Words

Nobody is asked to be born, or to what parents.....nobody gives their consent.
Consent is earned not given. One earns the ability to give their consent.
Choice is central. Freedom is earned, not given.
Nobody chooses to be born; nobody chooses what to be born as.

One earns the ability to choose, increasing his or her freedom, and taking hold of their destiny.
One participates in determining his/her future options, expanding or contracting his/her pool of possible choices - the more powerful one becomes the more options and choices he/she can make.

Nobody asks a slave for his/her consent, but one does ask his master to give his consent determining what happens to the salve - or what is done to the slave.
When someone demands that the other ask for their consent he is exposing to the other a relationship; he the one with no power and the other with power.
But consent can also be received through trickery. The master can make a slave beg for what goes against his/her interests.
A con-man, for example, can make some gullible fool beg him to give him their money...give away their power, their choice.
Has not the Bible done that? Through its teachings minds are made to beg to give away their freedom; to surrender their will to a higher will.

The conversion of the absolute from spiritual to secular is part of nihilism. It eliminates what remained of the divisive in the concept of god and converts it to a pure noetic concept - pure abstraction - so as to produce more uniformity.
Nihilism moves from spiritual. towards secular, ideological forms.

In fact - beyond pretences and rhetoric - nihilists want to retain concepts as abstractions - never "bringing them down to earth", i.e., never connecting them to the tangible, the corporeal the testable and falsifiable.
In the noetic sphere of theory, metaphysics - ideology, all becomes subjective.
The objectively real is eliminated as a standard.

Se how they've done so with male/female, or with morality, or with god, or with the concept humanity.

I've spoken about this for years....nihilism is linguistic and it detaches mind from body, physis from metaphysis, the real from the ideal, the noumenon form the phenomenon, the symbol/word from its worldly reference.
Everything is abstraction - idealogical.....made into spirit, i.e., of the mind.
In the mind where the absolute can exist....I the mind where all can be affirmed and/or negated easily.

We can now see the duplicity.
The absolute is used to discredit any hypothesis.
A noetic concept is used to dismiss anything that offers a superior interpretation of the phenomenal; an ideal is used to dismiss all theories about the real.
If the real fails to attain the absolute criterion of the ideal it is dismissed as equally wrong - equally evil, sinful, feeble. The ideal can never be matches, so equality is ensured.
Then the criterion is shifted into an emotional appeal - demanding a sacrifice of reasoning, which always fails to attain the ideal of perfection, completion, absolutism.

The process of cleansing the mind, by cleansing our language, of the infection is arduous but necessary - uncertain of its success.
It demands that we reapply words as they were originally - not arbitrarily and subjectively, but within the experienced world.
For example, the concept represented by the word "god" has been misappropriated and defined within nihilistic ideologies. It now refers to an idea/ideal, an abstraction, defined and describes in supernatural, surreal terms.
Originally it connected man to natural processes but offered no comforting or escape...and this is why it was insufficient for populations of increasing unfitness.
god, for the ancients, referred to tangible, observable, falsifiable, experienced phenomena, and not to vague, a abstract, noetic concepts. Spirit referred to their dead ancestors, who they worshipped as divine; asking for guidance and help from them; always careful not to insult them, or their memory.

The same has been done to words like "morality"...."humanity"...."male/female"....."truth"....and so on.
Words that are now abstracted out of existence - converted to ideas/ideals, to contrivances that comfort the desperate degenerate soul.
Because, let's face it, reality is brutal and indifferent to human needs and desires. This is an easy way of coping with reality and the mistakes we've made in understanding the world.

The cleansing of language from all the accumulated garbage it has acquired over the centuries, is a cleansing of philosophy from its nihilistic infections; where even the concept of "nihilism" has been integrated into a nihilistic paradigm, trapping minds in an inter-subjective solipsism, conveniently coming to believe that there is no objective standard, no objective method to determine falsity from truth.

There are two references that limit the utility of symbols/words.
The first is conventional use - a shared meaning - facilitating the communication of ideas (dictionary); the second is a worldly reference - a shared reality - facilitating the connection of mind with reality (noumenon with phenomenon).
The most common misuse is in the second.
Words being collectively defined and also collectively validated. Words connecting mind to other minds, via their spoken and written expressions - inter-subjectivity, i.e., collective solipsism.
Humanity as world; world as humanity. In this context all is conscious and ordered - with an intent - will, and an end - purpose.

Rejecting objectivity is the refusal of anything outside this inter-subjective, self-referential, enclosure; a refusal to place the standard of validation outside human minds.
With no one-God - in the Abrahamic sense - the alternative is terrifying to the desperate degenerates of the world; their desperation leads to their degeneration - sheltering atrophies.
Nature is frugal. She creates in abundance so as to then weed most of it out of existence (culling)  - trial and error, where there is no conciousness it is the most effective method of adaptation to changing environments.
Nature's superfluity is a method of adjusting life to fluctuating environmental conditions.
Life is superfluous; world is frugal - ergo the conflict.

In this case Nature can be used to mean both life (wilful matter/energy) and non-life (will-less matter/energies).    
This is where cowards and hypocrites - self-deceivers - become conveniently confused - the multiple utility of single words.

When I speak of nature, and of the real, I speak of the world - what exists prior to language, culture, and man. What exist independently from man, and will continue after man is extinct.
I speak of what language evolved to refer to, before it was infected and used to escape it.
I speak of the objective, to which the subjective is measured against.
I speak of what is shared by living organisms, and includes non-living phenomena.

I speak of the object of science and philosophy, if it is not infected by nihilism - or rather what was its object prior to being infected by nihilism.
I speak of the earth, to which I bring language back down to it - Bottom<>Up.
From this shared foundation competition can begin - in the realm of discourse; a competition to determine the superior theory - memetic natural selection.

Nihilism and nihilists do not belong to this.
They begin with the Top<>Down, the Idea/ideal.....usually positive - the one, whole, god, the absolute - and work backward; or they begin with the nil as the absolute and work backward.
They do not build a thesis upward, increasing its probability, but they begin with the solution, the answer, the absolute end - the telos - the perfect, the final, the indivisible, the immutable, the eternal....the one, whole, the absolute.
Abrahamism is part of it.....so is Marxism.....so are many Modern philosophies and, so called, philosophers.

Even they use of language is absolutist....they begin with an answer, and then justify it by selectively spin-doctoring their experiences and perceptions of reality.
no matter what evidence or arguments are offered, the solution, remains unchanged - it remains absolute.
There are no degrees, no levels, no hierarchies, except dualities - God-Satan ... good/evil....good/bad.....one/nil.....universal morality/immorality....absolute free-will/absolute un-free-will....1/0.
Absolute one, absolute nil.
If not the absolute positive - certainty - then the absolute negative, parity in uncertainty....if not omnipotence then uniform feebleness....if not omniscience then uniformity of ignorance....
This has become part of conventional language.

The word "nature" can be used to refer to different concepts and contexts...something desperate degenerates take advantage of to weave their delusional naive ideologies or to dismiss nature altogether.

Nature can mean world, including both the living and non-living....both order and chaos; or it can mean something more specific and refer only to life and the living - organisms.
To so say something is unnatural, in the first sense, is to say it does not exist, or is non-existent or contra-existence; in the second context it can mean an emerging environment from interventions that would not naturally occur without a specific agency, i.e., artificial.
Artificial intelligence, for example, could be named unnatural, though I would not use that term, as I have never used this term to refer to the artificial - e.g., robots cannot evolve without the intervention of the natural agency of man.

My definition of "artificial" is clear...
It describes the ambiguous point when an agency - such as an organism - intervenes upon its environment - the environment it emerges within via natural selection - to such a degree - once more degree is present - that its interventions affect it more than the environment they intervened upon.
It defines the point when an organism begins to affects its own evolution - from genes to memes.
So, we may say it is when an organism begins to affect itself - determining its own fate - to a degree that exceeds that of the environment - nature - it emerged within and it intervened upon.
Artificial environment implies an imbalance of the natural environment, to the, hypothetical, benefit of the organism which is intervening.
Natural environments have no objective; artificial ones do; natural environments select fitness in accordance to themselves; artificial - manmade - environments select in accordance to an ideology; natural environments change and force adaptation with no motive; manmade, artificial, environments change and enforce adaptation in accordance to a motive.
I say hypothetical because man cannot absolutely predict the consequences of his interventions, and usually focuses on the benefits and ignores or cannot predict the costs.

In effect, a natural agency produces natural imbalance, with positive and negative consequences, which then necessitate further interventions.
Only one organism we know of has the capacity to intervene upon its environment, and that specie is homo sapient.

In practical terms this means that naturally emerging phenomena acquire different costs/benefits within man-made environment than they would have had in natural ones.
The intervening agency is man himself - guided by a idea/ideal.
Mutations that would have severe costs, are protected; mutations that would have dominating benefits are restricted.

I'll try to dumb-it-down as much as I can.
For the last time...I hope. Hope is for fools....I doubt I will not have to. I'll resist...no matter how much stupidity I face.
Be strong....be strong.


The meaningfulness of a word/symbol is based on its utility.
There are multiple utilities. Some are psychological, requiring only other minds to share in the same understanding of a word/symbol - such a memetic utility may have no utility beyond this shared understanding, e.g., unicorns, Abrahamic god, Judeo-Christian morality, etc.
Such words I call "nihilistic" only if the participating minds understand the words/ literally and not figuratively.
A literal understanding is a negation of the experienced - the minds participating in this literal understanding are essentially projecting an alternate reality, into the experienced one, expecting to be validated...and if they are not then they describe a world that does not validate their literal understanding of the word - unicorn - as 'negative', and the alternate world where unicorns do exist outside their minds they define as being 'positive'.

Follow so far?

This is the foundation of nihilism....if you take the conventional understanding of the ideology. It demands of the world to validate mental abstractions which they name "god, universal morality, purpose," etc. All absolutes.
In fact, it is they who demand of reality to include in its experience their mental fabrications....they are the nihilists...ergo the concept of 'nihilism' has been appropriated by nihilism.....because nihilism is an entirely linguistic ideology constructing ideas that are meaningless outside the minds that share their meaning.

Words like man/woman, human, are now also being appropriated and integrated into nihilism - converted to ideological constructs with no reference to anything experienced in the world. This is how a male can claim to be a female trapped in a male body. Masculinity has been abstracted and converted to an idea with no physical, tangible, corporeal, references - entirely of the mind = noumenon.
'Morality' is another word that is similarly appropriated and corrupted by this ideology.
'Morality' also offers us the opportunity to return the word to its original meaning....which is not subjective, not arbitrary, not based on personal upbringing and cultural influences.
What then is the word 'morality' referring to?
A behaviour...observed within specific species.
A behaviour with a specific function - a utility. Not an idea, not some cultural contraption, not some vague rhetorical abstraction...but an activity; something observable, falsifiable, testable, experienced by all.
If we return the word to its original objective meaning, then the idea of a 'universal morality' - requiring a god - and the idea of 'immorality' - the absence of all external standards - are at once exposed as being nihilistic...for they deny what is experienced for the sake of a personal idea and motive - Top<>Down emoting.

Now, the meaning of the word "morality" is neither absolute - universal - not meaningless - but has a meaning which is independent from the minds observing the behaviour. It is real...objectively validated.
The behaviour, we name 'morality' exhibits specific attributes, or behavioural patterns that facilitate a specific objective.  
We notice, for example, camaraderie, cooperation, tolerance, altruism, compassion, identification, intercourse, playfulness etc.
We notice this within specific species. Now we know that morality is not universal but specific to particular survival and reproductive strategies.
We can now explore what the words 'lust' and 'love' mean, as opposed to 'hate' - or what 'attraction' means' as opposed to 'repulsion' within the contexts of this moral behaviour.
We can differentiate this morality from manmade morality - i.e., socio-economic behavioural codes of conduct - as those provided by Abrahamism and the Ten Commandments. We can differentiate what evolved previously to these new additional ethical codes.
We can now distinguish what evolved naturally and what was entirely man-made...and then we may proceed to explore the motives, or the utilities of man-made morals (ethics) - which we may call 'ethics' to differentiate them from naturally evolving moral behaviours.
We may even discover that it isn't that the word 'morality' is meaningless but that it is man who has made it so, by idealizing it out of existence, i.e., converting it to an abstract concept with no reference to anything experienced...like unicorns.

This is what I mean by gene<>meme.
None of this is arbitrary, or my personal preference, or a product of my fantasies....or based on my life.
The world gives meaning to concepts; words represent concepts....therefore the world gives meaning to words.
I'm not saying nihilism's symbols/words are useless....I'm saying they are useless outside minds that share the same literal understanding of them.  
For two imbeciles who literally believe unicorns exist, because the word 'unicorn' exists, unicorns are very meaningful and useful....if only as a way of distracting themselves from reality, or to masturbate, or to dream away their lives, or to be inspired...or whatever. But, outside their shared understanding the word 'unicorn' and the concept it represents, is useless - nonsense.

Same thing for the word 'morality' as it is understood and shared by a community of imbeciles - cowards and hypocrites.
They want the word to remain an ideology; some because they want its literal meaning to be preserved as a belief - preserve its romantic idealism, it's "purity"; some because they want to dismiss the entire concept of morality, each for their own self-serving reasons.
Yet, the word is meaningful if applied honestly and with integrity....because it does not entirely refer to an abstraction - to a subjective preference - but it refers to an observable, testable, falsifiable behaviour, i.e., interactivity. A behaviour that can be observed in species with no culture, no language....no nihilism. No interest in human hypocrisy and cowardice.
We can do the same with many other words that have been corrupted by desperate degenerates....words like 'god', 'truth', 'love', 'sex', 'humanity'...'male/female'...'absolute'....'nature'...'ego'...'self'....'respect'...'one/nil'.....etc.

Within the context of observing and applying words within reality, a debate can ensue - different theories, supported by the same experienced, observable, testable, falsifiable, interactions, can be offered, and they can be evaluated, each according to its merits, in relation to empirical data...a shared world; not preference, not coercion, upbringing, not subjectivity...but objectively.
Each individual can challenge another's theory...if he remains within the shared experienced world, and true to shared, observable, testable, interactions...and does not return to the "clouds" of ideological constructs, and vague obscure nonsensical naive ideologies. Each theory, attempting to explain a phenomenon - such as moral behaviour - will not claim absolute validity....but a superiority that may be challenged at any time by a superior theory and explanation.
The method of simply asserting truths, or simply negating them, is a symptom of cowardice, and hypocrisy....Nihilism.

So, yeah...'nihilism is a word referring to any belief that has nothing to show, nothing to validate its beliefs, other than more words, and nonsensical ideas, using obscurantism, and flowery prose to hide the absence of empirical, falsifiable, phenomena, that validate their assertions.
Even the rejection of a theory, that does offer empirical evidence and arguments, with a dismissive use of words, accompanied with no alternative better explanation, is part of nihilism...and it is so easy any imbecile can do it.
For example, the assertion that morality is mystical, divine, magical, with no arguments or evidence, other than obscurantism and prose, using poetics to seduce, is just as cowardly and hypocritical as the total dismissal of morality on the ground that the theory is not absolutely certain, without offering an improvement...but simply rejecting the concept as being absolutely nonsensical - this is also cowardly and hypocritical.

Morality, god, heterosexuality and many other concepts can be reconnected to empirical phenomena.
A rejection of the attempt, points to an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with the spirit of philosophy, and is more about psychology.
Using ideological contraptions to dismiss theories that are not ideological but empirical, is the height of cowardice and hypocrisy.
For example... abstracting - ideologically questioning the value of human existence, used to dismiss the nature of heterosexual reproductive behaviour, is what a coward and hypocrite does when he feels trapped by reality into a corner that threatens to expose his underlying motives and his private feelings about his own existence.
The private feelings of the individual, in relation to sex, love, race, have to be preceded by an honest analysis of these concepts....before we can advance into personal feelings about the value of reproduction, and whatnot.
An analysis of what heterosexuality is, and how the exceptions of bestiality, paedophilia, necrophilia, homosexuality, arise - evolve - and how these paraphilic preferences relate to heterosexual functionality, must precede any personal statement about the value of reproduction in an "overpopulated" world"...which is an ideological and ethical position...not a rational one.
The reasons why an individual despises reproduction - particularly after unwillingly being excluded from the gene pool - is a matter for psychology to study.... anti-natalist is a psychological position, coping with a real-world circumstance. It has little to do with the functionality of heterosexuality and how homosexuality, or necrophilia relate to it - or rather it has a lot to do with it, but within the contexts of psychology.

One has to ask...why don't animals have similar anti-natal ideologies....why are Negroes prone to not give a shit about the state of the world - having dozens of children with multiple mothers, which they cannot afford?
But before we get that far...we must at the very least agree on the basics....otherwise we will become trapped in ideological quibbling....and that is what nihilists want. They want stagnation.
They want their nihilism to spread, from their mind to all minds; vengeance against a world they could not adapt to.  
They want to keep all concepts in the ideological stratosphere...because they intuitively fear what the real will reveal...about them.

A hypocrite and a coward, when he senses that he is being cornered rationally into a position that may expose his own motives or that will expose him to a reality he has spent his entire life fleeing....will shift the argument, toward a philosophical ethical, emotional one.So, when the degeneracy of homosexuality is being exposed - and with it their own private sexual degeneracy - the modern coward and hypocrite will begin showing concern for the welfare of mankind....and overpopulation and pollution...
He will shift from pragmatism to idealism, and from reasoning to an Abrahamic ethos, concerned with other species and the survival of mankind.
Their own private plight will becomes a universal concern, and their amorality will suddenly begin moralizing its way out of the conundrum..... do I hide...or do I flee...because a fight will only expose my weakness?
Notice how an amoral nihilist begins questioning the morality of the bringing more life into this world, when their wounds are being exposed from beneath the plastic armour they wear - flexible, but brittle.    
How much self-hate does this expose?
2.2 is the birthrate that maintains a population....anything above it increases a population...anything below it falls beneath replacement levels and a populating decreases.

Think what level of hypocrisy cowardice and self-hatred it takes to not want to preserve your own kind, while Africans, and Indians, are breeding like rabbits.
your saying...I want my kind to go extinct and that kind to take over. Because....I'm an incel...or because I hate my parents but cannot bring myself to admit it. This is my retribution....my resetiment.
If you truly loved yourself, would you not want to have at least one copy of yourself....one....below the level of replacement?
One, because humans are mortals.
But no...you have to hide the real reasons beneath ideological bullshit.

Pathetic.

Another word I like to use when dealing with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is the word 'love' This is a particularly effective word with them, because they are emasculated and emotional thinkers....effete to the core - to such concepts can influence their feminized minds - not that I hold any hope with them, because most are so entrenched and invested in their won variant of nihilism that all they do is dismiss ignore and are so defensive that nothing gets through.
No secret that I've been using them to explain my positions to others - those silent observers who visit this forum but do not participate - dozens of them, daily....and I see them. Most come here from that other FaceBook page...which shall remain unnamed. They understand....even if Desperate Degenerates don't or pretend not to.
This is for their benefit...an excuse, if you will, using degenerates and their predictable desperation to make my points.

So, love.
The Desperate Degenerate - positive kind - will idealize, romanticize, mystify the concept. He will paint it using prose and innuendoes and seductive words - each selected to impress, to manipulate and to exploit weakness - to sell itself. They will define 'love' outside existence - in a magical realm that exists underneath or above this experienced world.
The Christian variant made 'love' synonymous with their one-god - a divine cosmic force....replacing the attractive force, and ignoring the repulsive one. Later demonizing the latter, creating their binary dualities - God/Satan, good/evil.
Attraction = good; repulsion = evil - see all is united in god - absolute unity held together by the magical force of love. All soothing and comforting. All so feminine.  
A girl can be swept off her feet when a gentleman comes a calling with such words in his mouth.
The antithesis is the cynic....I call him a 'pure nihilist'. He dismisses the previous romantic drivel, as well he should. Replacing it with nothing....literally nothing. He may reject the naive idealists prose, and claim that 'love' is a subjective thing, a social construct...and that it doesn't really exist.
A human idea.
But both are wrong.
Love refers to an observable behaviour, found among many species - particularly those using heterosexual reproductive methods and those using cooperative survival strategies - so there's a link here.
It isn't an illusion, nor some divine cosmic force - a magical power.
In my view it is an evolved chemical reaction dealing with the fight/flight mechanism....but if others disagree with my theory they can offer their own, and then both can be compared to observable, falsifiable, empirical data. Not words and more words...not easy negations, on the ground that no theory is absolutely perfect and absolutely complete...but empiricism.  
Which theory is more probable. Survival of the fittest in philosophical contexts.

My definition of love is not arbitrary; it is not based no my private preferences and personal tastes; not based on my upbringing and my traditions.
It is based on an objective interpretation of behaviours that occur outside human cultures and systems.  
Shit gets added, over time....but if we begin with the act, the behaviour, we can cleanse the concept of its emotional and cultural baggage.
Love is an esoteric process - processes - which is externalized as particular behaviours....just as thinking is an esoteric phenomenon that is externalized as action.

Love between a parent and a child, or between friends, is not the same as erotic love - lust - yet there are connections which one of the chosen (Freud) exploited to discredit family relationships...as that type is known to do, viz., the sense of melding identifies - loss of self in other - commonality, shared destinies, shared values, purposes, interests...
Agape/Eros....both forms of Love - distinct but related.
Neither magical, mystical, nor nothing.
Love is an activity - interactivity.
Not my invention; not my preference. Nothing to do with what I prefer or hope or want.

But Desperate Degenerates don't like this rational approach - this objectivity - because it disarms them of their mystical obscurantisms, used to cope with existence - or it negated their negative defensiveness.

Quote :

Transvaluation: to re-estimate the value of, especially on a basis differing from accepted standards; reappraise; re-evaluate.

Transvaluation of all values, is not the detachment of values from reality....but the return to the triangulation of subject/object/motive which is the origin of the meaning of 'evaluation'.
Nietzsche - if I dare to interpret him in contradiction to men-children - called himself a 'nihilists' because he was so in relation to nihilists.
As I am.
True Nihilists, on the other hand, are so in relation to reality - their positions attempt to negate and usurp and replace reality. In relation to their delusions a realist, like myself, is a nihilist - negating, nullifying nihilism, i.e., realism.
I am negative towards nihilism...but nihilism is not negative toward me and my personal preferences, but towards reality, which I am a part of, and I try to understand as objectively as possible.
Transvaluation is contra conventional understandings and definitions...which in our Age are distinctly nihilistic - anti-real, anti-nature.
If we return the concept of 'value' to its original meaning, then it indicates a relationship between observer/observed and motive, i.e., goal.
A relationship based on a triangulation. It has no other meaning.
Nihilism corrupts this, by replacing one part of the triad with nil - producing a dualism - the absence of what has been negated is compensated by its replacement by the remaining two, or by covering it up with mystifications, and obscurantism....leaving a duality.
In effect the triad of value judgements is converted to a binary duality that is self-referential - solipsist.

The triad subject/object/movement-motive is converted to a duality - subject/movement,motive, and the missing object is replaced by the subject - subject/motive/subject.
Subjectivity. the world is excluded from the relationship. Everything is reduced to a subjective mind and its motives, i.e. political, ideological claptrap.
A circular self-referential inter-subjectivity replaces the triad, which includes world/reality as the standard connecting the other two in the triad in a relationship.

Okay, I'm getting metaphysical here...so I'll stop.

Triangulation is how subject relates to object, via language and language is a symbol referring to movement/motive, i.e., the goal, whether it be conscious or unconsciousness...whether it be rooted in the selfish gene, or rationalized by the ego as a meme, an idea/ideal.
Verbs are words that represent movement/motive - a symbolic representation of a fluctuating reality, engaged by a fluid organism.
A dynamic system interacting and inter-relating - attracting/repulsing.
This is so basic, it has been known for centuries...and only denied and forgotten in these times of decay and institutionalized Nihilism.

Words like god, truth, love, morality, value, idea, ideal, can all be returned to their original role as connectors between subject and object - individual and world...corresponding to mind/body/nervous system.
Nihilism disconnects these words from reality, and reconnects them back to the subject creating a cognitive loop.

Wait a minute...I've already said all this. I've been saying it for years.
For all the possible late-comers who cannot explore the hundreds of pages of text on this forums.  
I even explain it in more detail....  
I wont here. Don't worry.
My positions haven't changed in over 20 years....I've only added details and filled in gaps.
I didn't have to.
I've come across nothing that forces me to reconsider anything but only adjust the details.
If I ever do, I'll admit it openly.

the word "nature" is particularly misunderstood or intentionally misinterpreted by Desperate Degenerates.

It can be used to refer to the cosmos, or to refer to life and living organisms....but more importantly within the concept of cosmos - universe - absolute order is implied, because man can only experience it.
But nature is not only about natural order, but includes chaos - random energies - giving conciousness, and its immediate responsiveness to the unforeseen, an advantage which is selected into the gene-pool.
This is where will, and its freedom has an effect.

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

How the misuse of language can result in a confused and simplistic form of understanding that can then be exploited and manipulated.
The use of hatred instead of nausea, or a biological dislike, rejection....can lead to the confusion of feeling nauseous by homosexuality intentionally confused for a hatred of them.

The use of anti-Semitism to describe anti-Judaism, confuses a rejection of an ideology/dogma - world-view - for a rejection and hatred of a tribe, genetic group.

Any negative critique of a protected group is to be linguistically linked to hatred, and this "hatred" ought to be explained as a product of envy.
Ergo....all that exists is good, and can only be validated positively - as a product of a divine goodness, i.e., god.
Loved.
That which is evil, bad, is either non-existent, or it is to be explained as a product of envy, producing resentment, leading to hatred.

It's a method of censoring not only the expression of certain threatening thoughts, but of preventing their very thinking. It attacks the thought at the root.

We see it clearly in Nihilism - conventionally define and understood.
Any description of the universe, void of absoluteness - i.e., god, universal morality, purpose etc. - is a negative description of what must be absolutely positive.
The absence of such absolutist mental fabricators must be projected as a negative that defines other - the cosmos is negative if it lacks the absolute goodness of their mental fabrications.
All is inverted in the psychotic infantile mind of a Desperate Degenerate.
Either/Or, binary dualities.
The absolute, named god, universal morality, purpose, oneness, must be real; if it is not the real is negative, because the abstractions cannot be false.
The abstractions must be made real - naive idealism - leading to Narcissism & Schizophrenia.
A reaction to this naive idealism is the Psychotic & Cynic, who laughs away the mental fabrications and tactics of the first, but also laughs away the real that fails to deliver the same absolutes.
The absolute is purified further - made even more abstract to release it from the naive infantile strategies of the first. All human representations of their absence is ridiculed.

What can be done with freedom and its realization through [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] can be done to other words, such as 'love', which have also been appropriated and intentionally idealized by nihilists.
They despise the real. They hate the body, because it limits them and exposes their essence, despite words and pretences.
One can declare anything, but the body will not validate it if it is not true.

How do you make a symbol/word more malleable, more easily integrable, more evasive and resistant to critique?
You keep it vague, obscure, mystical; you idealize it; you detach it from everything physical, tangible, experienced.

Now you can see how philosophy which builds theories of the world using symbols/words, can be exploited and corrupted.
If the language used by a "philosophy" is vague and mystical enough then it can be validated by almost any other philosophy, or text, or scripture.

Anathema, for those who use these tactics to build delusions so as to manipulate others, is reality.
Words connected to reality are rendered useless to such tacticians.
Clarity is anathema to charlatans using language to fabricate myths that exploit human weaknesses and insecurities. They must preserve the cover of the occult shroud.....letting the imagination take over, with the eyes wide shut because dreams fade before appearances.

Evil = inversion of 'live' in English...but this trite linguistic twist exposes a truth.
Evil is what invert the living processes. The only way to do so is through an organ in the living organism, viz. the brain. Reality cannot be inverted,t eh temporal arrow cannot be turned back, for this would be a negation of the experience of existing. Where it could be imagined, abstracted, and converted to semiotics, is in the mind.
This is where nihilism exists as a defensive reaction to the experience of living - which is need/suffering.
The relationship of gene/meme, real/ideal is inverted in the mind....because it cannot be done outside the mind, i.e., in the world; using symbols/words to represent the inversion, or to fabricate ideologies that negate the experience of living - living experience.

What is the meaning of the word ‘meaning’?
Is it entirely void of meaning?
No, not unless we define it in ways that renders it meaningless. This is true of many words, representing concepts that have been defined out of existence.
The meaning of the word ‘meaning’ is in reference to a relationship, a connection, and in a fluid, dynamic existence, to an interactivity.
Meaning means how observable phenomena, inter-relate and interact, and the degree to which they do so – in essence meaning refers to power, or energies inter-relating.
The world is full of meaning which we discover, but in reference to ourselves meaning acquires a personal meaning. It refers to how we relate to the world, in relation to our intentions, our objectives.
To seek a relationship with an absolute is a meaningless endeavour, intentionally or not, destined to failure and the conclusion that all is meaningless if not absolutely meaningful.
How can there be a relationship with an absolute idea that does not exist outside minds? To even ask the question in reference to an absolute – seeking absolute meaning – is to make the concept meaningless. But this is the intent, among nihilists. They want to make all words, referring to concepts, meaningless or void of empirical substance; they want to make everything ideological, therefore subjective.
The nihilist cries “Woe is me, the world and life is meaningless, and I have no purpose”, when, in fact, it is he who has rendered the word ‘meaning’, meaningless assuaging his fears, and attempting to escape the implications, or to pronounce himself ‘god, who bestows meaning upon a meaningless existence’. But the word ‘meaning’ does have meaning for a mind of integrity and courage. It refers to relationships, founded on power. The only meaning to be bestowed is by a man upon himself, in relation to the world already full of meaning, and not to the world itself.
The world cannot be rendered meaningful nor meaningless by the feeble proclamations of a desperate mind in need. It is already full of meaning, if the word is properly defined as interactions, or relationships between fluctuating energies; relationships constantly rearranging and readjusting their relationships – their inter-relationships – in a dynamic environment; interrelationships that require a constant adjustment of the conscious mind to their changing relationships, in relation to its motives, its goals. This is what gives the individual meaning; the context determined not only by changing relationships, but to tis motive, its objective, giving his meaning a context.
What does ‘meaning’ mean? Relating, interacting, connectivity. Therefore, how one relates to the world, already full of meaning, determines his relationship with the world.
Context is relative because it reveals the intent of the subjective observer, not of the objective world; if the intent is to make the world meaningless then this exposes a conscious or subconscious motive; the motive being to render the world, already full of meaning, meaningless, by simply redefining the word in a way that makes it so.
A Nihilist is simply a coward and a hypocrite who wants to nullify himself, by negating his relationship with reality, because he is displeased by how he relates, or how the world’s meaning relates to his assessment of himself, i.e., either contradicting the high opinion he has of himself, or the self-abnegating opinion he has of himself.
Meaning can only refer to the ongoing, observable, experienced, fluctuating interactivities, manifesting inter-relationships, some of which are ephemeral and others long-lasting; some of which are predictable, and others that remain unpredictable.
How the subjective observer relates to the inter-relationships of meaning, already in the world, will determine the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of his own existence, in relation to existing. The intent is obvious, in negation; it is obvious in how the words he uses are defined and applied. The nihilist exposes himself as he attempts to conceal the world from himself.
Either declaring himself a god-like giver of meaning to the world – theoretically usurping the meaning already present in it – or declaring it void of all meaning, as an act of vengeance against it.
The word ‘purpose’ finds meaning, through the proper definition of the concept ‘meaning’. It describes the subjective mind’s intent. The observer gives meaning to himself by establishing how he relates to world, and he gives himself purpose by navigating within the world’s meanings, i.e., the world’s interactive, inter-relating fluctuations.

*Life is a negation of death, or return to an unconscious fluctuating interactivity.
In nihilism the word is what negates the real - noumenon, is what the word represents, and this noumenon is what negates the phenomenon's reality.
Nihilism has to convert the tangible, the experienced, into an ideology. The real conceals an ideology, and not an ideology conceals the real.
Inversions.  
Everything must be converted to an ideology, because then it can be replaced by another, or it can be changed; the ideology is a set of ideas/ideals creating a world-view, or a way of relating to reality.
Even turnips have to become an ideological product...by supposing its mode of production, transportation, and consuming - its value on the market.
Everything is relative to a Utopian ideal, where nothing, including plants, are exploited, or even sacrificed.
The relationship of herbivorous to plants, and carnivores to herbivores, within the Abrahamic/Marxist mind-set, become a relationship of suffering - exploiter and exploited; abused and abuser. Guilt is implied, if not openly stated. A world where we survive by not exploiting or sacrificing other is the ideal world - Utopia, Paradise.
Even the one killing, stealing, harming others is now forced to claim victimization to explain why he victimized others.
Nihilism theoretically, linguistically, negates life's negation or rejection of existential flux. It secretly craves to obliterate itself by returning to the unconsciousness of flux.

*'Love' is another word idealized and conceptualized out of existence by nihilists, such as Marxists. If it is not universal, absolute, unconditional, then it is void of meaning.
But love is always conditional, and selfish...or it is based no self-deceit and destined to perish at the first awakening - usually during times of stress and anxiety.

*Freud's own degeneracy was projected as a universal truth, that still infects European minds with Afro-Asiatic shame - it is said he slept with his sister-in-law....and he certainly lusted over his mother. The sister-in-law was a proxy incestual relationship.
His relationship with his father was the cause. He felt ashamed of his father, and so wanted to replace him as his mother's lover, and his own father-figure.  
His father shamed him because of his slavishness - giving way to gentiles, during that period in history, to gentiles, in Austria. This shame translated into a secret desire to become his mother's lover - mothers are how Jews inherit their identity - he wanted to cleanse his identity from shame by copulating with his own mother.

*"Freedom" - another word many define out of existence to claim the identity of victimhood - is choice, driven by need/suffering.
Even if we begin with Heidegger's 'throwness' the idea of not choosing to be forced to make choices, is implied.
Choice - will - is part of being alive and in existence; the direction of our momentum/movement in a dynamic space/time.
We choose even when we are unaware of it. We choose by being alive, though we do not choose to live but have that choice thrust upon us - ergo 'throwness'.
To be thrown is to be given momentum.
The Greeks called it 'Eros', but originally they called it 'Ananke' (meaning 'need', or 'necessity') - another goddess. the shift I can only explain as part of their degradation.

*Descartes 'cogito' does not have a sex because it is an ambiguous separation of the thought from the thinking brain. It is an abstraction, beginning with a presumption that evades the necessity to define it-self - 'cogito' is pure idea/ideal, existing in a vague mind, that is spiritualized, detached form a corporeal brain.
It is equal to the bible's 'logos'. A first, mystical principle that just asserts itself as present before existence exists.  

*A nihilist identifies and admires the slave who lacks all knowledge of his ancestry - an X with no past to burden and impose limits upon him.
The forced loss of an heritage is admired as an intentional act to be emulated even by those who have an identifiable heritage.
A break of mind from body - subject from object.

*We see here his feminized ideology. women wear masks....and have no 'true self'....because they must remain flexible to changing circumstances....Males do have a self, if self is properly defined as a continuum; man is the apex of a pyramid that stretches to before his birth; a representative of his genealogy.
'Ego' is but the lucid part - the knower of 'self', in Know Thyself. The ego is that which awakens to self...and this is what produces the defensiveness of nihilism that sprouts Abrahamism and Marxism.

*At the end he diagnosis his own psychosis. A deep inferiority complex, displaying verbosity and twitching body movements - one mind mirroring body - to distract...like a prey running and jumping to confuse the predator and to evade capture.

How to define a word out of existence, or how to convert a concept to an ideological abstraction.

Take any word, representing any concept.
Define it as an absolute, a universal, or in supernatural, surreal, ways.
Define it in a way where nothing real, nothing that can ever be experienced, will satisfy the parameters of the definition; it will become an elusive chimera, an ideological theory with no reference to anything tangible, interactive, pragmatic.
Once you convert a concept to an absurdity, an equal and opposite absurdity can only contradict it.
Therefore, the pure nihilist will define words like 'god, truth, value, love, power, morality....' in hyper-real, surreal, supernatural, ways, justifying his definition using occult nonsensical gibberish, pretending to be profound, esoteric, deep, and hiding a secret power and knowledge accessible only to the worthy, or those who are willing to sacrifice something....implying a sacrifice of logic, reason, or ego, doubt etc.
This hypocrisy will trigger an opposing and contradicting reaction. the absurdity will be negated with an equally absurd opposite....which does not need to validate itself because it simply negates the absurd, and is validated only by this negation.

This is the division of 'positive and pure nihilism'.
Once you've accepted the starting absurdity, such as a declaration of an absolute, and you attempt to contradict it, you've conceded an advantage - you've already accepted the absurd premises which necessitate a contrary absurdity.
For example....the Abrahamic proposes an absurdity, a one-god, an anthropomorphic version of the singularity.
To contradict them you must accept the absurdity as a possibility, and now you are forced to disprove it using absolutist language.

The meaning of the word 'race'.
Race is a word denoting type, kind, a sub-category of a specific species, in this case the homo sapient specie.
'Breed' is used in reference to the same in canines, horses, etc.

What does specie and consequently race/breed mean?
It means inherited potentials, exhibiting a particular physical symmetry, proportionality, pigmentation, size, mass etc. - ergo a potential for every conceivable and observable trait.
So, race, like breed, kind, means a potential falling within parameters - a higher and a lower - which is considers 'normal' or as categorizing a breeds, races, median - its average potentials.
Exception to this rule re to be analysed separately, and in relation to this median average rule - this normal range - so as to ascertain the reasons, the causes of this falling outside the normal range.

So, race is about potentials,a  range, a degree, of potentials...in all traits - physical and mental, psychological, behavioural...

1.2 to 4.4 million years ago was a happening time in human evolution. It’s when our evolutionary branch — the hominins — diversified into about a dozen species, collectively known as Australopiths. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Discover Magazine (@DiscoverMag) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It cannot be a social construct because civilization is 6,000 years old....let's say 8,000 years to be safe.
Man has been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years. Scientists claim the specie homo sapient is 200,000 years old, maybe more.
Now compare 6,000 of primitive developing towards the current social structures, with 200,000+ years....and more because evolution goes back further to a common ancestry with other primates, and then further back to a common ancestry with all living organisms on earth. It is estimated that life on earth is over 4 billion years old...and all those billions of years are participating in present day men and women of the human specie.

This is what I call the 'sum of all nurturing' which is 'nature' - as a reference to human nature, and not to be confused with nature as a general concept to include planets, galaxies and so on

The body's configuration its presence - interpreted as appearance - is a manifestation of this past; it is past made present.
How we look is not arbitrary or superficial...but we do try to cover it up with superficiality - including language redefinitions - or to alter appearance, surgically or cosmetically, precisely because it is so revealing of essence.
Breeds, races look different because they are different. How?
To a degree of inherited potential - a median.

Defining words properly does not mean 'in whatever way I prefer' - but the opposite, in fact.
Defining words properly would prevent their misuse and abuse, in the practice of exploiting and manipulating inferior minds.

Defining words properly - when and if possible - is to use them as what they are, i.e., representation of ideas; ideas that should refer, when and if possible - to observable, experienced, phenomena.
Words are mediating connectors of noumenon with a phenomenon, therefore their utility is in how well it can connect a concept, an abstraction - in and of the mind - to something outside the mind, i.e., an interactivity, a behaviour; to what can be experienced and observed and perceived independently.

Like I've said before...many words misused and abused by nihilists can be returned to their original utility; words like, love, morality, truth, god, male, female etc.
This would demystify and deny them their current idealism.
Such a method would also expose words such as 'absolute' for what it truly is, i.e., a mental abstraction with no reference to reality, and like the term 'whole', 'one', if understood literally, represents the nihilistic infection.
Like the concept represented by the word 'unicorn' it is a fabrication which may be confused with a real phenomenon, existing independent from the subjective mind - yet it lacks an objective existence,or is most probably a concept with no external reference.
Now, if someone can find one, like with the concept 'absolute' (singularity = indivisible absolute oneness), existing independently from any mind, then its improbable possibility can be changed to a probability.

Value - ΑΞΙΑ

Value is based no a triangulation: Subject/Motive (consciousness, interpretation) <> Object (world, reality) <> Objective (ideal, goal)
The objective must flow through the object...from present towards projected future. A movement/momentum that in living organisms expresses intent/motive/will, through choice. A plant is not conscious but it chooses to grow its roots towards humidity (water) or towards nutrients (food), despite there being a rock in-between itself and its goal.
This is what separates the living emergent unity from the non-living unity - the latter flowing, moving, along the paths-of-least-resistance, as these are constantly being established through interactivity (a relationship of the unity's power in relation to environment, or what does not participate in the unity's stability - also a product of power relationships. Here identity, identifying a unity, can only be done by a conciousness, because a stone is not intentionally holding itself together, nor is it other than the mountain it finds itself upon)

In this triad the anchor, the standard is the midpoint, the connector of mind with its own projected objective.
The objective, via the world, by the subjective mind is what constitutes the cost/price, i.e., value of the objective.
A relationship of subject with objective, through the intervening obstacle of world.
We can convert this to a temporal triad: past (ego/self) <> present (appearance) <> future (idea/ideal).
In this triad the midpoint - i.e., present - is dynamic that past is determined and the future is undetermined.
Ego is the part of self that is lucid, aware of the present as dynamic - it is the mind/body interacting consciously - it is also interacting unconscionably, experiencing it after-the-fact.  

This triad is corrupted by Nihilism.  
It places subject as the standard, or it replaces the world as an anchor by the objective: the objective becomes the standard through which the world is to be evaluated in relation to the subject - or it replaces object/world with the subject.
This is what Nietzsche meant by transvaluation of values: the re-evaluation of Abrahamic values that has corrupted this triadic relationship. He focused on Christianity due to his personal experiences - his environment - and due to his father's beliefs. Christianity became a representative of the Abrahamic triad, e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Islam - in order of seniority. It became, for him, the mid-point between the preceding Judaic traditions, and the proceeding Islamic traditions; all three version of a version of spiritual Nihilism, particular to the west. Christianity was the point of intersection between a Hellenic past, coming in contact with a Judaic past, producing a Christian present.
Nihilism inverts conception, placing the noumenon (abstraction represented by semiotics, logos) before the phenomenon (interpreted, translated, approximated as appearance).
This inversion corrupts the evaluation process, i.e., from Bottom<>Up, to Top<>Down; beginning with the idea/ideal represented by symbol/word, and then integrating into this the experienced apparent world.
By this inversion all value-judgements are warped.
When a modern nihilists claims that all value-judgements are subjective they imply that conciousness precedes reality - word precedes world - and is a creation of the mind; rather than mind emerging from world, world emerges from mind/brain. Mind is other than brain, but it precedes the physical organ which is now a conduit for a mind that has been mystified out of existence - as preceding existence. mind is not a manifestation of brain, but brain is a manifestation of mind, that remains obscure enough to mean anything, to anyone at any time.
The negative - ignorance, lack of omniscience - is a validation of an alternative, an inversion that is no less mystifying than that which we are ignorant about. Here the mind attempts to justify its own mystification by mystifying its own understanding.

Why do we value beauty?
Because it is difficult to attain, and difficult to maintain - ergo it is rare. The higher its order/functionality the more rare it is...and the more difficult it is to both attain and maintain - representing power, struggle, endurance and whatever probabilities this implies.
In organic life, displayed as symmetry (order, and proportionality (functionality), beauty represents higher potentials, or objectives that require effort (agon). This agon is what gives it value.

ἄξιος < ἄγω
Ενεστώτας ἄγω ἄγομαι
Παρατατικός ἦγον ἠγόμην
Μέλλοντας ἄξω ἄξομαι & ἀχθήσομαι
Αόριστος ἦξα, ἤγαγον ἠξάμην & ἤχθην
Παρακείμενος ἦχα, ἀγήοχα ἦγμαι
Υπερσυντέλικος ἤχειν, ἀγηόχειν ἤγμην
Συντελ.Μέλλ.
To drive, direct.
Notice the common root of agon {ἀγών}= gathering, battle, struggle, competition; axion {ἀξία} = price, cost, value.

It is the objective in relation to the path towards it - objective via world - that bestows upon it its value to the actor, the subject. Without a subject with a projected objective, a motive/intent, there is no value - even using science as an objective subject, the value is a product of a measurement, in relation to a standard; a product of a comparison, a juxtaposition.
The idea/Ideal is what establishes the relationship with reality which value is to be measured by.

We cannot say if intelligence - in whatever way it is defined - is more valuable than idiocy without a goal, an ideal; we cannot say if strength - in whatever way it is defined - is more valuable than weakness, without an idea/ideal.
If it remains abstract, theoretical (ideological) then it can be considered valuable or valueless; but if it is applied, it is put into practice, then its true value and that of the objective itself, are both revealed...objectively.
No theory survives reality intact.

Beauty is appreciated because it implies probability in a sea of increasing possibilities. It makes it precious as potential.
Its value is a product of this appreciation, evaluation.

Truth - ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

A word referring to a relationship between subject and object, or perspective/interpretation and world/reality.

Although truth can be imposed upon another, this is not what truth means objectively.
Since the relationship is one between two dynamic states, truth is not static - not absolute - but refers to the fluctuating inter-relationships in world and between observer and world.
If 'meaning' refers to how phenomena relate and the degree to which they do so, then truth refers to this cognitive map of dynamic inter-relationships.
To have an accurate map of reality will determine the successful application of a course of action and of a destination - both can be in error and can only be accurate to a degree (approximately).
Therefore, 'truth, is an approximation, similar to how a map representationally approximates a geography. The quality of the map will determine the successful travel through the geography towards a destination upon the map corresponding to a geographical location.

For the Greeks 'truth' was described as un-forgetting, because the noetic map referred to world that is being revealed. A map that had to recalled to memory, to consciousness, similar to how a map has to be unfolded and continuously updated and reaffirmed with increasingly finer - more precise - details.

Every unity is a mental construct - an abstraction - which reduces the dynamic multiplicity into a singularity.
It does so by arbitrarily detaching the phenomenon from its spatial/temporal continuum - eradicating dimensions, where space is possibility and matter/energy is probability.
There are no enclosures in reality, no wholes.
All is open-ended interactivity.
Even the implied enclosure of universe is a mental construct.
All we can experience is from within - without implying a without. But language reflects how the mind works so it always implies absolutes because it creates them as a way of comprehending fluctuating space/time.

The absolute is a necessary mental abstraction....which can become problematic when it is taken literally and not was what it is, i.e., a simplification/generalization and a representation/interpretation.
When the noumenon is confused for the phenomenon then we enter the domain of nihilism and its either/or defensive attempts to usurp the real with the idea/ideal.

This would be like confusing the map with the geography and then declaring the map more real than the geography it refers to because distances are easier traversed on a map's sale. This confusion may convince the individual that the world has borders and is two-dimensional, ends where the map's two-dimensional surface ends.
But the map, like the mental abstraction is a representation of the world/geography; a simplified, generalized version with points that never shift - static.
A map can last unchanged for aeons if it is made of the proper proxy materials. It may represent a geography than no longer exists in real time...or it may be entirely fantastic like Middle-Earth, referring to nothing outside books, texts, and minds...as symbols.

The 'absolute point' of a particle can be explained as a triangulation between observer, fluctuating dynamic energy and medium - most often light.
Th point is a representation of light energy interacting with dynamic energy, of another kind, and then with sense organ....the wave translated into a point - the point of interaction.
Dynamic reality is interpreted (simplified/generalized) as abstractions (concepts, ideas, ideals, images etc.). The interpretation is an approximation - much is lost in translation - and its quality is always imperfect - superior/inferior to another.

The paradoxical statement often used by imbeciles and simpletons that mocks by saying "truth is there is no truth" is founded no the misuse and abuse of words.
An absurdity can only be negated or contradicted by an equal and opposite absurdity.

Modern degenerates thrive on the idealization of language....routinely disconnecting concept from reality, through the misuse of semiotics.
They are convinced that by doing so they are evading reality, or 'correcting' it.

A superior definition of a concept is when the word/symbol connects the noetic with the apparent....or the idea/ideal with the real; the conceptual abstraction with the experienced interactivity: noumenon/phenomenon.

A phenomenon with no noumenon is mysterious or the non-perceived; a noumenon with no phenomenon is theoretical - a noumenon that contradicts or negates the phenomenon is Nihilism.
A word/symbol connects noumenon with phenomenon, ergo a superior definition is one that adheres or disciplines the noumenon to the phenomenon. The definition must describe what is apparent and experienced by the majority.