most precise moniker, particularly when it harkened us all back to the Narcissus myth when you were with the biggest narcissist around.

"Poison IV"? A clever wordplay but not really you.
Perhaps you as you wish to be. An ideal to aim for.

Who told you I'm confident?

All you have is play.

As always the obtuse misconstrue popularity for quality and verbosity for substance.

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

Very well put, my friend:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No hold barred thinking here, me-boy.

Stop thinking or begin reciting the poems you learn din school or on your momma's lap and you'll soon feel the pain.

Think of ILP as a farm.
Tame, trained, domesticated animals with a few hound-dogs running around.

When hunting is sparse we sometimes come out of the woods and go for the easy prey.

BlurredSavant wrote:

Aw, why so angry, Joker? You must realize I've been trolling you.

Which means: she likes you.

This is where the douche-bag exposes himself:

Fausty wrote:

This kind of question is a very good example of why you must first establish what fairness means. Fairness is a construct.

Indeed.
And so all actions are subjective interpretations of what this construct means.

This makes the douche-bag an open book of insecurity.

How happy he is when he banns and returns his forum to the state of justice.
Even when he justifies his actions he unbuckles his pants and lets them down a little, so that we might catch a peak of his crack.

See why I love places like ILP?

Exclusive clubs have particular memberships.

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

You leave the doors wide open and the party gets inundated with bums and retards screaming inanities and getting drunk on piss-water.

Then again, if you feel insecure losing yourself in a crowd is comforting.
You might even bump into a chick or two.

The Agora is open to all.
You might feel more at home here.

Oh, and by the way, this shit was simply priceless:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And I quote from memory because this shit just left me breathless and it has been erased by the one, the moderator who posted it:

Quote :

ILP is a meritocracy

I have to tell you, if this is your idea of merit then how sad are you?


I want you to imagine running in a group where cripples are included, because the common morality states that 'no one should be left behind'.
I want you to imagine the group stopping to let more and more cripples into the group, kicking out of the group anyone who makes fun of the cripples or complains about their limping and shuffling.

How far do you think this group will go?

I know it will feel good about itself and that the more gifted and gather in small little pools as they limp along to exchange tips on running faster, but the very constitution of the group prevents any speed being built up, because no matter how many 'running for cripples' books you might share or how many shortcuts you might find in the end the faster ones must slow down to allow the slower ones, becoming more and more, to catch up.
As the groups decreases speed exponentially and in proportion to the number of slow runners participating the faster ones must force themselves to go slower and slower still.
If they dare run up ahead to search for an easier path they will be heckled, insulted, shamed.

In time the running turns to jogging, then to walking, finally to crawling along.

Why, was this about you?
I thought I was commenting on ILP.

Weakness pretending to be something it is not, always irks me.

Thing is my "persona" is part of me...not a fabrication.
Not me completely, but a part of me no less.
Why does it matter?
is my critique correct or not?
Is the idea correct or not?

Why delve on motives before you explore the thought?
This is reverse reasoning...the top down approach.

First punch holes in my reasoning, then tell me why you think ?I made these mistakes.

Reminds me of those morons populating those usual places who, having nothing to say about my opinions, the substance, focus on the insults so as to dismiss me without having to respond.
So, I am a troll, and that's all that matters. They need not respond, because they cannot.

If I post a well-crafted argument to some inanity they posted and then include in the post the word "retard" then all that mattes is that word.
Nothing else will be talked about.
Banishment follows.

Oh well.

No, "retard" is the crux of the situation.

You see it means "late", from the french 'en retarde' to be late...meaning to be underdeveloped intellectuality otherwise.

You misconstrue passionate expression for emotional thinking, as you may mistaken civility and feigned aloofness for rational thought.

I admit me positions are controversial, but not intentionally so, and the responses I get when i post them in any serious manner has lead me to believe that there is no dealing with the average moron knee-deep in the indoctrinations of his time.
I've faced ridicule, personal insinuations, casual dismissals...and when I reciprocated in kind, I was the one reprimanded and banned.

In time I gave up on the idea of sharing my views and only used them as a way of discovering the few who were receptive to them and capable of understanding them.
I began using places like ILP, ILO, Sciforums and others, as places with large memberships where those rare gems could be found.

There's so much "Does nothing exist", "What's the difference between spirit and soul" and "Does God exist" one can take in a lifetime before one stops giving a shit.
And there's only so much Faust with his "We are all here to have fun" and "We are popular and all-inclusive" to make philosophy into a worthless joke.
Better to be alone and to not speak at all, than endure that.

The insults were mean tot keep away the rabble who wasted my time with the usual bullshit and attacks

attila of nazareth wrote:

Just out of interest, some posters there seam to think they are in a special league [or needs], and that posters like me don’t even belong on a philosophy forum.

Is that true? Just trying to iron out an insecurity due to my lack of formal training [which will change soon if/when I go to oxford]. Be brutally honest!

Formal training stunts the mind.

It takes a still malleable material and solidifies it, with the heat emanating from the furnaces of other people's thoughts and other people's interpretations and evaluations of other people's thoughts.
Reading other is essential....but only if it follows, not precedes, you contemplating the world, on your own, directly.

Before you open books, look, LOOK, outside your window and dare to think.
You may embarrass yourself, at first, but this should not stop you.
Then open that book and see what others thought, who did just as you dared to do.
Maybe their thoughts were better, maybe they were worse, but they will only be added to your own....they will not fill in the void of their absence.

This is not a recipe for success, because nature is cruel.
Some, like our resident Dragon, will make fools of themselves, display their genetic flaws openly and with pride, I might add, but you must give him credit: he does try to think for himself, though he is overly dependent and influenced by me....sadly.

But then there are a few who given a leeway can shine. Perhaps not as brightly as the greats, but shine they do, with their on light.

But it has and it continuously does.

That presently I have no interest in weeding through all the crap there to find those gems that show feminizatrion in action or what dumbing-down looks like in real life, or how conformity and tolerating stupidity leads to a lowering of standards, or how all-inclusion results in a continuous search for the middle-ground, the mediocre, and this slips further down the more we reach for it, is just a recent development.

You cannot indulge in an interesting conversation, let's say, and then have a retard make a comment that lowers the conversation down to his/her level, because now the stupid elephant in the room cannot be ignored.

You can't try to be honest and then have some conformist, liberal, Jude-Christian, cunt enter the foray with insinuations and personal comments, which are to be met with respect, because if you respond in kind you are the one who is banned while he is slapped on the hand, just to make it seem as being part of a commonly applied rule.

See, in my experience, most, having skimmed my posts and come to conclusions about me, using their tiny minds, begin underestimating me.

So they offer the usual accusations about sexism and racism and how I am unloved or have sexual problems or hate women, and they mistakenly believe that I cannot outdo them even in this mudpit.
They think I'll tuck my tail under my legs and run off yelping, after their simplistic psycho-assaults.

When I get into trouble is when I tear them to pieces using their own tactics, forcing them to go for help to the admin who, most probably sympathizes with them because he is of the same ilk.
What I am expected to do, is swallow my tongue, be kind and offer the benefit of the doubt.
no matter how obnoxious or retarded the other is, I must, for the sake of peace and all-inclusive happiness, diminish myself before morons.

So, no intellectual culling is had.
The herd wins, with its numbers.
The disruptive element is silenced or thrown out and the manimals return to repeating the common prayers.

They are there to have fun, as Fausty once told me. Nobody will ever be a philosopher the equal to the greats - what a self-pitying, assessment - and so why take it as anything more than mind-farting, and socializing?

A familiar stink once again makes itself known:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

apaosha wrote:

A familiar stink once again makes itself known:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ha....funny shit.
Vengeance for what happened yesterday.

Turd still thinks popularity is da game....because for it, it is all that matters.

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

I thought this guy was RU at first, considering the degree of megalomania and self-indulgent bullshit.

Notice the participants.

Yes...I saw it.

Interesting indeed.

Sauwelios shows up...as expected.
That smell of Nietzsche could not keep him away.

The obsession with Nietzsche pulsates through these morons.
It's as if he offered them a way to power instead of the conception of a will towards it.
He predicted how he would be misinterpreted and how he was talking "over the heads" of those that would use him in such a way.

He urges the reader to overcome him, even him...to do him violence...but they, and Sauwelios the scholar of all scholars of his writing, worships him instead.
What an antithesis....the idol breaker being made into an idol.

Why?

Because the many lack the capacity to match his artistry in expressing what is not so complicated nor mystical.
Sauwelios, is so bland that he only becomes interesting when quoting and analyzing his master.
So he keeps to the script, never veering off of it.

Christians do the same.
They only feel worth listening to when they are mouthing the biblical scripture; they feel powerful in association.

Sauwelios does not even feel a kinship to his teacher....he feels like an eneternal minion.

We should study this as a way of avoiding falling into this self-flattering trap, which is nothing more than self-hatred dealing with itself in directly.