Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 2

Yeah, your daughter fucking a Negro, or a sand-Negro is more tolerable than her fucking a Pole, or a Bulgarian.
It proves your more fashion forward, like the pop stars urge you to be with their promiscuity, and open-minded degeneracy - for a buck.

Satyr wrote:

Yeah, your daughter fucking a Negro, or a sand-Negro is more tolerable than her fucking a Pole, or a Bulgarian.
It proves your more fashion forward, like the pop stars urge you to be with their promiscuity, and open-minded degeneracy - for a buck.

That's the official propaganda line.
I think most people only pay lip-service to it (yet).
And prefer the Polish over the (sand)-Negro.

But that's based on my extrapolation, I don't live in the UK.

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

Theory trumps reality.
Mind trumps reality.

Because my computer evolution model says so.
So because 'evolutionary theory' says so.

We can train ourselves to not see the 3D cube, especially if we approach the screen from different angles. Suddenly we see that it's not a cube.

Is perception flawed? Sure.
But to say that perceiving reality doesn't matter evolutionarily is something contained within his programmed computer simulation. I guess he or somebody saw the reality of evolution as it is and was able to program his computer simulation as an accurate representation of reality.

Half-truth merchants.

The brown beer bottle humping bug is not fit for an environment filled with brown beer bottles?
Why?
Because the shortcut in its mind that developed over generations for choosing their mate isn’t working for an environment filled with beer bottles.

Conclusion I draw from it - in an environment which is pretty stable concerning your needs, the mind develops simple and efficient shortcuts. You don’t actually have to think much and you don’t have to see beyond your immediate needs.

As long as the computer software has no bugs and no errors, you don’t have to concern yourself with understanding it beyond what you immediately need from it. But once the flashy symbols on your desktop don’t do what you want them to do, you have to ask somebody who has a better understanding of what is happening beneath those flashy symbols. To understand what has changed and how to ‘fix’ it or how to adapt to it.

LotR wrote:

Eowny: I fear neither death nor pain
Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?
Eowyn: A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.

A great quote... cage as a metaphor for a problem with no solution, a hopeless situation. The point when our enemies have grown so powerful that any hope of victory is lost. The point when even sacrificing everything still wouldn't be enough.

Great post, Autsider:

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

It's just copied text from the article I linked, I didn't write it myself. But yeah, it's good.

A lot of dysfunction of society is basically the change into this consumer-zombie atomistic individualism.
The rise of the 'bug-man'.

Once you have uprooted a tree, especially if it's not a very young one, you can't just put it back into the soil.
The reality is that many people will never know anything else but atomistic individualism for the rest of their life. And that's not due to the environment but that's just what they have become.

In that sense, it's good to reach especially young people and offer them something else, some different ideas and ideals but they will not turn around the direction of a large chunk of contemporary society.
I have to remind myself of this.

Anfang wrote:

A lot of dysfunction of society is basically the change into this consumer-zombie atomistic individualism.
The rise of the 'bug-man'.

Once you have uprooted a tree, especially if it's not a very young one, you can't just put it back into the soil.
The reality is that many people will never know anything else but atomistic individualism for the rest of their life. And that's not due to the environment but that's just what they have become.

In that sense, it's good to reach especially young people and offer them something else, some different ideas and ideals but they will not turn around the direction of a large chunk of contemporary society.
I have to remind myself of this.

It is easier to destroy roots than build them, but once they are built, if they carry the same seed and plant it, you might eventually get a tree that's too thick to be cut down by minor and small lies day-to-day.

The biggest problem with the reactionary right I see today is that they do not plant any seeds; partly because they have no soil to plant them in. Feminism is a tool of this, to make sure women see the man's seed (both memetically and genetically) as oppressive. Christianity keeps man from pushing genetically without first an appeal to the memetic; permission from (not overcoming of/challenging) God. The other issue is that young blood are not educated by veterans of that movement: they are educated by the 'enemy'.

Part of being involved in a purely memetic war is that lies are just as significant as truths.

With some people the more you talk with them the less interesting they become.
First impression begins with an over-inflated impact, that slowly deflates.
With a few, the more you talk to them the more interesting they become.
First impression begins with a deflated expectation, due to the simplicity and obviousness of their positions, progressing into the depths of the thinking that produced it.

A mansion built on sand, or on shallow foundations may impress, at first sight, but then there's nothing inside but ornaments, and tired decorations; mirrors pretending spaciousness and depth, little shrines to imply spiritual awakening, bookshelves full of books on display, pretending understanding.
A humble home, hiding a vast underground, foundation. Unpretentious, minimalist, collecting only what is of use beyond its doors.

The first with large windows, the lights on, for passerby to stand in awe at the spectacle.
Large thin doors, kept open, for anyone to enter, and be impressed by the space and the decor.
The second, with small windows, shining the light of a hearth.
Small thick doors, to keep the wind and the dirt out.

The All-Seeing Eye:

is the Mass Media. From week-to-week there are lots of crimes, murders, sexual deviancy, etc. all around the country and world. However the news, any website or paper, often ignores most of this. Instead they focus the 'gaze' upon this or that, each news media source indicating what its brand is more curious or interested in.

Therefore news does not reflect reality per se, but rather, the direction of gaze of whatever particular media outlet and agency.

Having an eye is one thing. But the mind directing it, pointing it in this or that direction, *looking for* this or that material, is another. Thus the Mass Media changes, fluctuates, from week-to-week and season-to-season, from civil cycle-to-cycle. Sometimes it is obsessed with this matter, other times with a different matter.

Thus the Mass Media reflects the internal curiosities and fads of society. *Why* the populace is interested in this or that, determines the success of a news media.

It's a two-way affair. A news agency produces stories, and the consumers then choose which to stories to consume, about where to direct attention, or deposit emotional reactions.

Only in a world unconstrained by worldly hostility, in civilized environments, does humility cease being a virtue.

The intellect may be the best you have for touching at objective truth, but to claim it is perfect at its task is foolish. There are other things which to pursue than just truth, and more primitive forms of homeostatizing behaviors (psychological, physiological, psycho-physical, instincto-intellectual) are just as ennobling.

It is perhaps the case that no materialist explanation is without fault or exception and therefor is susceptible to Cartesian doubt. Such is the case with Persian science. A man can say, materially, that man himself is the prism through which he accesses the other-world but the complaints of the shepherds and the sheep will be an accusation against he who says it - declaring that he is biased, then, in that very perception, against their material "objectivity".

What humanity, average people and moderns, know of Perfection, is not only their idealized forms, but rather "the best" that humanity has ever, historically, performed with relation to whatever topic or abstraction. Thus setting a world record can be considered perfect with relation to the act and the goal, of a sporting event. And deeds of great merit, on the battlefield, in a warzone, in civil strife, from day-to-day affairs, or during a natural disaster, great performances of any kind, those that impress humanity the deepest, like landing on the moon, saving a family from a burning building, or a great work of art, an artifact that survives the tests of time, all can be considered perfection, in relation to their actual culmination, as fulfillment of ideals.

Thus Perfection can be considered when reality finally raises up, to match the original ideals, set down and then performed by the greatest of men and women.

Of course, then the bar, the standards, are raised higher and higher, as they should be. Absolution, then is the notion of "the next perfection", the ideal of all ideals. These reflect human experiences by what people know, expect, and imagine. Average humanity is defined by mediocrity, and so have low expectations and imaginations, being impressed by mediocre actions.

Females are sexually attracted to 'successful' males, whom other women have slept with. This is an example of the feminine psyche, chasing after and using popularity as a marker, for success. Females are unwilling to "take risks" with untested and sexless males. Sexless males are viewed negatively, after all, "why can't this or that guy get laid???" Females ask themselves.

A 'successful' male, with lots of sex partners, demonstrates his sexual Choice. He can choose lots of beautiful women, and so, beautiful women want to join his harem, and submit to his sexual prowess. Females seek out the alpha-male position, individual, and pledge loyalty to him (can be abstracted to a national state, ethnic country, religious God, etc). This is to claim Security in society. Females know, intuitively, that dedication and loyalty to (social) systems are critical to support and elongate Female Privilege.

In the western world, Modern USA, the "white male" privilege is talked about often, but never "female privilege", why not? What is the 'privilege' of the female half of the specie? Are females innately privileged? Why and how? Go ahead, try to start such a discussion on ILP, if you can.

Much of the reason female privilege exists is because females adamantly deny its existence, and on top of its claimed non-existence, females viciously defend their secure status. Females are the 'embodiment' of society, anyway. Thus an attack "on society", against society, is perceived intuitively as an attack "against women". This is much the mechanic and logic, (ir)rationality of modern feminism.

The premise of morality is the desire, want, to take responsibility (control) over one's own life. But first a mind requires the intelligence to differentiate, to discriminate, between its 'own' causes versus the causes of other things and entities. Without such discrimination, the organism is merely guessing at what actions and events it has participated in versus others it has not.

With concern to Modernity, a human live a life completely sheltered from reality, and so adds extra layers of complexity and confusion, to understand the causes of popular illusions and shared delusions.

A lesson in those offering false hope. After you've been given the solution, you'll willfully return to your bad situation to test it. Much easier to handle trusting that hope, than the idea that it is hopeless and the one you appeal to is a liar.

Where you return to is worse than where you began, but offers the hope of something better - if you trust the one telling you the solution, you have a promising reward awaiting you. If the voice is lying, you are stuck in a worse situation than the one you were in, where you had more room and more furniture. That is the cost of being led astray by a liar.

Women can be separated into a category: Screened or Unscreened.

Some females, girls, and women have family-support in life. A protective father and/or brothers, cousins, guardians. These women are much more difficult to get to, seduce, and penetrate. Thus they are usually higher quality than otherwise. A paternal system keeps their chastity in-check. Thus feminism, defined as opposing paternalism, wants to kidnap and take these women, and re-direct their sexuality (chastity) elsewhere. Females, and feminism, naturally understand that "sex is power" and so who controls (access to) the sex, also controls the power.

Feminism isn't about attacking paternalism per se. It's about kidnapping, stealing, and taking female chastity away from one group and re-allocating it to another. Female chastity is always valued; it is an eternal value despite few or none talking about it openly. When a group of females are sectioned and portioned off from the greater population, society at large or even all humanity, then other groups (the feminist movement) take notice of such exclusivity. Groups in power want access to all females (Chastity, Virginity) and detest the idea that some females are restricted.

Liberal-leftist ideologies (Communism, Socialism, Marxism, etc) really attacked and overturned traditional society during the "counter-culture" 1960s and 70s movement, when they "opened up", penetrated, females normally restricted to them. Thus miscegenation, immigration, other social factors have changed over the course of Modernity (to Postmodernity).

Politics cannot be properly addressed, acknowledged, or discussed, without understanding and considering, taking into account, female chastity, virginity, and "who gets what". To what (sexual) rites, groups and individuals have. Obviously, the most powerful males, individuals, groups, and societies have access to more. Any group that tries to protect "its own" females (chastity), is deemed a threat. Because sexual exclusivity is anti-social.

Thus is a large brunt of how and why Feminism attacks "Paternalism". Because it is the process and function by which fathers, husbands, brothers, and even sons, protect "their own" women (and their chastity). If males cannot protect it, then it is devalued, debased, and of low value. Thus many females turn into "sluts", or lower ladders of sexual hierarchy.

Ultimately, a woman who is easily penetrated, for $100 perhaps, is not respected. She has little to no dignity, and low value.

A primary allure of Feminism to young women is this:

"Fuck around, be promiscuous, having abortions, be a slut, and you can still be 'proud' of it." This is what it offers to young, gullible, and less intelligent females. Give up your chastity and virginity, for a low price. You are still 'forgiven'. You still have "equal value". Be proud of your "slut-walk". Sex is cheap.

Feminism practices double-speak. The women who lose their virginity and chastity this way, becoming sluts, are offered excuses for their shame. Shameless. Be proud of having sex, with anybody. Be proud to fight "discrimination". Have sex with anybody, for any price.

Females become confused. Is "feminism" really "pro-women" when it devalues women and sex as such?

It quickly becomes revealed as double-standards and contradiction. How can feminism "support women" when it does not support their chastity? Or when feminism cannot offer to protect it (as paternalism can and does)?

Is the Left now trying to distance itself from the byproducts of its own "logic", calling it "regressive left"?

The left, being a reflection of nihilism, always distances itself from phenomena, even when they are the product of its own intervention.
Detachment is part of how it evades responsibility, and the burden of reality.

They think of Nazism as something that happened to the Germans, rather than as something that emerged out of the spirit of being German.
They show the same selective reasoning when it comes to things like homosexuality.
They assume it to be a social construct, but then also genetically produced.

When defending Marxism they claim that Marxism is the perfect system, but it fails due to the imperfections of humans, and those that applied it. a claim that can be made about every ideology, starting with Abrahamism.
It's not man that is bad, in relation to their dogma of goodness, but he's been led astray, he's been corrupted by Satan, by evilness...his perfect, goodness, soiled by evilness.
All these theories are meant for a perfect species, existing in a perfect world, governed by perfect circumstances...on other words Utopia, Paradise...no, delusion, romantic idealism, naivete.

How else could it seduce women, and men-children?

Their stupidity never has to face itself.
They are always the victims of something or someone else.
They are always innocent, well-meaning, or, at worse, ill-informed, ignorant.
Edumucation can heal them of this, returning them to their 'original' innate goodness.

It's not that Islam is a degenerate religion, like Judaism and Christianity, but it is a mater of a few 'bad apples', misrepresenting its pure, original goodness.

Meme detached from genes.
Those attracted to a particular ideology, spirituality, have nothing to do with the qualities of the ideology, in relation to their qualities.
The theory is either good or evil, and man is the innocent, victim of trickery, and imperfect others.

Ah, but a meme emerges withing a specific population, evolved within particular environmental conditions over centuries. It does not spring out of nowhere.
Memes are organic....only some embrace this and others reject it and pretend it is not so, preferring to imply that their own is divine, mystical, magical, that it emerges out of pure good, a God by any other name.

If evolution is actually believed and is not only used selectively and in half measures, then effect can be traced to a cause....in the infinite chain of causation.
Memes do not come out of nowhere, nothingness, without a connection to a past.
They emerge out of particular bloodlines; populations with particular genetics, evolved within particular circumstances.
That they can be transferred to populations of different bloodlines, evolved within different circumstances is part of the evolutionary process.
Do the same memes transfer effectively to different genetics?
No....how could they?
They evolved out of specific genetics, interacting with specific environments.

In the transference, using words, language, symbols, in the case of memes, mutations are produced that corrupt the original meme.
A population characterized by particular genetics, evolved in particular environments, cannot adopt a meme evolved out of different genetics in different circumstances.
The genes do not 'take' to the meme as effectively, or efficiently. They adapt it to their own circumstances, and in doing so alter it in ways that result in different outcomes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Memes are extensions of genes - they are externalizations of organic processes.
And like genes they can be transferred, fertilizing a different genetic past....with unforeseeable results.

Are (((they))) slavish?
What if 'muh unjust persecution' is just the angle which works on a part of a particular host population?

"My, my, this sounds all very unjust, let me be your champion. How can I be of service to you?"

Today I got wronged, tomorrow I waz Kangz, next I will be your ally.

Branding, the hijacking of words to associate it with a product.

Some companies name themselves "Excel" or "Accel", twisting the language a little it in order to associate what the complete word represents, with their own product.

If you think of Accel, then there is acceleration and a sense of refreshing breeze, tingly speed and lightweightedness associates in the mind.

Edit: I am not saying literally that someone will think of the fresh breeze. Instead, it provides justification to the creator that they are partaking in something natural and truthful. That their product is as true and natural as the word they associate with it and it is justification for what changes they make while remaining 'new and hip', by hijacking a phrase which is an 'experience'.

The irony of this coming from (((Saad))) cannot go unnoticed.
What produced the did-ease is now complaining about one of its many symptoms.
Another example of the child threatening the parent with the teaching of the parent.

The performance in question...

...because when it comes to nihilists it's all a performance.

Dominance & Dominated

A more butch female would need a very masculine male to bring out the feminine in her.
A girly-man, man-child, like most Moderns are, will not gratify them.

Masculine/Feminine coexist in all humans.
The masculine being a sophistication of the feminine....we are all females in the womb, and it takes testosterone to trigger the process to create a biological male.
This is where things go wrong....as 1 in 3 homosexuals is male.

Masculine/Feminine is a relationship of potentials.
A very feminine female will be dominated by a average male.
An effete male will not dominate any female, but will be dominated by masculine males.

Masculine strength castrates simply by being present.
Strength enfeebles, simply by appearing.
Manliness emasculates, by passing by.

It does not have to do a thing.

Boys and woman must seduce, impress, be noticed, or they are never perceived...and when they are, it is only the most desperate who covet the attention they receive, when it is they giving it.
They are the feeble misers only source of power, inspiring those who can only find it in others.

What have we do to with these degenerates?
Our source is nature itself.
Whether we are perceived or he try or not....we channel powers beyond ourselves, because we do not stand in their way, but only make of ourselves a lens to focus them.
Ah, my friends, what am I say and to who?
You already know this, and this is why you lie and slander, and grovel, and seek in text what you cannot find in self.

I, unlike Nietzsche, do not think all men are born with the potential to be great.
To the lowly man, mediocrity is greatness, and this is the best he can achieve.

I ascribe to genetics a determination limit to the upper and lower limit of what one can achieve, in relation to others, which would be the constantly shifting species average.
And in this I see a hierarchy of men, across the ages.
What was great in one age, is mediocre in another, and what would be mediocre in one age is great in another. The greatest, thought the ages, becomes the objective benchmark, pointing to the highest point man has ever reached.

The attainment of one's inherited potential one must test one's self against world and other humans, of your generation, and then compare your achievement to those that have come before.
To compare yourself to others is not to accept their goals as a measure of your own cultivation of potentials, but it is to hold yourself accountable to your own goals.

My own personal goal, from when I was a teenager, was to understand as much of reality, and the organisms that populate it, as I possibly can, to build a philosophical system that has cohesive, harmonious, connecting past/present/future, or metaphysics/physics/ideals, to study and understand humans, as the most dominant species of earth, to become independent of social conventions and the economic rat-race, before the age of fifty-five, and to pass-on my genes, as I have my ideas - pass on my experiences, understanding, memories.

What I know of suffering, I know intimately.
It has taught me that without suffering there is no possibility to grow.
Some perish, and are soon forgotten, some are irrevocably broken, living tout their days as bent-over misers, crooked in body and mind, and then there are those who, like grapes in the sunlight, watered only by the morning mists, are stressed into sweetness.

The reason why the lefties are agitated to attack Christianity in the US is because it's not lowering the birthrates of those White people enough. Not enough thot promotion in the churches, not enough poz.
Otherwise they wouldn't have an issue with it.

Modern elite = less Whites and more Hebrew-ideology (Islam, Christianity, Marxism,...)

Christianity is hated by secular lefties, such as Marxists, because it retains the ideal, God, which excludes all who do not submit to this idea(l).
The only tolerable idea(l) is a more abstracted version of absolute order i.e. God...with State, institution.
The latter is more all-inclusive.

They hate it because of the people, the churchgoers and priests who they associate with it.
They are evil people in their minds. They have no hate for Negroes in church or some brown people.
They hate Europeans.

They imagine Whites when they hate Christianity.

They don't mind the Christian ideology, it's something quaint for them, as long as it's not Europeans.