Satyrnalium

Juvenal wrote:

A palsied Jewess, parking her haybox outside, comes
begging in a breathy whisper. She interprets Jerusalem's
laws; she's the tree's high priestess . . . She likewise fills
her palm but more sparingly: Jews will sell you whatever
dreams you like for a few coppers.

We begin from the words of Juvenal the Roman and his insight into the Jewish spirit to then explain why, in this age of Nihilism, producing narcissists, schizophrenics (see [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], bipolar [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and tons of Cynics, that Jews would be at the top of the entertainment industry, and at the centre of modern comedy.
Jews, being the peddlers of lies, must know they are lying, otherwise they would not be so successful at it. those who are not successful fail to realize they are lying, and actually believe in their own lies.
To be a successful hypocrite you must understand what you are doing - you must be able to appreciate, and therefore adjust your own pretenses, otherwise you are quickly exposed and you only succeed among the dullards and the intellectually needy.

So, why do Jews dominate comedy?
We know why they dominate the propaganda, dream-factories of Hollywood, but how and why comedy?
They give us the answer themselves, under the guise of a joke...(see 5:40 onward)
...they know it's all ridiculous and lies, and infantile role-playing....and the successful ones know this, but will not admit it unless they do it under the sarcastic pretext of a joke.
If the salesman buys into his own pitch, if the drug dealer becomes addicted to he drug he peddles, he will fail.

They will do anything for a buck.
Money is a tangible recognition to what is intangible. Given that Abrahamism sells intangible, theories (lies) with no pragmatic effect, they need the tangible reaction to validate their beliefs. Money is such a tangible validation - the externalization of an idea, reacted to with a sign of appreciation.
Money literally represents the level of appreciation the buyer gives to what is constructed, created, provided.  
They will do anything for it - anything because they are shameless, having only guilt. Guilt that can be expunged, that can be rejected as not belonging to self - victim psychology.
A dollar, money, represents recognition, the buying into the lie, and no lie is more believable than the one offering false hope, the one selling dreams to the ones who want to escape reality into dream-land.

The gifted Jew is extremely self-conscious.
He sees what he is doing, and sees how he appears to others, while he is performing.
He is self-deprecating, in a dishonest way, so as to disarm the one who sees as he does - wearing the veil of humility as he basks in the self-congratulatory arrogance of one who has sold nothing but words to the many.
Secular Humanism  ought to be approached from the perceptive of a self-aware Abrahamic.  
A hidden cynicism may be externalized as a way of disarming those who do not fully buy into the pretence.
The good liar plays both sides.
To the imbecile he appears funny, quirky, creative, imaginative, brilliant, offering an escape, a relief; to the ones who see what he is doing he plays the part of the one who knows that he knows what they can see....he can appreciate his own act as being pathetic and childish, and that being worshipped by the first type is also ridiculous.
He is both laughing at those who admire and worship his 'genius' and laughing with those who know it is not genius to trick the masses in this way.

He is laughing at himself, laughing at others.
But cynicism has a third layer, a third message....it sends it in the ridicule of other and of himself ridiculing other. It says that all is ridiculous, all is just as worthless and childish - all is a pretence, a lie.
The ultimate admission of Nihilism.
It's what drives Jews out of Judaism and towards Humanism and Zionism.
There is no value in words, in the pretence, in the performance using words. It's all a big joke.
The message is the means...the joke is the only thing of meaning. It is the only rational act.
Like a hedonist claims that all is enjoyment, pleasure.
The cynic reduces all to nothing. He finds the string to unravel the garment covering the king's bare arse.  

Laughter is the expelling of repressed nervous energies - libido expunges them through the orgasm, and laughter is an imitation of the convulsions and hyperventilation of orgasm.
It rids the body of the energies held in reserve fro the function of fight or flight, evolving into the heterosexual reproductive method that requires nervous tension to be accumulated.
Male/Female relationships must have anxiety, insecurity, the tensions rising for them to be erotic, passionate, enjoyable.
For the female, in particular, lacking a male that can inspire anxiety and intimidation in her, sexual gratification is impossible without some artificial aids.
Effete males, modern males, that she promotes and idealized memetically, simply do not do it for her instinctively, on a visceral genetic level.
Her mind is in conflict with her body....and so she must seek her centre later in life, as part of her own midlife crisis, or experience a contradiction between her early, adolescent escapades and her alter mature phase full of pragmatic socioeconomic considerations.  

But I digress...
The comedian has this ability to trigger a reaction that is similar to the orgasm, and so women are attracted to the comedian....because the joke must be something unexpected, something the mind has not thought of, has not foreseen.
In modern times this is best delivered by a cynical insight, exposing the social lie of nihilism, in the surprising punch-line.
The comedian exposes to the audience a truth it feels but cannot bring to consciousness, or cannot admit.
Such comedians, like Bill burr, later have to apologize and claim that ti was all a joke, and that they do not actually believe in what they are saying.
The comedians must appear harmless, self-deprecating, for him to be tolerable....like a jester had to be before the court, speaking truths that would lead others to the gallows, or the hangman's noose.


Seinfeld told us his show was about nothing.
He was upfront about it. He made a fortune laughing at and with the audience at a performance of a representation of the average audience member.
An audience that can spend half an hour a week, or a day, watching fictional characters doing mundane, ridiculous, meaningless things; occupying their lives with the trivial.
The characters were his audience, who were entertained by themselves, by representation of their own empty lives.
The smallest things, like going to the movies, or shopping or whatever, became the focus of the escape....into their own existence - externalized so as to make detachment lead to laughter.
Comedy is tragedy depersonalized.

Style is often confused for substance.
In Modern fArt they slow down or speed up the tempo and pretend they invented a new melody.
The degenerate replaces words attempting to hide the fact that he is repeating what has already been stated using proper terminology, or he applies nonsensical alternative words, in different sequences to then pronounce a profound insight that is hiding only the lie, from the eyes and ears of the obtuse.

Christians replaced the word 'god' which they had already misapplied, in contradiction to its ancient application, and then replaces it with the word 'love', compensating for the absence of substance with style, with creative ambiguity, and a seductive twist.
What degenerate would choose to ignore the pleasant sounding word, with cold, hard, reasoning?

What slave would correct his master's redefinition of slavery as liberation?
He participates in his own delusions.
The master does it to keep the slave enslaved, without using chains and walls, and the slave does it because he fears leaving the master's compound.

If you properly define a word, like 'self' by connecting it to an observable, experienced, testable, phenomenon, then you place the standard outside your subjective interpretations of world, and you hold the world, and yourself accountable to that external, objective, standard.
If you intentionally choose to mystify the word, to escape the criticism and the awareness of yourself, in relation to others, then you are a coward and a hypocrite, or you are an imbecile who simply adopted the method of self-comforting because it felt good, but did not know why, or how.
If, on the other hand, you intentionally use the word 'self' to replace some other word, then you are exposing your need in the act. the word replaced and the word chosen to replace it, will reveal your deepest insecurities and your deepest desires, trying to compensate with words what it cannot with deeds.

We'll have to face the fact that we will be few and they will be many.
This should be considered an advantage.
We know that the many, born of sheltering and on the dogmas of mass mind control, will be drawn to dogmas replacing those they grow out of.
Their psychology worships change equating ti with open-mindedness and progress.
They replace the same underlying dogma with a different external packaging - change symbols and names but remain addicted to the same ideals.

These will act as rat-traps.
They will gather and collect, making our challenge easier.
They will intuitively self-segregate and self-expose...like zombies drawn to a sound they will individually be attracted, into a herd, pulled by the same sounds, triggering the same needs.

Their need for popularity, for the majority, the herd, will differentiate them naturally.
Their desire will be expressed by an offering of collective salvation, a desire for more instead of less.
Their addiction will be exposed as obsession.

They will seek the middle, the centre of their mass....and think of this drive as a will to power.
At the centre of their mass they will scramble, wanting to distance themselves from the periphery, the edge - furthest point away from the 'outside'.
There they will seek peace in the eye of the storm, surrounded by the turmoil of their own kind creating a whirlwind of bodies - a womb of flesh.
The bold will try to distinguish themselves by standing on the edge, relative to the centre.

On their own, and separately, they will detach and move towards these collectives, filtering themselves out, leaving us in behind, in our dreaded solitude.

This is when we must prove strong, for the pull will also be in us, and we will be tempted to follow.

We will not have to move at all. They will leave us 'behind' mocking our solitude, drifting one by one and all at once towards the middle, their noetic middle spot, their internal centre
We ought not to extent a hand, nor try to call them back.

If they stop and re-turn, it must be because of their own volition - some internal impulse turning them around.

The herds will distinguish themselves on their own - by smell of their orifices, by touch of thir flesh, by sound of braying, by taste of their sweat, forming large self-organizing distinctive unities.
Bodies upon bodies pushing for their mobile centre, some forming a barrier on the periphery - like a cellular membrane, outlining the boundary of their collective Self - but most competing for the heart of their uniformity.

Old unities will break apart, releasing the herd into a terrifying state of lostness - limbo.
But they will reorient, as fish in the ocean, and birds in the sky, using one another as signals of their mass migration towards a new collective, with a new centre, and a new name, and what was old shall be new and fresh, offering new possibilities to those lost and those once on the periphery of the old herd shall seek the coveted centre of their theoretical circle.

Their more is less, and more or less, is our less is more.
They multiply, exaggerate, add, and we divide, subtract.

We are children of the light, that cuts through the uniformity of darkness and divides, separates, distinguishes, makes clear by revealing differences.
They crave uniformity clouding it in words exalting their own distinguishment as more of the less, as master of slaves.
They want to stand apart in the herd.
We want to stand outside of it.

The superior can understand the inferior, and can adapt to it, if it so wills, and dominate it.
The inferior cannot understand the superior, and therefore cannot adapt to it. It can only imitate and/or submit to it.
It follows that a culture, an ethos, a meme born of a genetically superior mind cannot be adopted by an inferior one, but only superficially imitated, and under the force of penalty (coercion) or the promise of reward (seduction) be forced to submit to principles incomprehensible to it.
For this reason a culture cannot be adequately transferred from a superior, in potentials, population to an inferior, in potentials, population.
Memes are gene specific, because they are the product of a particular genetic potential, cultivated within a particular environment, across the span of particular events and circumstances. This history, known and unknown, cannot be transferred to a different population, cultivated under different environmental circumstances and having experienced different events.
A culture can be adapted to by an inferior population by imitating its superficial expressions but, because it is the product of history it cannot be entirely internalized, lacking the psychology this history produced in the population that created the culture.

The more secure they feel, the more liberties they permit.
as their sense of control, and their feeling of certainty about it, diminishes, so does their tolerance.

Feminization is reaching its apex with the current sexual abuse allegations.
Oprah is thinking of running for president, against Trump...
Emasculation will reach a frenzy.
Prepare for the next batch of Hollywood propaganda.
Blacks and women on the forefront.
They will offer a few of their own as scapegoats to prove they are still the prime victims – the measure of all past, present and future victim-hood.
Quality will fall.
Movies will be about emotions, relationships, and love will be repeated.
Heroines ‘kicking ass’, mostly those of Europeans males; females as geniuses, as creators, innovators... fantasy on steroids.
Sexual relationships will tumble. Men as sex toys, and emotional crutches supporting the 'strong' female on her quest to finally 'find herself'.
Birthrates will fall further, forcing countries to further loosen their migration policies.
Men will be forces to become emotional, to cry, to show vulnerability, to become females, revert to being prepubescent boys, men-children, reinforcing female opinions of men as weaklings and buffoons that had once placed them on pedestals... such naive boys.
State will become more stringent in its protection of weakness, so as to pick up the slack of masculine disappearance.
Women will become miserable, married only to the State, god’s brides, or the institution’s soul-mate.
They will turn to hedonism and chemical joy to cope, not knowing why they are still so unhappy. They will blame men, of course, unable to comprehend why this is happening to ‘them’, and unwilling to take responsibility.
A cascading effect of decadence and decline.

Let's hope the saying "It's darkest before the dawn" is true, because we are now entering into the deepest dark of this coming Dark Age.
How long will this night last?
It depends on the unforeseeable.
Who and how many will survive?
Nobody can know, but there will be casualties. Some dead, most living-dead - zombies.
We already see them on our urban streets, see them on television, hear them in songs.

First sign was the assassination of Kennedy.
The first Catholic president could not survive Protestant animosity, supported by the chosen, by god, to avenge him for their human, all too human sins.
Then it was a series of imbeciles as front-men.
The impeachment of an openly hostile European.

Rome began to decline when the first non Latin Caesar took the emperor's seat.
After that it was a slow, decline towards infection, division and fragmentation.
In the US it was Kennedy, and finally Obama.....a series of imbeciles reflecting a population kept stupid, culminating in Trump, a narcissistic man-child.
History repeats itself.
Patterns....

As a rule, too much stupid, cannot be tolerated by a system.
Protecting the individual with no other criteria, propagates and protects the emergence and accumulation of Stupidity, insanity, mental and physical weakness of any kind - mutations are not culled out of the gene pool, so they compound until the original is buried in mutations that have not been tested but only permitted to survive and to replicate.
At some point these mutations have to be dealt with.
In Democracy they are accommodated.
This ensures a growing quantitative advantage of minds entirely dependent on a system that has accommodated them.
Accommodation means the entire system must adjust to meet the needs of this growing majority.
It becomes massive, cumbersome, not flexible, unable to adapt to what is beyond its premises.
It begins to decline, forced to appropriate more and more of its dwindling resources towards the accommodate of this exploding, demanding, majority - majority of individuals that behave as organized groups, each congregating, as if organized, towards the gratification of their prime need.
Such groups begin to identify with their personal need, produced by the accumulated mutations.
physical, mental, need, desire, pulls them into groups, but because they have no shared ideal, other than their hedonism (addiction/obsession) they are vulnerable to manipulation by using these needs/desires.

"Freedom" becomes the abstractions justifying their individualized uniformity.
Freedom of choice, means freedom to gratify their physical/mental needs/desires.
Hedonistic liberty.
Refusal to acknowledge any other idea(l) to identify with, such as sex, race, they becomes addicted/obsessed with gratification of personal/private needs/desires - American individualism.
Survival, at any cost, becomes their only goal, because surviving ensures more gratification, and gratification of needs/desires is survival.

Within a relatively closed system, such as the planet earth, we fall into the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].



Overpopulation creates space and resource limitations, forcing adaptation.
It is the perfect setting for dis-eases, both genetic and memetic, to become viral.
Previous behaviours, evolved in different environments, stress organisms forcing them to adapt.

Human behaviours, ideals, created in times of still unexplored and uninhabited frontiers are forced into hiding and there they begin to atrophy, replaced with behaviour and ideals more appropriate in an overpopulated environment with no accessible frontiers.

The critical factor is accessibility to frontiers by the average member of a population.


It's to be expected that under these circumstances neurosis would increase and feminization would become the rule.
In a more complex organism, like the homo sapient, the absence of external frontiers would force an escape into imaginary internal ones.
Superstition would gradually infect empiricism.
The senses no longer trusted by a mind that only has the privacy of his skull to escape into.
World would become that of organic life, in a crowded environment all would be alive.
Paraphillia would increase.
Subtle data, once called intuitive, would be mistaken for a magical power to read minds, and predict events - psychic ability.
Like with bees, such data is transmitted physically, across the hive, informing the individual bees of a collective knowledge concerning a threat or a source of nectar.
Insanity would be a relief from the empirical. The brain going crazy, becoming schizophrenic, narcissistic as a way of preserving the body it depends upon.

Knowing and understanding a theory does not automatically means you know and understand how the world works.
A theory can be self-consistent, having made some presumptions that may or may not be found outside the brain.
Knowing and understanding, for example, the theory of Marxism, does not mean you actually know how the real world works.
You only know and may understand how a part of the human world could work, or ought to work, and,a t the same time, be entirely delusional and clueless about how the world, which includes the human, actually works.
Marxism failed because ti was an entirely noetic construct with no reference to anything phenomenal, or outside its theoretical presumptions.
It was a noetic construct about a theoretical organism existing in a theoretical world.
Human behaviour was presumed to be a blank slate, and all human understanding a social construct. Therefore, the Marxist concluded that if they take over (revolution) and gain power, they can reshape the human to become an ideal communist.
Their self-referential self-consistent theory had made its first mistake by assuming that all human behaviour and all human identifiers were socially manufactured.

This is the same mistake post-modernists are making....and Abrahamics made.
The assumption was that man chose to be sinful, or to not discipline himself to God's authority.
Christians explained this as a product of satanic intervention. The Devil lied and seduced the human into not following the emotionally rational thing to do.
Their error was covered with another contrivance.
Failing to understand human nature, and nature in general, they came to some self-evident conclusions, based on these errors, and then when confronted with the consequences of their error they tries to unload it upon an otherness.
Instead of seeking the source of the mistake in their won theory, they adapted the explanation within it.
Instead of evaluating human nature by constructing it based on observation of the human species and comparing it to other species (placing the standard outside themselves - objectivity), they internalized it, made it esoteric, preserving its 'purity' and blaming others for failing to abide by the theory's perfection.
This is common among degenerates.
They assume that all theories are similarly constructed and maintained.
They seek force, will, a living culprit, an organized scheme (conspiracy) to explain everything and anything that contradicts what they hold to be self-evidently perfect.
Then they assume everything is using the same methodology.

This is why moderns accuse all who contradict and oppose them as being afraid.
With no answer to the challenges confronting their ideas they assume that their own motive for refusing to question their own opinions are behind these challenges.
Projection is also how many of them perceive consciousness in everything, and a motive in all...both living and non-living.
Their speculative fears are affirmed when one of the myriads of possibilities streaming through their anxious consciousness, is made present.
They forget about all their wrong intuitions and recall the one.

Degenerates think that if they slander me, they discredit me, they disprove me, in their own mind, if they rally an opposition, a popular uprising against my views that they are riding themselves from them.
This is how fuckin' stupid these people are.

I'm a reporter...a psychoanalyst, reporting no reality and diagnosing humans and their reactions to it.
The world cannot be discredited, ignored, rallied against, for long.
Reality cannot be redefined, softened, made more hopeful....there will be a reckoning.
a reckoning these retards will then blame on others - on anything and anyone but themselves.

In today's world you can live in books, in your head, in movies, in alternate artificial universes realistically displayed in video games; you can inebriate yourself and get high, for a minimal price; you can find alternate interpretations philosophical treatise, a variety of "experts" one say this and another that.....
And?!!!


HA!!!!!

A metaphor is a synthesis of concepts, represented by symbols/words, already in existence.
Like satyr = man + goat.
There is a word 'human' or 'man' and there is a word 'goat' referring to real phenomena, existing in the world.
The synthesis man-goat does not exist outside the mind that synthesized the two abstractions, combining them into a unity that does not exist as phenomenon, but does exist as noumenon.
The new combination can have a symbolic meaning, referring to two or more phenomena, that do exist.
So, the combination which does not exist alludes to a combination that does...the meaning is transported....metaphor....metaphor.
What does exist, that may be used as a reference?
A human being with complex personality combinations.
The metaphor 'satyr, using the synthesis of man and goat, alludes to a hidden, or unknown, or complex psychological combination, that manifests in ways that recall the behaviour of the real organism goat, and the real organism man....each with distinct traits that differentiate them form all other species.
The metaphor becomes an allusion, related to what is commonly perceived - an allegory.

But this method of alluding to what we cannot perceive, and so connect it to what we can perceive, allows for the synthesis of noetic constructs that refer to nothing but more noetic constructs.
Then, this is covered up with allusion of mystery, of magic, of worthiness, of depth and complexity only a few can appreciate.....using shame as we once used it in high-school to pressure a weakling to submit to a common will - peer pressure.
It's what they sue to sell fArt at astronomical prices to pretentious nit-wits, and desperate narcissists.

An example of the two applications is how the Aryans used the word 'god' and how the Abrahamic spiritual nihilists used the very same word/symbol.

I've defined and described the Abrahamic, or Nihilistic method as the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] tactic, or the seesaw, method.
In the synthesis, such as man + goat = satyr, or man + horse = centaur, you can now insert a third element that has zero references in reality, or redefine the two separate words, referring to two separate real phenomena, in a way that uses the other to justify it, or uses the unknown, the emotional, the feeling, to escape justifying it.

I can say, for example, that man/goat is a real, as goat reveals man's goatness, where goat can only be comprehended in relation to man.
Nonsense...a simple example off the top of my head...but if you put some time and effort into it then you can convert the synthesis into a magical, mystical power, that promises much and seduces imbeciles the world over.

The mythological concept has to be comprehended when we consider how the ancients, that produced it, used other metaphor, like 'god(s).
Unlike moderns god referred to nature.
Not to a secret, hidden world, but to what was accessible to the simplest of men (manimals), as well as animals.
What were the gods but metaphors?
Synthesis of one, or more observable, experienced phenomena.
Metaphors that alludes to the mysterious, as a expression of human ignorance, but did not usurp the observable with the mystical, the known with the unknown.

This, I've called Bottom<>Up thinking.
This type of honest, courageous, noble thinking does not dismiss the unknown, but it alludes to it while accepting the fact that the unknown must be in harmony with the known. It does not completely dismiss experience, empiricism, what is known and understood, but evaluates the unknown in relation to it.

I used the metaphor of a house.....one begins form the ground, the middle, and then builds down, into the earth, to construct a foundation not misaligned but in harmony with the building
We call this delving into the esoteric, the unknown - metaphysics.
Metaphysics must be in harmony with what we see, what patterns we've already recognized, and call physics.

Then we project the building upwards, towards the sky, the unknown, as a plan, an objective, which remains in alignment with both the building and its foundations - the ideal.
Our ideals must be in harmony first with the experienced - physics - and the foundations, the underlying - metaphysics.
If it is not then we are making a mistake...not the other, not the world WE have been fooled or have fallen into an error...and WE, not OTHERS, must adjust one, or more, of the three (Metaphysics<>Physics<>Ideals) to correct the misalignment, otherwise WE, and nobody else, will suffer the consequences....and then, WE, not others, will blame others, and not ourselves for the consequences we cannot avoid, but only linguistically excuse and justify.

But things can become more complicated, and the occult can be used to justify this, and insinuate that this is due to a depth, an abyss being reached.

Let us, again, take real life examples.
Christianity took the Aryan use of the metaphor 'god' and detached it from anything observable - in fact it became a metaphor for an inversion of precedent and what is, or has ever been experienced.

Then it's easy to replace the word 'god' with another word, also detached from the world... like 'love'.
Now, a detached from reality metaphor is synthesized with another detached from reality metaphor, and converted into a mystifying synthesizing concept, to use complexity to insinuate depth, or an occult, hidden, secret wisdom... and to flatter, implying that only the special, the chosen, can ever understand it.
At this point, the hard work has already been done - the population has been prepared, already seduced...so it's easy to then replace the word 'love' with another, and pretend something new is being discovered.
We can take the ILP resident imbecile and use 'value', to replace 'love'....or any other word, with a positive, seductive, promising power, insinuation.  
A secularized Christian, then Marxist cows, is desperate for a new concept to surrender to.
They are begging for something new, to reinvent what was lost and what they cannot live without.
This is how the Trojan horse in linguistics works.
It's all based on obfuscating and intentionally complicating, and masking metaphor in metaphor...and then justifying it using emotion, mystification, insinuation playing on the crowds private insecurities...like a need for power, when feeling powerless, a need for love and belonging, when feeling lost and neglected.....and so on.  
Clarity is undesirable, because it would limit your market base....the ambiguity allows the audience to projects into the insinuation whatever he or she desires and needs, or whatever emotion is tormenting the individual.
Plato understood this and this explains why he warned against art, and the corruption of the youth, and the idiotic and the base.  
At this point we are no longer dealing with philosophy, but with spirituality, of the worse kind.
Nihilistic spirituality that, in the west, we know as Religion - the triad = Judaism = Christianity/Islam.
There were others offshoots that never took-off, due to the dominance of these three over the hearts and minds of the masses - the mediocre, the primal, the base.

Nihilism always seeks populism and popular appeal...and proselytizing, and quantities.
Without them it collapses, because it has no basis on anything real outside the mind - it is entirely noetic, internal, psychological.  
It samples from the outside, empirical world, to appear rational, but not too much because it the real is a contradiction to its detached, naive, idealism.
It seesaws....back and forth, in the ambiguity, in the mystification....into the light (objectivity), and then into the darkness (subjectivity) before it is exposed.
Either/Or...back and forth, good and bad....and so on.
Reasons only long enough to seduce, to satisfy the frontal lobe, and then back into superstition, and the reptilian brain...the occult.

I forgot to use the other example from ILP....because I like using real-life, down to earth, examples and not theoretical concepts....when and if I can.
The other, wannabe demagogue, uses Affectance, instead of effect, like Hedonism uses pleasure, ignoring what pleasure relieves and what is it the cause of.
It begins with the sensational, emotional, interpretation, to think backwards, or ti imply knowledge of cause...so it is always right.
So it exists in a theoretical realm, of absolute correctness, because all causes have an effect, and all needs are resolved in death or in pleasure.  
Why not focus on the Freudian sexualization, and ignore the morbid part?

Only a Christian born and raised on Judaic lies, and herd psychology, could ever feel proud of such an accomplishment.

What's fascinating about ILP, as with all places where the masses are tolerated to impose their lowest-common-denominator, for the sake of quantitative, mass participation, is that it, once again, become a reflection of post-modern nihilistic memes....where the Christian psychosis, is antagonized by its mother, the Jewish psychosis.....creating a Freudian psychotic battle over who is the best victim and who can offer the most pleasing response to need/suffering.
A case of what masturbation is most enjoyable.

Nihilistic positivism competes with a variant of itself...and we, as Aryan realists ought to allow them to proceed and to help the conflict proceed.
Jew against Christian....mother against daughter.
When the man of the house has been driven out, the women will have to fight over who rules the empty house.

What is most interesting is how one, feeding on what we offer on KT, returns to the den of dim-wits, the farm, with its protective electronic fences, to compete with another bovine, suing fangs it found in its short, and shallow, sojourn into the wild....where such teeth are regularly lost and found.

It is enjoyable, to me, a humble cub, to watch one bovine challenging another bovine, using weapons not of its own making...and outside its nature.
A case of a double-edged-sword.
when you have not grown your teeth, and you hold them in your hooves, they tend to slip and cut you, as you slice into the opponent.
The bloodbath, short but exciting, was extremely instinctive and useful, to a cub, such as I.
I have been taught, but I want to test the knowledge given...so any opportunity to validate what I have learned is extremely useful.

The problem with the construction of a metaphor is its application.
If you continue to understand it as metaphorical, and figurative, then it is not the same as using it literally, and understanding it as such.
Stupidity begins and ends, in a terrible reckoning, is to not confuse the representation for the actual...and the ideal for the real.
To know what is a word and what is that which it refer to.

But it is easy to buy into your own fantasies and become an imbecile...or easier to remain one, as you were and forever will be.

Of course, there is no such thing as uniqueness....because all is the recollection and/or the recombination of what has been - precedent.
We choose to use what has been successful and not what has failed.....so most choose to use Christianity, or, in order to appear more special, to use Nietzsche.
They covet the effect, the benefit, which they covet.....while they desperately try to ignore, or avoid the cost.
This is their undoing.
Try, as you will, the outcome can only be imitated, as image, as consequence....whereas the cause, the cost, is where the substance, the real lies. We, for instance, may covet Nietzsche's effect, in the present, among the males and the young....but what of the cost, the price....the suffering this effect fermented within?
Who covets suffering?
Who covets isolation and alienation?

What is the effect, of this backwards judging (Top<>Down)?
We love the image, the appearance, without ever delving into the past that produced it.
We imitate a role, as we understand it, like Hollywood method-actors, but if truly embody the mind with our body, then we reach our limits...and we suffer the consequences.

Style is not substance.
cRAP music is a case in point.
Art that refers to me-me, ‘look how great I am’, is not referring to reality, but projecting a desire based on an internal weakness; an insecurity, wanting to imprint upon other what it most desperately wishes to be perceived as, and it so desperately wants to believe is so – need for acknowledgement.
Art deals with world, or it deals with the self reacting to it.
The latter is Modern. Subjectivity projected outward, and believed in literally.
Emotion, sensation, noetic contrivances, dream worlds, made 'real' as representation – symbol.
Inversion.
Art that converts the object into a subjective form, or fArt that converts the subjective into an object.
We human are now dominating the planet earth, along with all life on it. We've intervened upon planetary processes to the extent that we now exist within the consequences of these interventions. This is my definition of artificial environments as opposed to natural ones.
It is evident that when we speak of 'world', or 'reality' we mostly speak of environments, conditions, we've fabricated and maintain – we mean humanity when we use the word 'world'.
In these modern circumstances when we speak of art we most always mean fArt, defined as subjective projections of ego, and an idealized conception of self.
A noetic construct that is not necessarily apparent.
fArt is the projection of internal reactions to external circumstances – it is displayed psychology. It is noumenon converted back to phenomenon.
I say 'back' because the noumenon, the abstraction, the idea, is a product of phenomena, perceived and interpreted.
In Art this interpretation is converted back to phenomenon by using an alternate medium. Visual images are converted to paint and places on canvas.
Flesh is converted to marble, or stone, in sculpting.
But fArt, being nihilistic, converts the interpretation to language/symbol, referring back to the internal.
Whereas Art externalizes the interpretation of the phenomenon, altering the medium through the mind's interpretation, fArt displays its internal reaction to the image, or the apparent, and converts it to a form that can be externalized, using a medium.
So, what is on display, with fArt is not the phenomenon, in the world, but the reactions to the phenomenon, made into a symbol to be projected into the world.

Phenomenon → converted to noumenon → and then back to phenomenon, using a different medium = Art.
Phenomenon → converted to noumenon → emotionally reacted to → the reaction converted to phenomenon, using a different medium = fArt.

fArt is about the individual relationship to world, and this is why it cannot be objectively judged. A subjective reaction to an objective cannot be critiqued, because it is entirely personal.
fArt can be very useful as a way of sharing private concerns, internal turmoil, psychological drama, the ego, so that the observer can relate, or not, to this reaction to the same world.
Venting and sharing private thoughts is its only value.
The talent-less flock to the more talented to find in their fArting, a scent of themselves.
fArt accommodates the needy other by remaining as ambiguous as possible, so that the observer can project into the fArt his own, private, reactions.
FArting is about sucking down the smell of another's digestion of reality.
cRAP is a more solid, less refined form of fArting. It has remained solid waste and not converted to methane gas. It’s more 'in your face'... monkey feces flinging.
The slave that has endured feels proud of this accomplishment – survival at all costs, and is now venting its vengeance upon those who made it suffer.
A slave's pride.
The psychosis of the nouveau riche - a liberated slave, like the impoverished suddenly finding itself in riches. It wants to display, be acknowledged as deserving its newfound wealth and freedoms.
Money, for the moderns equates to liberty – consumer choices and relative independence from the majority, to relieve their obsessive dependence.
Interesting how these psychological displays are for the eyes of those the mind feels dependent upon – his/her independence flaunted towards those he cannot truly become free from them.

Past is not gone....past is made present, and interpreted, perceived as appearance.

What is objective?
Objectivity is the approach of subjectivity towards the past made presence - present.
An ongoing process, because as thrown into world (dasein) the world is a falling away - Flux.

How do we know anything?
Data = knowledge
Understanding is finding a pattern within the data.

How do I know a dog from a cat?
Appearance.
How can I predict its behaviour?
Precedent.
Precedent is another way of saying past.
Sum of all nurturing = nature. Nature is past made present.
DNA is memory.
I can predict a dog's behaviour, as different form a cat's, based no experiences, stores as memories, exposing patterns.
Can I absolutely [predict a dog's behaviour?
No...there are no absolutes because of randomness, and because of complexity.
Complexity can be remedied with more data and more sophisticated understanding - perception of more subtle patterns.
Randomness (chaos) can never be surmounted...the reason why life is need/suffering and conscious - has a relative free-will....because of chaos.  
We've symbolized this freewill as satanic...that which challenges god's absolute, in theory, order - his totalitarian order.
This is also the root of Nietzsche's concept of ubermenche, and why man resents (rsentiment) what makes him possible - time.
Heidegger explored this in Being in Time.  

I can understand a creature, like a canine, more than it can understand itself because I have a mind that can recall, back to memory, data and patterns that exceed the moment of my birth and can project after the moment of my death.
A intelligent man is superior to an inferior man in this regard.
This is what distinguishes the species homo sapient form all other species - it is the measure of man.
Man can have a more objective perception of a dog, and of himself, than a dog can of itself, and of man.  
Precedent is what science is built on.
Theories reinforced, constantly reaffirmed, by precedent - past made present.
True and false is a measure of precedent ....not in theory but in fact - pragmatism the interconnection of patterns creating meaning.

Precedent, the past brought forth into mind, into the present, is what differentiate what is more and what is less true.

There's a natural antagonism between life, organism, and existence, flux.
A natural resistance that can lead to the worshipping of the projection of absolute order, as the end of all agon; struggle of organism against flux, measures as time/space.
A life would naturally produce a religion that makes its own ideal absolute end, a divine abstraction that gives hope and inspires more resistance to the experience of this antagonism, as need/suffering, and its inevitable conclusion in death.
Life uses life to increase its potential resistance, and propagation.
It, therefore, sanctifies life as the highest form of this order - a flexible reactivity, necessitating consciousness.

It's about what criteria you use to define yourself and the world

Are they sensually based - empirical, observable, natural?
Are they some made-up spiritual category, like sinner, or god's chosen, or good?

Are they some socioeconomic contraption like proletariat and capitalist?

Are they based on nature or on human artifices, and their collateral effects?

Here's a good method to easily differentiate the two.
If humanity vanished, will your identifiers still continue to exist?
Will they survive the end of the human mind?
Will other living organisms continue to exist in reference to them, or will the ideals disappear along with the humans that invented them?
If not, then you are identifying with a human construct that is not based on anything real, but on humanity's interventions on natural processes.


Simpler....
if you cannot see, hear, feel, taste what you are basing your identity on, or if it contradicts these sensually based identifiers, then your entire framework is an ideology, a dogma, a nihilistic contraption.

In an absolutely ordered universe determinism wins.
This is the appeal of Abrahamic psychosis.
No matter what happens it is always due to a rational cause, a predictable event....and the individual can hope, can endure.

But it also makes free-will a self-contradiction, and does not explain how in a determined world consciousness is relevant, or useful, unless we use the abrahamic excuse and all ti a test, a state of entrance into the more real reality.

What can resolve this conundrum?
Chaos, properly defined.
Not that renaming of order as complexity, as a secret occult order, similar to the 'God is everywhere, and nowhere' turns on phrase.
Chaos as randomness.
This explains consciousness and justifies free-will, to whatever degree it is possible.

An animal does not need to understand the complexities of the world to adapt to them, and if it were about complexity then a set of reactions would have evolved to react to any event, because in an absolutely ordered universe, there would be only a set number of possible events, and the mind would not have to understand them, but only evolve an automatic reaction to them.

But we do have consciousness, because the mind must be able to adapt to unforeseen events and circumstances.....why?
Because not everything can be foreseen....due to randomness.
When we speak of life, with matter and energy, the perceptible (phenomena), we are dealing with order - patterns.
These can be analyzed, understood, traced and categorized.
But not absolutely...due to randomness.
The non-patterned dynamic vibrations/oscillations, Energies, as I name them.
Take String Theory and vibrating strings.....what if said strings, that are not really strings but only vibration (oscillation), had no consistent, repeating, harmony - no order in other words, but vibrated randomly, inconsistently, with no predictability.
This would make consciousness very important...in fact it would make it crucial.

And, what if this vibration, this oscillation, is really that of what we call 'space' and space would be possibility?
Well, that would immediately mean that matter/energy, phenomena, were variations of order, or probability within this expanding possibility.
This would also mean that although we can predict things to a degree, we can never do so absolutely, completely, erasing all uncertainty - making probability a certainty.
This would be another way of saying 'singularity' or 'paradise' or 'utopia'.
No suffering, no uncertainty, no insecurity....eternal peace as one.
This is the appeal of Abrahamism.
It's implied, underlying, promise.
An END.

Furthermore, if all were ordered then being book-smart would be superior to being street-smart.
A genius would spend his life with his head in books and he would succeed in everything.
All would be part of a pattern that never diverged.
The details would be filled in, and complexity would become simpler....an end being attained - omniscience.

Free-will is the problem, for the Abrahamic God.
It is blamed on Satan, the deceiver.
In the movie The Matrix, they called it 'choice' - the expression of will.
But in an absolutely ordered universe all choices would lead to the same consequences, making it a matter of taste - lucid preference.
How many would prefer bad consequences for long?
Uniformity would be the result.
Who chose to choose?
Who willed Will?
The old 'who made god' question.

Absurdity.

Life as a reaction to Flux, explains it all.
But Flux means (inter)activity of both patterned and random Energies.
Why do we deify order?
Because we are ordered....god in our image.
Because we need order.
Because we find it attractive, inspiring, comforting.
Preserving an established order is the revolutionary act...not this rebelliousness of change, faggots promote.
What they means by 'change' is to alter an order they find themselves at the bottom of.
They want to replace order with their own, where they imagine they would fair better, not taking into account genetics as a limit of what they can achieve and as a repeating of their successes and failures.
But randomness (chaos) is a ray of hope, even for such degenerate cowards and shameless hypocrites.
Not an usurping (inverting), but a gradual ascent.

Moderns are like children.
They have the same naive, infantile optimism of boys and girls.
Communists, if you listen to them, sound like children discussing some imaginary world, populated by imaginary beings.
So do Abrahamics.
In fact all Nihilists.

Retardation is a defensive mechanism.
Regression to preserve, internally, to safeguard a fragile psychology from a reality that is too harsh, too cold, too intolerable.
Simple words no longer make sense to them, as though they have un-learned even the obvious.
This psychological regression is both their charm and their threat.
Taking them seriously would be like placing the fate of your family in the hands of your adolescent son or daughter.
What they're really asking for is guidance, comforting, protection, like a teenage boy rebelling against his father is screaming for attention.

Children, especially teenagers, have a vivid imagination and are prone to experiment with their bodies and minds...addictions begin during this stage in life.
They want to have fun and get high, listen to some cool music, fuck, eat, and then sleep.  
They invent their own jargon to stand-out, to feel cooler than their 'square' parents. A language only they can understand.
If it goes mainstream they abandon it and invent a new slang.

This regression occurs in, so called, adult individuals. It is therefore more appropriately called 'retardation' if it inhibits growth, and 'regression' if it turns it degrades it.
This psychosis can also be called [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
It's ideal is endless adolescence.
Everything is returned back to before anything was learned about a world they recoiled away from, finding it 'too much' or 'not enough'.
Choice of drug is based no this suppression or enhancement. Those that find the world 'too much' seek drugs that numb; those that find it 'not enough' seek accelerates, boosters.
Like all teenagers these retards need peers to share in their state of mind.
They need friends, a in-group, a gang, separate from others. a gang with its own dress code, its own lingo, its own symbolic gestures, musical tasted, lifestyles.  
What was once self-evident and obvious is now doubted...as an act of rebellion against all those adults that abused, and tricked them, with candy coated language and big promises.
They no longer trust their own senses. They are constantly looking for the 'ultimate life experience', for the more real reality, the hidden secret no adult ever told them about.

This is accentuated in times when the system is declining and children have lost their sense of self - either due to an absent father, or due to nihilism and its eradication of genetic (family, biology) and memetic (culture, traditions) identifiers.
Single mother households produce males that are lost, seeking a father figure 'out there', 'up there', down there; daughters with no father figures seek in boys a male replacement.
The intervention of the system has degraded the fathers that do stick around. Most have no control over their own families and only act as providers with no authority.
Weak fathers, or bad noes are worse than absent ones.

Appearance is the relationship of subject to object; of the aware mind to physical presence - past made present.
Appearance is the interpretation of that which is made present, birthed out of thousand-year-old habits, revealing, most of all, the relationship of observer to the observed.
Appearance is the subjective relating to the focus of its cares, its objective.