Forums

Abusing words is how the Modern convinces himself that he is the creator of reality.
Rejecting their pragmatic, practical, application is how they convince themselves they are free from a preexisting natural order.
By exploiting the usage of words as metaphors, they convince themselves that reality is malleable, and like the words they've detached from world, they can alter reality by manipulating symbols.

For example, let's use the word 'love' referring to a specific emotion, with a specific function, within particular types of organisms.
Rejecting the more pragmatic understanding of the concept 'love' as a evolved method of creating and maintaining bonds based, first, on genetic similarities, and then memetic ones, the Modern exploits the flexibility of language, and the already metaphorical nature of symbols, to claim that 'love' can mean anything.

Moderns point to the usage of the word in such contexts as:
"I love that sweater"
"Lovely scent"
"I love football"
"God is love"
"Love heals all"
"Love is eternal"
"I love life"


From a symbol/word referring to an emotion, emerging in higher organisms to facilitate heterosexual reproduction, the weening process which is demanding for more sophisticated organisms that require a period of maturation outside the womb, later evolving into a mechanism for forming and coalescing cooperative unities, such as herd, or tribes, it becomes a term used to accentuate a relationship of need, to express desire, to express, using hyperbole, a preference, based on pleasure and so on.

In this way the Modern maintains verbal flexibility, evading any degree of conviction in matters that concern the human condition and their desire to free it from past/nature.

They do the same with concepts such as 'beauty', or 'intelligence'.
They prefer to keep concepts vague, so that subjectivity can step in and use each one in accordance to their private desires and ideals.


With the concept symmetry/proportionality, linking organic becoming with cosmic order/chaos, the Modern detaches the concept from this connection, so as to make the word 'beauty' subjective, referring to a preference.
So, for a Modern Nihilist, to like someone is to find them 'beautiful' and to dislike them is to find them 'ugly'.
The possibility that someone can be unlikable and, at the same time, beautiful, is for them a paradox.

The idea that physical symmetry/proportionality automatically means virtue, or emotional preference, or charm, or talent, or intelligence is one directed by the delusion of subjective authority, insinuating the self-evident, for them, fact, that 'if I think so, if I say so' then 'it is so'.

This is what they call Will to Power.
A command.
I will it...
The Abrahamic God inspired them to believe creation and creativity words with a verbal command, A thought expressed with symbols.

So desperate to assert their presence in a world indifferent to them, that they surrender to the child's psychology - a cry to the world, hoping someone will hear and come to feed it, heal it, case for it.
Evolution Theory contradicted, because there's nothing to be selected, nothing to be adapted to....but only asserted, declared, commanded.
Speaking is the act, rather than act given speech.
The word, for them, is the will made real. It is, itself, the action that changes reality...simply by speaking it, by stating it, it is real.
Repeating it makes it more real.

'Saying so' is an act of creation.
If someone says it and it convinces others, it becomes TRUTH.
There is no objective criterion to determine what is more and what less probable.
The words, the symbols, suffice.
But the word can convince only organisms that can understand the spoken word, symbols, and Those trained in the meanings of the particular semiology...therefore, for them, all is a social construct, all is cultural - memes.
Genes as knowledge/memories, passed on as sum of all previous nurturing, NATURE, are dismissed as limiting the freedom of the individual to create his own reality using his own symbols/words - they are authoritarian, totalitarian, fascistic.
This means that all order imposing itself upon world, and the conscious organisms populating it, is a product of a conscious willing.
It follows, from this delusion that all is conscious, if nature is an imposing order.
Will, rather than metaphor, becomes en expression of a conscious or unconscious order with a motive.
All order must have a beginning and an end, a telos, or it must be literally understood as being like organic willing - including the concept of self as the ambiguous starting absolute. From this literal interpretation it follows that all is self-preserving...all order is guided by a necessity, a desire, a goal.
Telos given a variety of new names to replace the concept of God.
Because organisms (inter)act with care, with a purpose, with a motive, all (inter)actions must be like living emergent unities - congruities of patterns.
Uniformity of motive = chaos.
Distinction between living and non-living (inter)activity reduce to a common shared motive.
This reduction to the lowest-common-denominator is part of Nihilistic practices.
All must be reduced to what is most intimate - emotion a corrupting part of the process, now called 'subjectivity' to avoid the connection.

Emotion, sensation becomes a validation of 'truth'.
What feels good, is good.
What feel bad, is a mistake.

Same as the redefinition of beauty and the beautiful as someone who makes us feel good, not that looks good whether we like it or not: is beautiful, is smart, is superior, whether it hurts us or not = objectivity.

If we trace it back to its roots this attitude towards words, is a attempt to separate mind from body, giving mind the upper-hand.
Body is the past/nature to be denied or selectively reinterpreted, in relation to the mind's preferences.
I've called this Schizophrenia, and explained how Narcissism is its natural byproduct - the pollution produced by human intervention.
Body, as past made present, is rejected as anything more than a "thing" to be redefined, renamed, reapplied.
Current Identity crisis is the product of this self-hating, rejection or antagonism to body, placing mind on the noetic pedestal as the higher self.
Mind declaring itself above body, or free from the limits of the physical.
Mind as not bound by what restricts the body, the physical, because it can project forward and backward in time, it can rearrange concepts, recombine abstraction, with careless ease.
Nothing to hinder it when the body is protected from the costs of a mind gone mad - it's all win/win, the positive message of Nihilism.

God created the world, He willed it into existence out of nothing. The metaphor is understood literally.
One of the few things I found valuable in Spinoza was his explanation of Biblical hyperbole.
According to him the current misunderstanding to biblical text, its literal interpretation, was the product of an ancient idiomatic practice - a practice still present.

Hebrew used metaphor to express hyperbole.
The burning bush was expressed as god's bush, to express its size, or the intensity of the fire that burned it.
God's burning bush was understood as God appearing as a burning bush.
Similarly when Saddam Hussein said Mother of all battles to express the coming Gulf War, he used anther hyperbolic metaphor, 'mother'.
Hebrews being more psychologically effete, and idolizing the father, used masculine metaphors to express similar passions.
God was how they expressed the supreme, the superior, the large.
Father of all Bush Fires..became God as the burning bush.
Bible is full of this metaphor being interpreted literally.

Not my conclusion Spinoza's.

The other aspect of 'understanding through misunderstanding' is the fact that various forces within Western societies impact not only the perception of reality by an average person but also intentionally or unintentionally (in respect to trying to push-out some concepts out of circulation) morph and dilute certain words. I am sure that there are these who purposefully chose to manipulate words due to their weakness or are simply too simple to go beyond what the word 'feels' but there are certainly also large pools of population that would have normally been capable of understanding and accepting some concepts but never will due to their extinction through the processes I've mentioned and since words are gateways to our perception these people will never come across certain elements of reality. A banal example of this would be the word 'apple', I am sure that If you were to go into early schools in large cities in America like NY and ask children what 'apple' represents to them they would only associate it with the company 'Apple' and this is only an accidental process with a very neutral and simplistic concept, not something like 'honour' or 'pride', 'race' etc.

Good example.
A word like apple to a child born and raised within human artificial protected environments could mean something other than the fruit, growing on a tree, rooted in the earth.
Distance form nature can skew his understanding of the word....the word detached from ti original reference and now reconnected to an artificial device.

This is exactly what they did with words like 'morality', 'love', 'human'...and are continuing to add to linguistic detachments until words can mean anything to anyone at any time.
The original reference lost, buried beneath the artificial, consumer, goods and services now constructing a fabricated environment.

What have I said about nihilists disconnecting words symbolizing noumena, from phenomena, to then reconnect them to emotions....solipsism.
Self-referential loopiness.
The seductive appeal of positive-Nihilism, offering a manmade alternative for what is absent in the real world.
Words and mixing them up, reflecting the manner in which they can synthesize abstractions, free from any external natural order, to be rearranged in surreal, creative ways and then to take them literally, as there is no cost to their error, in a sheltering human system.
Word juggling, I call it.
Aesthetics shifts to personal tastes, reflecting desire, need.
The noetic construct IS more real than the real, or representing a secret, hidden, reality, only they can appreciate because ti only matters to them as their creator.
Other and seducing others into the shared delusion becomes a way fop validating it, compensating for the absence of external reference points.
More converts means more power, more justification, more validation.
The delusion is only useful within those it has seduced and is held in equal standing.
It cannot have any other utility as it does not refer to anything outside human brains - its only effect is psychosomatic.

Try to reread this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] understanding of dasein and how people think and judge.
Read 1 to 7 following the train of thought this idiot uses to come to a self-referential self-gratifying conclusion. Read her admission that its all emotionally based, and the presumption that this is so for everyone...therefore all is subjective, and no unemotional, unconcerned with personal benefit, judgment is possible - ergo on objectivity is possible.
All philosophy and science, a product of the first, is "debunked" on emotional universality.
Everything is reduced to an emotion, a personal preference....therefore beauty can be found in the ugly, if the ugly opffers a good feeling, if it promotes positive sensations, if it pleases.

This ... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...is an attractive man.
No not a smart man who is not so attractive, or a charming man...but also beautiful when the word 'beauty' can now be used to mean personalty traits, or psychological appeal.
He think we fool nature, we trick the world using word-games, or when we convince some gullible desperate fool.
Sartre is a beautiful man...not an ugly man with other compensating traits...but just as good looking as him....

There can be no ugly child belonging to loving parents who still love it.  

Someone might say they prefer mental and/or psychological symmetry, called intelligence, and/or prefers mental flexibility, called creativity, to inherited genetic health, a robust autoimmune system, fertility, representing potential which remains untapped, but then they choose to invest in more time-resistant traits, rather than in those that decline over time, or choose memetic virility to genetic kind.  
Instead of trying to clarify and be more precise, more honest, the modern prefers to confuse the concepts, using the same terms (words, symbols) to refer to different kinds of symmetry/proportionality, and different types of appeal.
They dumb-it-down to fabricate the illusion of parity.

They do the same thing with all words representing concepts that interest them. Take the word 'morality'.
It can now be sued to refer to good/bad which has nothing to do with morality, and of course morality always refers to the Abrahamic Marxist definition.
Unable, unwilling to find the natural source of moral behaviour, they prefer to conclude that morality is a social construct. When you show them examples of moral behaviour, in the animal kingdom, they ignore it....or dismiss it, preferring to maintain the concept as a mystical power, or a human construct, not rooted in survival and social behaviour.
Mystifying it makes it magical - Abrahamic psychosis.....making it a human construct converts it to the mundane, another consumer product to buy, or refuse to buy - Marxist psychosis.

Absolute God, is replaced by Absolute State, and now it has become absolute Humanity....where human means world and all are equally emotional, or subjective.

Detaching noumena form world is felt as salvation, as liberation, as relief, but then they need something to attach what they've disconnected...as they need an identity when they've stripped themselves of past/nature.

Where do they attach their detached noetic constructs, when there is nothing real, nothing apparent to attach them to?
Back to other noumena....other abstractions.
Either in the minds of those who share their detached noetic abstractions, or back to self and to emotion.

We saw similar practices from Iakob and his mixing of words to claim a unique construct with no external reference, but also in the old methods Abrahamism, Secular Humanism, Marxism...and now this cAnus gives us a beautiful example of how Nihilism works, and why others become so important to them.
With no external reference to validate their abstractions, they must fill in the absence with other minds.....because they are unable to deal with the possibility that the error is in their own thinking, or because they already know that the alternative is far worse...as it will force them to deal with an indifferent harsh world they want to escape suing these tactics.  

The hope of reasoning with them is lost when you consider how fundamental this tactic is to their survival. They would rather remain insane than risk dying.
Nihilism emerges in primitive peoples as a coping mechanism.
It is why it spread during times of great suffering among peoples who were the lowest of the low - slaves, the rejected and dejected. It is why it still finds fertile ground to grow among the lost, the desperate, the cowardly, the insane.

Confusing knowing for understanding is among mental-midgets what produces the confusion of what they think (noumenon) with what actually is (phenomenon).
This brain-limit, this mental barrier, is what leads them to the misconception that edumucation can heal all cosmic disparity. Most of them belonging to a hive-mind mentality that may reject parity but still holds on to the confusion that data collection and storage, is the same as analysis, and processing.
Regurgitating information amounting to the same effect cow flatulence has on earth's atmosphere.
It fits in well with their practice of collecting stimulation, experiences, fabricating abstractions and then spending a lifetime rearranging them in their individual heads, to pretend they are doing serious work.

Unable to make connections, between patterns outside their minds, they involve themselves with rearranging the pieces until they almost fit, to discover 'meaning', and they compensate for their blindness and lack of courage by forcing such connection within their minds, creating surreal, fantastic, imaginary monstrous meanings that can only be applied esoterically.
Unable to find patterns within the patterns, they project it there, inserting their own synthesized confused abstractions, and then disregard the paradoxes, and contradictions, their mistake produce. They rearrange sentences, word sequences, to deal with the contradiction of their ideals coming from the real, and call this their creativity, their will to power.
Sometimes metaphors are taken literally, and other times figuratively, to retain plausible deniability and to make everything appear cohesive and stable.

They occupy their time with useless things, made useful only due to man's co-dependencies, addictions, obsessions, needs.
Emotion is the glue to bind their compartmentalized schizophrenia into a disharmonious model barely managing to hold itself together, avoiding any contact with the world because they know the entire thing will fall apart with the first contact.
It all remains theoretical, the world, the real, unable to conform to their surreal morphoma. Shared only among the initiated, the loyal, the trusted as one shares a delicate empty egg shell, or a self-flattering secret.

They practice mind manipulation and exploitation, usually in very infantile ways, applying feminine methods, and this they call "philosophy".
When they dare to define the words they are using it is usually in extraordinary ways, to claim unique insight, in surreal ways to pretend there is a profound secret hiding in the confused mess.
Instead of simplifying the complex and demystifying what is already mysterious, they promote confusion as complexity, and add to mystification their own ignorant fabrications, inserting there an order they've constructed using their own desires and hopes.
They represent it all with exotic symbols intending to intimidate and to impress, dealing with all skeptics with dismissive arrogance, pretending to be confidence.

Artist's Coming of Age
An artist must prove his merit by first showing talent in portraying reality, as it is, as closely to the real as possible.
Then he can proceed to offering his interpretations of how he reacts to the real, or portrayals of how he conceives the intangible.
Without first displaying his talent with the real, in relation to the real, nobody can gauge if his later work is intentionally confused, or is so to hide a lack of talent.
Picasso could paint the world before he went off into cubism and surrealism. He did not begin with shapes and weird facial configurations, a child could draw, or an elephant trained to use a paint brush.
With no evidence of his talent, what follows is nothing more than pretentious garbage selling itself as profound art.

The artist's next step is to liberate himself from those that inspired him to attempt art.
A lifetime of imitating the style, or copying the art pieces that pulled a young student toward art is not being a mature artist.
Breaking free from the mentor to cultivate your own style is a rite of passage, from child to adult.

Ha!!!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Man-Child confuses sucking a cadaver's dick, for almost 3 decades, now, and regurgitating the same thoughts, like a loyal dog, for being one's rightful heir, and committed supporter.


After figuring out how to do simple math, one no longer quotes his math teacher, nor needs to affirm his calculations by deferring to the mentor's arithmetic.
Shared world means one can discover the same truths from his own path....discover the same oasis in the desert as those that came before....does not mean one follows them, or remains true to the path they left behind, nor does it mean one is forever in his shadow...particularly when he found water in the desert before her read of the existence of an oasis.

Same waterhole can be approached from many different directions.
Doesn't make the water found there the remnant of the previous visitor's urine.

Modern degenerate snowflakes always complain about their [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] being used and abused, and the more they whine the more they invite abuse.

The topic of race would not be such a big topic if not for the fact that it's now part of Modern mythology that it does not exist, or that it's a 'social construct'.
The social construct is that the natural construct, race, does not exist, but this is inverted to presently trick imbeciles, desperate to live in a world of their liking.
If they want to ask us to pretend that this is so, and go about our lives as if race was not real, then we might consider it as part of being social and not hurting their delicate feelings....but that's not what they do.
What they do is demand that we all believe that the bullshyte they accepted, the lies they believe in, be accepted as a social truth.
Like religious fanatics insisting that if you do not accept their God, you must die, or suffer for an eternity in their imagine make-believe real place 'Hell'.


The criteria for establishing an alternate explanation for the same shared experience is given.
you can't just declare something exists, or declare that even if all can perceive it that it isn't real.
Word based statements, are little children toys, played with by little girls and boys.

Here's the issue with race.
If we accept that race is not real, and that appearances are illusions or superficial and meaningless, that it is a social construct, then we must also explain why appearance only ceases to expose essence in certain context, as, for example when ti has to do with humans.
If humans are exempt, because they are the chosen, God's children, or too complex to abide by natural order, then we must explain how evolution works for humans.
How did human evolve, and why did they, theoretically stop evolving, when civilization emerged, or why did man except himself when he invented, or began to think and use symbols, and rituals, and institution, and art, what we call culture?


Evolution states it as a matter pertaining to its theory about all life.
Speiciaiton, or the production of species, the splintering of species from a shared ancestor, follow specific stages.
First a population must experience a long time of genetic isolation, being affected by environment and adapting to it, in ways that are, then, not shared with the population they are isolated from. This begins the process of splintering....and this environmental effect is displayed in appearance....and this is why we, normal humans, use our senses, particularly our eyes, to discriminate, to differentiate, to perceive divergence.

If this first step is not long enough, then splintering does not occur....or if it is long but not long enough for a complete splintering, we have intermediate stages such as polar bears and grizzles, or horses and asses.
The population have diverged where it is visually obvious and can be called different species, but not so much as to not be able to sexually produce hybrids.
There are many species of this type.

We can then also imagine that there would be a step before this where divergence did produce a sensually perceived divergence but it did not last long enough to produce a splintering, not even a minimal one, to be called a different species.
We also have a name for that...we normal humans call those types, or breeds, and with humans we call it races.

Now what does this mean, for all the children out there, still afraid to follow the train of thought.

Well, children, this has to do with what I said before.
See, if appearances do not matter then there would be no reason for us to have evolved the means to perceive the divergences that do not matter.
But appearances do matter as the past appears, is made present, for us to perceive, and every sensual detail exposes this past.
But let us not give the children complexity to excuse themselves.
Let's keep it real simple-like, so they are not traumatized and they do not seek for a reason to dismiss it all as a hoax.

What type/kind/race, or species, or any category known to man means is....POTENTIAL.
Yes, children all it means is potential, or probability.
What is passed on genetically and memetically - but let's not complicate things for the idiot men-children - is potential, or probability.
What potential for speed, height, strength, intelligence, coloration, etc, etc....we will inherit.
This might enter areas your tiny minds will find emotionally difficulty in entering, and given that most children are scardy-cats they will, at this point balk and run away screaming "Racist!!".
But for those who are genuinely interested in life, existence and reality, and are not pretending to be 'philosophically' inclined, let me explain.

What genes determine is not an absolute, a truth, a uniform, complete perfect, whole.
What genes, as experiences/causes/memories passed on from parent to offspring, is potentials - probability.
So, species is a category where the potential for speed, height, width, all the traits we can perceptive are determined to fall within a upper and lower limit of probability....excluding all other possibilities, which is what probability means.
We also cal this 'order'...yes....not fascism, not authoritarianism, not 'I say so', but order.
Order is, indeed, imposing...it imposes limits of probability upon possibility. It limits what impossible.
Therefore a pig born with wings is a genetic impossibility.
Therefore, a cheetah is most probably faster than a human. This does not exclude the possibility of a cheetah being born defective, crippled, or whatnot....which is then measured against he average of cheetah speed probabilities.
Theoretically a defective cheetah can be born slower than a human, but on average a cheetah is always faster than the average human, as a human is, on average, smarter than the average cheetah....but there are retards which are the exception to this rule.
So, an exceptionally gifted in intelligence cheetah can, in theory, be smarter than a moron, like the many being produced by Modern human societies.
I use speed, in regards to the species cheetah because unlike all the other traits this trait is what distinguishes this species as it is its main survival strategy - its niche that distinguishes it from other felines.

This does not mean we are prejudiced against other cats, or we will abuse them because they fail to be as fast as cheetahs....it is only a fact, indicating the particular species' potentials.
If we find many other traits and determine what the average potential they have in the particular population - species - we begin to find a species designation....and we give it a name.

Colour would be one such trait.
Intelligence another.
Strength another.
It is in combination that we establish a category and call it a species, or a bred, or a race, or a type.

We determine the average by measuring a populations traits, as these emerge in particular individuals. This does not exclude the highest and the lowest, as representative of the extreme these potentials can rise to or fall to.
We do not take each trait separately, but in combination...so although a cheetah looks like a leopard, has similar coloration, fur, similar traits, its other traits distinguish it as a separate species.
What this means is that even though they look similar they are different enough to make it obvious that a leopard cannot hope to develop the potential for speed a cheetah has, on average, and a cheetah cannot hope to develop the power, and climbing ability an average leopard inherits as a potential.
Get it children?

If we now apply this same method of judging to humans, and we extricate our heads from our socially stretches anuses, we might realize why denying race, makes it all the more a subject to be discussed.
it would be like a bunch of retard denying cheetahs are a separate and distinct species of feline....and that all felines are the same.

If we let such a delusion slide, or take ti as a 'white lie' that reduces pain and causes no harm, then we are slip sliding down the slope of dumbing-down, of dysgenics.
The more the children insist on pretending that all humans are the same, no matter how different they look, the more it becomes obvious that this has nothing to do with reason, and more to do with emotion - their own.
If emotion becomes our main criteria then we are not progression but regressing back to a child-like state, and then our species is regressing back to an animal state where sensation, emotion, is all it has.

Some retards will say....hybrids are better.
Let's consider this piece of mythology many of them enjoy sucking on.
let's say you are a demented fuck and you engineer, a hybrid cheetah/leopard.
What will you get.
Not a better cat, for then your criteria will be adjusted to accommodate the results, by intervening and altering what nature has produced.
The hybrid would not be fit to survive anywhere but within an environment specially made for it by the human whop mixed the cheetah and the leopard....because if the mix was superior it would have evolved naturally.
Will this hybrid be faster than a cheetah?
No,
Will it be more agile and stronger than a leopard?
No.
Although we can never know how DNA will mix and what it may produce, but we do know the traits necessary for the cheetah to be fast, will be diluted, as will the traits that make the leopard agile.
From the cheetah's perspective you have produced a slower and inferior cheetah. From the leopard's perspective you've produce a fragile and weaker leopard.
From your demented perspective you've produces a 'super cat'!!!

Apply this to primates.
If you mix a chimpanzee with a human what will be the outcome?
A stronger human, in relation to a normal human, and a weaker chimpanzee in relation to a normal chimp.
A smarter chimp in relation to a normal chimp, and a dumber human, in relation to a normal human.
A super-chimp but not a super-man. A sort of dumb, brutish man....you know a certain type of race, a breed of man.

Same applies when mixing types, or breeds, or races.
Potentials fall or rise to a combined average.

Can we trick the cosmos by forcing upon ourselves a confusion. If we all agree that there are no races, on humanitarian grounds, do the genes care for our social conventions and our emotional desires?
Doesn't matter how convinced we are, what inter-subjective alternative worlds we fabricate, the potentials carries by the genes remain indifferent.
Body is honest, actions are honest even if the mind is stupid, idealistic, romantic, and cowardly.
It does not matter how convinced we are, or how many agree with us....the potentials the genes pass on will manifest in a outcome we must then cover up with social conventions, social rules creating the illusion of parity.
Equality is socially engineered, not divergence, not disparity.
Because two members of the same species may share an inherited potential, but they also diverge from each other as to how high or high low their own particular potentials fall within this average we call species.
We also call this the nature of the organism, and we call nurture how much of this inherited potential, part of a species average and an individual's own particular average, is cultivated.
So, in theory a man born with higher potential may cultivate ti less than a man born with lower potential and find himself an inferior to the second.


I, for one, will never allow myself or anyone who comes in contact with me, with getting away with such infantile, bullshyte.
In the privacy of your bedroom, or in the church you go to, or when you discuss these things with your retarded friends, you can think and say whatever lie pleases you, but if you come out to share your delusions and expect to be taken seriously, or expect others to take your feelings into consideration, then you are one deluded monkey.
If you cannot offer an alternate explanation as to how species evolve, and all you have is please to our 'humanity' or trite cynical declarations, or feeeeeelings, then what the hell are you doing in public calling yourself a 'thinker', pretending you are interested in the world.

Emote, in private or within your clique, share your feelings, your hopes, your delusions, your shared myths, and be happy.

Out here, in the world, there are creatures like Satyr that will not forgive your cowardice and stupidity.


Stay safe my friends.

Depends, like all things it is a tool, its ends can be for good or ill. The original Aryans depended on hybridization, to ensure their genes would enter all of the mainland. Putting the flavor in the beverage at the cost of dilution. Spreading yourself thin in Risk Factions in an effort for global conquest.

Spreading yourself thin comes at a cost. The Aryan gene has become so diluted that it is approaching extinction. Without the DNA machine and or cryostasis, there is a real risk for their gene to be so diluted amongst other genes, that it can no longer be activated, more or less, extinction.

One must view the human mind as an RPG character, there are stats of the brain. Intelligence, is defined as Memory, Pattern Analysis, and Pattern Synthesis. Autists, Marilyn vos Savants, are good at the Memory. But without Pattern Analysis and Synthesis they are nothing. The optimal brain organizes itself using tree-heirarchies, this is the most efficient information retrieval configuration. This technique uses split-personalities, for instance, when painting, to become the Painter personality, when logic-ing, to do the Logic personality. This is why many Aryans love doing impersonations, and the Aryan oval is ideal for cosplay.

About 3 out of 500 blacks are intelligent, of those, none are as smart as John Carmack. I myself am half-black, and I will never be as good at code at John Carmack, nor will I ever be as good at basketball as any negro. But on the other hand, I recognize the truth of fluids whereas mainstream scientists seem lost in their egos, mainly because most lack the Aryan gene (John Carmack has a high dose of the Aryan gene.) RPG stats and balance.

Well folks, the herd has been returned to safety.
Barn doors are closed by the farmer, exploiting them for his own interests, cultivating them to be as domesticated as he likes.

Took a while..

Was insulted repeatedly....and never responded in kind...as Satyr can and is able of doing.

They affirm their own essence, as cowards, hypocrites, and imbeciles.

Oh well...and I was about to challenge cAnus on view counts.

One of the biggest hypocrites and cowards there, other than Sauwelios who is well-known for being a follower, was Wyld.
A representative of the van-clan to make the Messiah proud.

Poetic prose used to describe existence can prove to be detrimental to the romantic fool who cannot escape its metaphorical weaves.
The ancient Greeks used prose to describe the cosmos as fire, but they did not really believe the cosmos was fire, but only like fire, energy, fluctuating...
Romantic fools can adopt literary forms, such as eros and pathos to describe simple attractions/repulsion, equating them to the raging push and pull of copulation, and erotic passion, and this is a legitimate way to artistically describe an indifferent process, but when they begin to confuse artistry for the processes themselves, they become desperate fools, trapped in their own metaphors.

Spinoza cannot be forgotten by changing words, and metaphors.
The sampling cRAPPER, remains a talent-less regurgitator, whose only interest is fame and fortune, exploiting the talents of those he can never be like.

Pony, 'am not on ILP.

Have left you a msg. on scifor.

-

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

Kneelmaid is best left with her usual medicines for her stigmata and clutching to her "Word of God" who "Shall not be Deceived"; prone to sleeping with her Bi(b)le under her pillow as she is...

Some should not be resented,, just quarantined...

All you need to do now is use a different metaphor and sell it as the next 'big thing'.

Detaching words from their connection to world has permitted every mind, slightly above average, and with an overactive imagination, freed from reality to delve into fantasy, the creative licence to use words metaphorically and understand them literally, or use them literally and understand them metaphorically.

Can we not see how everything is love and loving itself, holding itself tightly in a loving embrace?
Let us smile, when we say so metaphorically, and literally feel it.
No, wait, we can change the metaphor, and make it will to power, where 'will' is taken literally to mean the universe, is willing something, as an organism wills by directing its energies towards a goal - possesses a motive, which may mean movement, or a planned outcome.

If we hold true to our commitments, we can now understand Heraclitus, as Turd did on ILP...as literally describing a cosmos on fire, and the Greeks in general as actually believing there were beings, they called gods, living on top of a real mountain, named Olympus.
What was sold to the masses as short-hand philosophy, is now part of the Modern's understanding, being that the current mind is mediocre, and no different than the masses it pretends to stand above.
I've described this as the sew-saw, plausible deniability, ploy, or the Trojan Horse.
The metaphor is held to be literal, with its mystical connotations, but when it is threatened to be exposed as absurd, then it claims to return to its symbolic utility.
Then, when feeling safe, it returns to the more comforting literal application.

Thusly, a Christian can accuse you of misunderstanding his usage of the word 'love' as being another name for his One-God, and vehemently protest when you think of him a fool that it uses the word as anything but a metaphor for something mysterious, or to describe artistically the attractive forces present in the world....and then he will use the word, when among his own, exactly as one uses the it to describe the emotional paroxysm, the passion, the bonding, the care, the trust, we feel as lust/love.
The word 'love' is sometimes literally the emotion, and then it is a metaphor for the divine.

What word cannot enjoy similar privileges?

Is this not how the word 'humanity' titter-totters between the reproductive and the all inclusive magical?
Is it not how 'race' and 'sex' evade their mundane meanings and threatening applications?

Nostradamus, inspired by the Oracle at Delphi, used this linguistic slight-of-tongue to insinuate himself into greatness.
The entire Christian Bible is written in its spirit.
Modern fArt uses it to imply meaning in the meaningless.
Charlatans use it to exploit others, by first fooling themselves.

The Nietzschean  phenomenon is based on it - modern men-children taking advantage of a scholarly literati's eloquent style, from another era, to insert their crass personal desires into his aphorisms; their own Abrahamic handicaps into the anti-Christian text to unite Judaism and Hellenism with a vague metaphor, a seesawing bridge....sometimes physical and sometimes metaphysical, sometimes actual and sometimes symbolic, sometimes real and sometimes ideal.

Know what's funny?

Girls-gone-Wyld says "It happens to all of us" and "random banning" to explain why Crow was banned....and to accentuate his hope that nobody cares what I have to say.

Yeah...they "randomly ban" when they get a whiff of Satyr....only_humean has a twitch.
Retards always seem to be lucky, for some reason.

Oh wow, it is really happening... Kropotkin and iambiguous arguing.

I think by know we're all very familiar with iambiguous's "arguments", possibly more than we'd like to be, so one gem from Kropotkin

Quote :

I don't begin with being/dasein... I begin with ok, we are here, now what.....
I begin with the now what part..... I have no control over being/dasein......
what is... is.... My interest is not about what is... being/Dasein......
but what happens next............

He begins with the here and now. He is not concerned with what is, but what he thinks could be in future.

Did nothing precede the here and now? How can you build a future, if you don't recognize how things are?

Ha!!!
No past, no nature.
It all begins in the here and now - no precedent.

Fools who deny the past are bound to repeat the same errors...over and over.
These fucks, are goldfish brains.

They are born, start (here and now, Now what?), they die, THE end.

Herd manimals are fodder.
Each one occupies its own private universe, and the only reason they relate and tolerate each other is to be left alone, to dream safely, to be protected by flesh and bones walls.
All they care about is 'how do I live my life? and how do I maximize my pleasure until I die'..
Philosophy for the herd manimal is about politics, only, and how to get along and how to make compromises and how to live a good life within the social situation they are forced to depend upon.

cAnus is the perfect model for Modern wo-man.
She rejects all judgments as being equally absurd, or rooted in social upbringing, except the ones that have no implication on the human condition, and then she proposes a solution to the paradox of her own making, as a common, mutually beneficial, compromise - a vote, where majority decides the way out of the paradox.
No justification, no argument, only a desire to eliminate the mother of invention, human conflict.

Emotion standing in the way of reason.

But she makes another error.
Having reduced it all to an emotional appeal, to reason, she thinks of all judgments in moral terms, confusing her Abrahamic good/evil, for good/bad, as it relates to cost/benefit, and then refuses to acknowledge the 'down to earth' roots, meaning, of morality itself, as a evolved behaviour, among social organisms, to facilitate heterosexual and cooperative survival strategies.  
She is a hypocrite in that she refuses to bring it all down to earth, because for her dasein means "thrown into society" so she wants to bring it all down to a social context, where the only rational compromise is democracy, or some form of mutually beneficial agreement.

Her refusal to understand morality outside human contexts, connecting the behaviour to species not part of socioeconomic conventions, exposes her motives as lacking integrity.
Unable to expose her true essence, and motives, she indulges in cynicism, and infecting the minds of others with irrational, skepticism, simply for the sake of not being convinced - since it's all subjective when ti comes to humans, because only humans can be 'thrown into society", and raised within as particular meme....animals are ignored because they contradict her idealistic naive, bullshyte.
All she has are these feminine, child-like, transparent psychological mind-games, repetition, and producing frustration in the other, to make herself feel like she is having some impact.

Other than that, she's one dumb biatch.
In time, even simpleton, like those on ILP get sick of her and her insistence to reduce all judgments to a shared mistake only a compromise can resolve.
With no access to the impact, she interprets as her  philosophical acumen, she must convince those that have experienced her methods to continuously engage her.
She does this by appeasing to some -audience', or with her winks, intending to spark an egotistical response, or he please to argue with her, to 'debate'  in her circular reasoning, which she then projects as being what she used to think like, when she was like them, an objectivist....as she understands objectivity.
1-I am rational
2-I am ratinol because I have access to the ideal
3-I have access to the ideal because I am rational


This is what her own thinking is rooted in...a circularly reinforcing conundrum.

She's in an endless debate with her younger, more stupid, naive, self, before she discovered Nihilism as the negation of all that troubles her, and has proven to be, in time, disappointing to her - offering no clear-cut, certain, guidance. .
She then wants to force others to play the part of her, in the past - the kids is a reference t herself, in her younger years when Christianity and then Marxism seduced her and then let her down.

She does not care what the other actually says, or thinks, he must be made to play the role of the objectivist that she was, and by doing so force them towards the enlightenment of her 'maturing' Nihilism, reducing all judgments, having to do with humans, as equally valid, to then offer the compromise, the 'solution' out of the linguistic paradox she has placed herself in, and is now trying to force everyone within.

The chimpanzee does not only state the obvious, that all is subjective, but then proposes the delusion that there is no standard, beyond this subjectivity, to measure which interpretation of world is superior, besides society and its constructs.
It returns subjectivity to a inter-subjectivity - looping human understanding of world as rooted in human artifices, circumventing natural order, and life existing outside human systems
This is why she insists on defining dasein as 'thrown into society" not world - world meaning, for her, society.
Her 'down to earth' is down to human political, economic artifices, as if they emerged out of nothing, as she once convinced herself God created world out of nothing.
She now returns to nothing, for salvation.
Her relationship to order, reflects her relationship her Christian god, or her Marxist state.
All order is wilful, conscious, a product of "I say so", therefore it can be rejected, denied.
She equates natural order, man awakens to, as authority - totalitarianism, a linguistic declarative 'I say so": "let there be light".
Order, for her, equals Mind, God, State, Human.
Chaos is freedom....ergo she is Nihilistic, and words are how she liberates herself from all authority

Beauty - subjective...or someone said so.
Strength - the same
Intelligence - the same.

How did she respond to my pictures displaying an obviously ugly woman, beside an obviously attractive one?
She exploited the usage of the word beauty, as metaphor, to claim that the ugly one may possess another type of beauty, which is also rooted in symmetry-proportionality, as evolved compensation, but is conspicuous, so it can be denied relevance.
Her word-games are supposed to make the reader feel less confident in his usage of words.
Spreading dissent, making others doubt themselves, she fragments, or tries to in her infantile way, because she has no argument to support her own preferred ideals.
All she has is this method of slandering, of frustrating, of manipulating top reduce all to her level.


This, of course, has nothing to do with what KT's shared positions are - our shared principles and common ground.
But this does not matter to people like her.
She lacks integrity, the intelligence, honesty, and most of all the courage to engage our actual positions. All she has is this construct of a hated "objectivist", like the quote in her sig....qho she fights against tooth and nail, using her coy, feminine ways.
She thinks this is clever.
Shifting from calling herself a "philosopher" to considering herself a charming conversationalist, adept at banter, measiring her effect ni thread-views in the msot self-flattering way.



But, if you don't take hr seriously, you may find some use for her....like as a pet, or a mule transporting KT behind the ILP electronic walls.
Did you notice how Carleas never threatens when she mentions and quotes Satyr?
Nor does Only_Humean take notice.
It's because she is a harmless clown, and because her attitude is negative towards the hated Satyr.
So they turn a blind eye.
A fascinating validation of my positions on moderns and nihilists.
I could not have asked for better specimens.

Modern empiricism and intellectual integrity is challenged only with a W. Bush or when a Trump comes around to tell them that what they see, with their own eyes, is a lie, and what he says, declares, using words, is the truth.
When there's a Clinton, or an Obama telling them that what they see as different, as black and white, is really a lie, and that all is actually exactly the same, or not what it appears to be, then they have no problem swallowing the lie.

It's all a matter of prospective, you see.
Sometimes they can be empirical, and stringently rational, demanding evidence, studies approaching near certain validation, demanding absolute fact, and other times they can be emotional, and throw around mystifying words, without a care in the world.

See, when a Modern douche-bag has a goal, no evidence, no argument, no reasoning will stand in his way.
Let's take 'beauty' and how it is 'in the eye of the beholder'.
Here beauty means pleasant to me, and since anyone, anything, can be pleasant to anyone, at any time, all is relative, and potentially beautiful.
The word 'beauty' is about how I relate and react to other, and has nothing to do with the other. The word says nothing about other, only about how this other makes me feel.

That would be like saying a 6'4" man is relatively tall, because to a 7' foot man, he's a short.
The word 'tall' is not about how the man relates to a human average but how he relates to each and every individual within the human group.
Relative.
Same goes for smart and stupid.
100 I.Q. might be average, but to someone with 70 IQ. its genius, so you see, even intelligence is a matter of perspective, and relative.
You can't call anyone stupid because in relation to a retard he's genius.
You see how it works?
When it suits them it's all rational about averages and studies and whatnot, and when it does not, it's all relative, not decided, uncertain, not enough data, mysterious.
It all depends on how they want to apply words: as metaphor, that can imply anything, without actually saying anything, or as a stringent, scientific, rational tool for exploring and exposing reality.
Honestly or Hypocritically? That's where relativity begins and ends.
See how wonderful words can be, and how dreadful?
How magical, if you use them for the right reasons.

From rational, to mystical and back and forth.
If the other is clueless but, nevertheless, has accepted lies as 'truths' then we can kindly nudge him towards understanding our mysticism...but if he exposes it as bullshyte, is resistant to the 'call of our words, then he just does not get it...it's too complex, too demanding for the non-believer.

How does the Bible story make sense?
Well, first you must accept Jesus into your heart, and then, miraculously, it is all made perfectly clear.
you feel its 'truth'...and ti feels good, so it must be so.
If you don't, if the Biblical story is full of inconsistencies and lies, then you just do not understand.

Understanding, in this case, refers to esoteric, noetic relationships between abstractions, with no external presence.
Noumena glued with emotion.
The map is about a land that only exists in fantasy, in the brain - like Middle-Earth.
With no external presence, the believer has to be initiated into Tolkien lore, before the map makes sense to him.
Then the initiated, the Lord of the Rings fanatic, can seesaw between reality and fantasy...sometimes the story is rational, for so many empirical reasons and metaphors describing the political, spiritual conflicts in the real world, and at other times it's back to fantasy where there ARE Dwarfs and Elves in existence.
Back and forth.
From empiricism to fantasy - from reasoning to mysticism, from rational to emoting.
The inconsistency feeds into the mystical part, making the presented something magical only a few can appreciate - creating a clique.  
If the potential initiate has the desire, the will, to 'understand' then the masters can guide him through the pitfalls of exposing the lie - teach him how to manoeuvre between reason and fantasy, with a skill they developed over the years.
For example, if the lie is meant to hide a Christian fairy-tale, full of absurd presuppositions and the wrong, naive, application of words, under new symbols, then the recovering Christian initiate must be cleansed of his Christian mythology handicaps, and given replacement crutches, preserving the shared illusion that a new ideology has been developed.
A new and improved Abrahamic variant - virus evolving, into more resistant strains when the medication prescribed failed to kill it completely.
Christianity 2.0 - the SuperVirus, using a new symbolic cover, representing how it Incorporated the medication, the pharmakon, into its new form.

Metaphors, attitudes towards reality, techniques of evasion, seesawing with style, between rationalism and mysticism, are trained into the initiate.
Bible studies have become training groups, teaching believers methods for dealing with scientific challenges, or how to deal with skeptics, and how to convert the doubters.
A meme, if it is nihilistic enough, has its own survival methods.

Know what's funny
Turd changes his forum [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to that gawd-awful interface format, and then I notice he titles me "Goat" and places a "BAAAAH" at the end.....
I will enjoy the Turd trying to drive me way with these tactics.
I suspect that when membership reaches a level that flatters him, he'll find some pretext to ban me...so that his pseudo-intellectual referencing, and Google-Genius can carry on, undisturbed.
His forum is like a maggot feeding on the cadaver we know as ILP.

No, wrong metaphor.
He's a vulture, sensing an immanent death, weakness in a bovine, slowly dehydrating in the Kalahari.
Pretty much brain-dead, and he begins feeding on its diseased body, still hanging-on for dear life.
Vivarium the vulture.  
I've seen documentaries of lions feeding on a buffalo as it still lives.
Experts believe the animal goes into shock, the mind protecting it from the trauma of having it torn apart, while still alive.
I think ILP is in such a state of traumatic shock.
But the predator is a bird-brained vulture, poking away, tearing off small bits...no lion at all.
Poke, tear...poke, tear.
A slow process.

Don't all Christians symbolically drown a baby to then pretend to save it?
Don't they kill you with love, and then offer eternal life, in the beyond, as recompense?

Don't know if the bovine will finally die, or how long it will take.
From the looks of things the vulture's ambition is to become another ILP, with a crappier interface.
Anyway...who cares?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
{ILP - Ecmandu: My entire philosophy in the least words}
No, for the ILP crowd, which is a reflection of the average man/woman out there, this is tolerable eccentricity.
In other words, it is harmless and not that much different that their own detached form reality belief systems.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
{ILP - WendyDarling: Tarot Readings being offered.}
No, in that realm it is quirky spirituality, no different than their own.
The desire to control, or predict the future, converted to a metaphorical insinuation system that can, or might not, be taken literally, or seriously.

My FU Foolosophy, on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], is taking shape.

Soon it will be a full metaphysical surreal, realism, that will sweep across the globe.
I would post it here, but I'm afraid the server might crash with the soon to come traffic, when the Internet discover it.
It's  the last, final, word in what the common man calls 'philosophy' but will soon know it as foolosophy....meta-philosophy.
I will be crowned the last intellectual of the world.
A final FU to the world.
Unfortunately for KT members, and respected silent guests, Vivarium will enjoy the privilege of being the first forum to host this groundbreaking, and final word on EVERYTHING.
It has larger empty spaces, providing better air circulation, permitting oxygen to flood its threads, preventing fainting.
Here, I'm afraid, minds will be overwhelmed by the stench.
Only a heavy-duty bathroom, run by a committed lavatory supervisor, named Turd, can handle what I am putting in the toilet bowel.

The mechanics do not permit me an easy cut & paste, so you will have to visit and be blown away there.
Do not light a match. The methane has accumulated to dangerous levels, and the air is now too volatile.
Gas masks optional.
Whoever has prior experience with shit, public toilets stinking of feces, or with barns full of manimals expelling noxious gases and mountains of crap 24/7, piles so large not even Hercules could clean, like ILP, and other such places, will only experience a slight discomfort, due to the elevated levels of toxic fumes, and its byproducts....maybe a bit dizzy.
My words are potent.
Intoxicating.
I'm afraid many will never want to leave, as the fresh air outside will be too bland for them once they become accustomed to the stench and the pungent vertigo of that environment.
A high they will come to miss.
Forgive the *** where nasty words are written, as a toilet must retain some level of etiquette, and the janitor is a devout Christian with aesthetic sensitivities, and a puritanical edge.
Mind-farts, brain-feces are okay, but verbal vulgarity is intolerable, uncivil, unbecoming for a respectable shit-hole.  

Plant a seed, and watch it flourish on the thick layers of fertilizer I have laid down for your convenience in the only place that will tolerate my cRAPING genius, and my fARTING talents.
Enjoy.

Walker, Michael wrote:

The original and still most important group belonging to what is termed the European New Right is GRECE, a cultural organisation based in Paris. The letters stand for Le Groupement de Recherche et d’Etudes pour la Civilisation Européenne (The centre for the study and search for European civilisation). The word is an acronym for the French word for Greece, which underlines the group’s strong sense of attachment to the Greek heritage in particular, with its cult of heroism, elitism and beauty, and perhaps most importantly, its pagan values and outlook. The group was created on 5th May 1968 by Alain de Benoist and several intellectuals.

The starting point of GRECE was to undertake an analysis of the meaning of ideas. They wished to preserve an identity, a collective identity as Europeans: on that they were agreed from the beginning; but that was all. Nothing else would be assumed, not the need to defend Christendom, not the Western world, nor NATO, nor any of the other bastions of the old right. All would be examined critically in order to grasp their completing meaning. Taking its example from Nietzsche’s creation of a genealogy of morality. GRECE examined the history of ideas in order to better understand the relevance of each idea in the modern world.

Pierre Vial, the general secretary of GRECE Michel Marmin, film critic and leading GRECE member, and Guillaume Faye, a new and passionate advocate of GRECE , confirmed the total break of the New Right with one of the most sacred cows of all in the old right corral; the West. The leading article in that issue of Eléments was written by Guillaume Faye: `This is the hideous face of a civilisation, which, with an implacable logic, has forced itself onto every culture, gradually levelling them, bringing all peoples into the gamut of the one-world system. What use is the cry “Yanks out!” when those who shout the slogans are Levi customers? More successfully than Soviet Marxism this civilisation is realising the project of abolishing human history in order to ensure the perpetual well being of bourgeois man[…] this system, this civilisation, which is eradicating the identity of the peoples of Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americans has a name: it is called Western civilisation.[…] We are against the Western civilisation.”

Alain de Benoist has adopted a famous aphorism of Oscar Wilde for his own use: the societé marchande is one which knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. This is echoed in Faye’s assessment of liberalism as the creed which `tolerates everything and respects nothing’. To quote Robert de Herte again: `The inherent materialism of liberalism and Marxism is nothing other than the dissolution of the soul, the abandonment of all human motivation, which cannot be rationalised in terms of personal interest or immediate existence. The only world which is permitted to impinge on our minds is the here-and-now of my world. There exists no place in `my’ world for what has a value beyond me, which constrains me, which gives me a form. The `rule of quantity’, to use Rene Guenon’s expression, is formless, hic et nunc, nothing more. The paradigm of decadence: a falling off from spiritual to material, from soul to spirit, to bady alone: the era of homo economicus, linked closely to the coming of the bourgeois, the bourgeois not so much as the representative of a class as a type who imposes a certain system of values. The aristocrat seeks to preserve what he is, the bourgeois what he has.'[…]

The New Right can be described as a revolt against the formless: formless politics formless culture, formless values. That modern society pays scant attention to measure, order, style, is self-evident, nowhere more so than in the United States. According to the New Right, utility and ugliness are the deadly twins of the Western world. When a society reduces all facets of life to the dictatorship of economics, then beauty, honour, loyalty – in a word everything we call intangible – is made tangible, rentable, and thus destroyed. If it is true that style maketh the man, then the man created by the modern world is inhuman, deprived of what is specifically human, cultural, and reduced to his materiality.[…]

Above all GRECE loves life and with irrational resilience will champion the cause of excellence against the mediocrity of the egalitarians and the hypocrisy of the sectarians. For those of us who felt disilusioned and depressed by the level of political and philosophical debate in a Europe which is rapidly losing all identity, the French New Right has initiated a kind of revolution. We need to think through all our nations again from the beginning. Someone has opened the windows and brought a fresh beeze into a muggy, malodorous study.

ILP is full of infantile minds who lack courage for any proper 'philosophy'. They are only *interested in* philosophy but would never actually *practice* philosophy. Thus they are hypocrites, posers, and idolators. Imitators. At their core, they are loyal to their system (of Humanism), and so will only use "philosophy" inasmuch as it reinforces their ulterior motives and values. When it comes down to the wire, Moderns will not doubt their 'humanity' just as Christians will not doubt their 'god'. They have too much invested in it.

For emphasis: they have too much invested in it.

It's not just one lifetime. Pick any member or individual on that forum. You cannot 'help' them. You cannot "show them the way". You cannot goad or force them into philosophy. You cannot lure them, through any means. Because it's not about their one lifetime. It's about many lifetimeS, plural. These are fools and charlatans who have many generations of their families, invested in their system. It *is* genetic. Memes are reflections of genes. Memes (ideas, thoughts, interpretations) are the manifestation of genes. It is all connected; there is no separation as their dualists will proclaim. There is no mind-body (meme-gene) division.

If you want to understand 'humanity' (humanism, humans) then you have to cut, divide, and examine down to the core level. This is something that is distinctly opposed by those on ILP. And mark my words, they will ban you for it once you start cutting into the bone.

On ILP their words, messages, positions, and arguments are all Hyperbole. Their thoughts and messages are fluff, filler. They don't really *say* anything. Because they don't really *believe* anything. They lack conviction of what they say, because what they say are (mostly) lies. And when they tell a truth then it is usually accidentally. They don't know which statements are factual and which are not, nor care. It's like an infant playing in a sandbox, building castles and destroying them down.

Real philosophy begins with application, about beginning to believe in your presentations and positions. And so when you begin to apply weight to words and statements then they quickly become real. And you become responsible for what you say, and why, and when. Those on ILP deeply fear such an occurrence, that they maybe held accountable for what they say, and put to the test through arguments when it would matter. Thus it's not a coincidence that they shy away from extended arguments and 'debates', which you rarely or never see on ILP. They don't "debate", with exception that a debate is heavily rigged toward a position that most already agree upon from the onset.

Thus you will never see anything entertaining or interesting spawn from ILP.


When players have no investment in what they say then it's worthless. Such "debates" and arguments are hyperbolic and superficial, unweighted and without consequence. Hedonistic, decadent, it's easy to copy and paste words, articles, youtube videos, long quotes, books, etc.

It is much more difficult to actually speak *your* voice and present *your* ideas, to peers, to begin scrutiny, to find holes, mistakes of reasoning, which is inevitably an embarrassment.

Philosophy begins with such conditions, of risk.

Satyr wrote:

A thief burglars a rich man's house

And returns to this house wanting to express his gratitude to the rich man.

I am grateful.

Your assistance along the way, whether that was intended, or it was just you playing on your flute, speculating on the motives, I appreciate that too.

Gratitude is a sign of appreciation - good judgment.
Generosity is a sign of nobility. Expecting nothing but good judgment.

Ingratitude is a sign of a depraved spirit.

Adopted positions always seem fake and repetitious, to all but the many morons who are easily impressed and seduced.
The adopter cannot help but only adopt the conclusion, since he has not gone through the process, the effort, demands by reasoning, by experience based conclusions.
He, therefore, imitates the style of the ones he plagiarizes, unable to express the same ideas using simpler language, because he does not completely comprehend the reasoning, but only comprehends the positive outcome.
For such pretentious simpletons, it is style pretending intelligence, hiding a simplistic motive, motivating a simple mind.
The "complexity" is a method of hiding how simple and base they are, behind all the imitated civility and culture.

Visit ILP's thread titled ' dead' for an example.

A desperate degenerate will tell you what he is doing, and why he is doing it, in his defensive attacks against those he feels exposed by, to the vicious world.
He will let you know what he thinks of himself with every attack against you, and in the ways he thinks he can hurt you.
Unable to differentiate empathy from sympathy, most often completely immersed in subjectivity, denying the possibility of objectivity, emotion will take over, passion direct his way, and he will seek inward for an understanding of what is alien to him.
There he will find what he feels most ashamed and insecure about; his deepest wounds and his hidden weakness, and having repressed and forgotten it, for too long, he will mistake his own failings, his own insecurities, for what frightens and threatens him.
What frightens him about himself, he will confuse for other, unable to see beyond his own ego.

When such a creature speaks emotionally, passionately, it reveals itself.
Rile it up, and then allow it to show where it can be hurt, and what ways it has discovered to protect its soft spots.

ILP has always been obsessed with mind-candy, second-hand wisdom/philosophy, and never truly embraced the *practice* of philosophy, to philosophize, as an action, as an inquiry, doubt, investigation, examination, and ultimately, a confrontation with existence. Thus ILP has devolved into its current state, like other online "philosophy" forums, a socializing circle. A fad, a style, like groupies of a rock-band, wanting to get back stage, to be fucked by the lead guitarist and singer. A feminine approach, a game, philosophy in name only, as long as it never hurts anybody's feelings. Because when feelings are hurt, and emotions are touched, the bans and moderators come out, threatening anybody who disrupts the *party*, the fun times.

This is also why Moderns cling to books and text, dead philosophers, who cannot defend themselves against Modern morons. If old Philosophers were resurrected, how would they feel about Moderns and their "interpretations"? How would they feel about their ideas become perverted and inverted, completely backward to what they originally intended? Of course, though, philosophers today should understand that "Modernity" has been an eternal problem for intelligent thinkers and philosophers. So if you were to time-travel, wouldn't the ancient philosophers feel as much disdain and contempt for the Old Moderns as is felt today against the New Moderns? Re-read Plato, did the author or Socrates, feel amicable or "equal" with the Moderns and interlocuters during the dialogues? Isn't a genetic moron, the same in any era of mankind and history? A fool breeds more fools. And so the low iq, retards of the past, the Old Moderns, manifest today as the New Moderns.

The same genetic composition has bred itself into a new generation. The morons and fools referred to, by the ancient texts, are the same ones who, today, read the old philosophers, misinterpret it, and believe they are "philosophizing" as appearances will allow. They merely *pose* as intellectual though. These are the Sophists. Whether they are Old Modern or New Modern, cannot hide their genetic foundation for long. A fool is easy to expose.

Ask him simple questions, and see what answers arise, if the moron has the courage to even risk simple answers.


On ILP you will not only find morons (above-average intelligence, unfortunately, compared to the rest of humanity but still low compared to Philosophy), but endless lines of cowards. They will not engage in 'honest' discussion or argument, because it would expose them too quickly. This is why and how they hide from simple questions and simple answers. An exchange, drawn out, will prove to everybody what they truly think, believe, feel, emote.

From ILP...where else?

"Is water... a quality of water"

This is a topic that was sparked 250 views, at the moment.
This is a philosophical topic, one ought to take seriously.
This is where Maj feels smart, and shit-Stains feel superior, happy.
This is what is respected, humored, given voice, while other voices are silenced.

Ah Messiahs go there to find willing, choir singers, and potential converts, for their coming inauguration.  

Is fire a quality of fire?
Wonderful philosophical topic....why not?
It's all subjective.
Can't judge it without converting it into a moral issue.

Who knows?
I don't.
It's all far too complex...as it ought to be.

Wow, gone a year and still Satyr is harping on ILP.  Not, for example, a philosophy forum where a number of people have actually read a decent amount of philosophy, but ILP.  Which is not to say the philosophy forums with people who actually do read philosophy would be immune to his attacks, some of which I agree with.  It's just such an obviously weak choice to make a point.  A tellingly weak choice.

And the whole Lyssa thing is still funny also.