Free-Will

Finally...if free-will is illusory, and we can only ever choose what we've chosen... then what are they complaining about?
Who are they blaming for what has been determined?
Who is their nemesis?
If not god, then?
Fate?
Existence itself?

It would explain their nihilism, and their inability to recover from Abrahamic nihilistic offerings.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
It boils down to emotions.
A man enslaved by his emotions - those naturally selected reactions to external stimuli - is truly enslaved by circumstances.
He cannot choose contrary to what he is instinctively and emotionally compelled to choose, and to explain his akratia, his lack of self-control, his weak will, he must make it a universal metaphysical fact.
His weakness is now everyone's weakness and so he achieves parity - equality.
His embarrassment is no longer his own; he's outsourced it.

What it all comes down to is the gene/meme dichotomy and how an individual's reasoning - the lucid part of himself - can be entirely dominated by his body, and the inherited genetic programming it carries.
Such an arrangement will be experienced by such a buffoon as an external agency, some otherness, an external power imposing upon his ego its will - determining his fate contrary to his lucid intentions.
He is, at war, with his own past, and so he despises it, making him an enthusiastic nihilist.
His automatic, genetically selected, reactions, have completely usurped his reasoning, his lucid self.

I've described this as schizophrenia....an internal schisms - what McGilchrist described as the right/left hemispheres.
Body/Mind... inherited memories versus experiential memories.
Plato referred to it as reason trying to control the passions.

When emotions, the passions, overwhelm it feels as if some powerful agency is possessing you, making you act in ways that contradict your ambitions, your conscious objectives.
This is why I've said that sometimes we subconsciously undermine our own conscious ambitions, because they are not only disharmonious, but they are also completely antithetical.
Zero self-awareness.
Would not the ego prefer to believe that something else is sabotaging its plans?
How can it accept the possibility that it its own worst enemy?

When possible, begin with the perceptible act, and then to the word/symbol representing it.

The act is willing....choosing.....

Free is a qualifier....as is power.
Freedom is determined by power, ergo both are measurements or evaluations of degree, or comparisons.
Men act freely to the degree that they have power.
Power increases the number of accessible options, so freedom can be measured by the quantity of accessible - not available, not perceptible - options.
Absolute power and freedom are the antithesis of what exists.
There is no omnipotence, therefore there can never be an absolutely free agency - god, will.

The term 'god' can also be approached from the perspective of perceptible actions.
Natural forces.

All other approaches are deceptive.
Beginning with words, not action - top<>down emoting.
They intentionally define words in ways that validates their desires conclusions.

If charlatans want to deny free-will, they define both parts of the concept, both words, in ways that would make them impossible to refer to anything perceptible.... existent.
Same for the term 'god.'
Same for any concept they wish to nullify.....because nihilism is the adopted strategy of protecting their egos from reality.
Nihilism, no matter its method or name, is defensive.
Its motive is to negate everything that threatens the ego - lucid part of self.

The problem, if we can call it that, is that pleasure is the driving motive of most humans.
Not truth, but pleasure.
If deceiving itself leads to pleasure, according to its judgements, then self-deception is what the ego will consider truth.

Objectivity requires transcending the subjective manimal's pleasure/pain triggers.
Anxiety/fear is the mother of all emotions....
Reason cannot endure its effects.

The ego's inability to overcome fear, or to circumvent its pleasure/pain automatic reactions, is dealt with by nullifying the will's freedom - acknowledging its powerlessness.
But it wants to evade the shame and the implications, so it declares its powerlessness, a universal truth....and goes to great length to ridicule and nullify the very idea.

But the act of willing, of choosing, cannot be evaded, so it must disconnect the words, the concepts, form the actions, because even the incomprehensible cannot be denied if it is perceptible, active.
Lacking knowledge and understanding cannot dismiss the apparent, so nihilism begins by detaching words from perceptible actions, with every opportunity.
It converts the threatening into an idea.....with no external referents, because then it can manipulate it in any way it wishes, unrestricted by empiricism.

The practice was obvious when they tried to disconnect the concept 'woman' from observable, active, tangible appearances.

Plato wrote:

One who is just does not allow each bit within him to do the work of any other or allow the classes within him to interfere with one another.
He structures well what is really his own and rules over himself. He puts himself in good order, is his own friend and comes to be dear to himself, joining in unity what are three, like three limiting notes in a simple musical scale—high, low, and middle. Having bound together all these and any others there may be in between, and from having been many things, he becomes entirely one, moderate and well assembled. Only then does he act.
(443d1–e2)
{Ἀληθῶς περὶ ἑαυτὸν καὶ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, μὴ ἐάσαντα τἀλλότρια πράττειν ἕκαστον ἐν αὑτῷ μηδὲ πολυπραγμονεῖν πρὸς ἄλληλα τὰ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γένη, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι τὰ οἰκεῖα εὖ θέμενον καὶ ἄρξαντα αὐτὸν αὑτοῦ καὶ κοσμήσαντα καὶ φίλον γενόμενον ἑαυτῷ καὶ συναρμόσαντα τρία ὄντα, ὥσπερ ὅρους τρεῖς ἁρμονίας ἀτεχνῶς, νεάτης
τε καὶ ὑπάτης καὶ μέσης, καὶ εἰ ἄλλα ἄττα μεταξὺ τυγχάνει ὄντα, πάντα ταῦτα συνδήσαντα καὶ παντάπασιν ἕνα γενόμενον ἐκ πολλῶν, σώφρονα καὶ ἡρμοσμένον, οὕτω δὴ πράττειν ἤδη.}

The will is the aggregate of an organism's energies, but motives are divided into three types, each vying for the will's attentions: logistikon/epithumêtikon/thumoeides - correspondingly, reason/will/passions.
There's a natural schizophrenia innate in humans, which may become permanent - or may become intentional, simultaneously maintaining multiple contradictory beliefs.
Each with its own objectives.

Shields, Christopher wrote:

Thus, for example, we might think of each part of the soul as having its own pleasures, in the way that four
parties to a game of bridge might each have individual pleasures in the progression of play. This would in turn suggest that each part of the soul was an autonomous agent, sometimes co-operating with the others and sometimes not.

What that insane woman, still lurking on ILP - repeating the same shit - experiences as "fractured and fragmented."
It is possible for three different motives, three different objectives, three different standards, to coexist in the same psyche, wilfully directing the individual's energies, sometimes in agreement, then in opposition.
This is a spirit with no dominant agency.
The democratic spirit.

Shields, Christopher wrote:

Much lower down on the scale of unity is the soul of the democratic man: ‘he is a manifold and full of all manner of temperaments, both fine and many-colored; and as the democratic city is, so too the man’ (561e3–5). The democratic soul, however, utterly lacks directionality, succumbing to every passing fancy and failing to make even rudimentary discriminations between better and worse pursuits (561c6–d7).

No internal harmony - a schizophrenic compartmentalized mind, unable to unify incompatible ideals.

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

The "good man" is the "just man," according to Plato.
This good man has harmonized his tripart psyche - reason, will, passion - and has aligned his subjective judgements with that of the polis, realizing that his survival is dependent on a collective; he has integrated his psyche into an inter-subjective collective consciousness.
His judgemental alignments with that of the collective is what is called ethical, because ethics are amendments of naturally selected behaviours, facilitating cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.
So, this alignment, of good judgment, is a survival adaptation - it is a reasonable sacrifice; necessary.
The just man has rationalized his primary motives and has harmonized them with the collective's welfare.
He is just because justice is the adherence to collective norms, and collective norms are socially selected behaviours that benefit the collective, maintaining stability and continuance.
There is no justice outside collectives - beyond the polis; in nature there is no justice, no good/evil, there is only success and failure....and what is good is that which has proven to be successful, over time.
The collective judges and establishes what is just.
Species niche strategies are essential in establishing successful strategies.

This is what Marx plagiarized and warped, by eliminating any identifier that inhibits this process of universal harmonization - globalization.
Postmodernism is the evolution of this Marxist agenda.
From market to cultural Marxism.
Marx universalized the polis, incorporating humanity within its walls, as only a Jew could have.
Only a Jew could have invented it because the Jews had abstracted the idea of a polis, to carry it around from polis to polis - ergo Atzmon Wandering Who? book.
Wandering Jews are the internationalists, carrying their abstracted polis - god - like gypsies from place to place, knowing no connection to the land.
Creating a polis within a host polis - ghettoization. Ghettos are quintessentially Jewish inventions, rejecting assimilation and integration - city within a city. A noetic polis within a pre-existing polis - a collective within an establishes collective - parasite and host.
A master/slave dynamic that gradually inverts the roles, while maintaining the tittles - vengeance of the slaves upon those who have mastered them in every context other than in feminine tactics.
Hellenism masculinity is caught unaware of Judaism's' insidious feminine methodologies; her pleading, her claim of being abused, requiring protections, special considerations to continue her methods with impunity, fools the masculine who is used to more direct and clear methods of warfare. The Greek/Roman has yet to tap into his own feminine side and recognize the tactic being used to subvert his authority.
His psyche is unbalanced - reason overpowering his own passions, from where he could have drawn understanding.

America is the New Jerusalem - feminization is unfolding through Americanism. Normalization of all sexual vices - pleasure principle, passion, overwhelming reason.
The American lifestyle is increasingly becoming gypsy-like, moving from city to city, constant travelling, urbanizing, ghettoizing, refusing to cast roots into the soil and settle down - anti-Pagan, anti-nature, anti-Indo-European.
Consumer lifestyles recycling locations as they do all resources, including cultures.

For this reason, there's a split between Orthodox and Zionists and Marxist Jews.
# types of Judaism - splintering when Judaism came in contact with Hellenism, i.e., Indo-Euroepan culture.
Orthodox Jews reject the idea of Israel, because this represents the corruption of Judaism, that knows no connection to the earth - is entirely abstracted.
As I've said....when two incompatible worldviews, like Judaism and Hellenism, came in contact cross-contaminations occurred.
Rome was infected by Judaism, developing Christianity; and Israel was infected by Hellenism, developing Marxism and then Zionism.
Platonism was a major part of this Hellenic effect on Judaism, as it was through Platonism that Judaism morphed into Christianity.
Plato's ideals/reals, were inverted, as they are in all forms of nihilism.
The ideal became real, rather than a representation.
Absolutes.
Plato's cave is the human skull, the brain, where ideals are created, and can be synthesized and inverted; where they can evolve unobscured by reality, the existent i.e., natural order...
Ideals are shadows of the real and not the real (world) a shadow of the ideal.

It was the Hellenic Greek Philosophers who really dug deep into the investigation of the Human Soul, as characteristics of Behaviors (Morals). They then presumed what Science later revealed: Genetics, in the Blood. Thus, the behaviors of any person, of any behavior, are a reflection of a particular person's body and thereby, Genetics aka. "The Soul" or "Spirit" or "Essence" of a living being.

This is today still referred to as the Pre-Christian "Natural Sciences", aka Paganism.

Thus the study comes into direct conflict and contradiction to all other modern and postmodern ideologies: Anti-Natural, Nihilistic, where in their premises, human Genetics is fundamentally denied "There is One Race the Human Race", and Appearance (manifest behaviors) are claimed *NOT* to be the result of a person's Genetics. In other words, Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism use their "Blank Slate Theory" to deny and overturn Paganistic 'Nature' on its head. Some Liberals, the more clever of the bunch, understand the ruse and basic Lie, but rather use the schizophrenic division to their own gain—creating their own ethnic/racial/homogeneity among themselves (white liberal rich suburban neighborhoods, or Jewish YMCAs), but denying it to all others.

Politics: speaking one message out of one side of the mouth, and another out of the other side. The simpletons and morons are not clever enough to recognize the Ruse, or if they are, are too hurt and betrayed by it to give in to the benefits of those who Lie for their own Gain.


However, today more relevant than ever, the behavior of any Individual or Group or Tribe, any particular psychology or sociology, exposes itself by its Actions "Ye shall know them by their fruits". The Hellenes may not have been First to discover the mystery, but probably the First to investigate it so deeply and thoroughly. While no Philosophy has ever been sufficient in 'Getting at the Truth' of the Human Soul, at the very least, the Greek Hellenic Philosophers and Ancients recognized that all Moralities are derivative of it, and therefore signify what 'It' is.

Today, Postmodernity has only expanded the distance between the delusions and illusions it presents, of its falsely-secure modern Civilizations, and the original truth. If any person, or society, is recognized by their Behaviors, then that fundamentally reinforces all "Conservative" or "Right-Leaning" "ideologies", as if what is Apparent is ideological when it's not and never was. It is the opposite of an Ideology. Thus, Ideologies are attempts to change human behavior, and thereby Nature into something different. And it starts with a false-dilemma...that Postmodern humans ought to expect of a thing, differently than its underlying Nature.

This is what I refer to as 'Neo-Liberalism', a continuation of their grand theories and social projects.

The essence of an organism becomes apparent when its will is 'Freed', ie. Empowered, Activated, or Motivated.

"Free-Will" can be Quantified, and analyzed through "Science".

Consider the Quantity and Quality of a person or animal's Willpower.

Quantity: More choices, More possibilities, More probabilities. Liberals especially tout this as the "Measure" of their greatness and power, as-if, More choice = More possibility = Intrinsically Morally Good. But, this amateur, naive, and infantile mindset is easily countered in Philosophy. ...because you can be stuck with 1 million Bad choices. You can be forced into eating 1 billion shit sandwiches. Quantity =/= Quality.

Quality: The (Subjective) assessment and judgment of particular choices, specific possibilities and specific probabilities. That one "Choice" is beneficial to me, and my society, demonstrates its "Quality". That some Choices, and their Consequences, are 'Good' (relative to subjective perspectives), is dependent upon those Judgments. Quality is Beneficial. What is claimed to be "Objectively Good", is interpreted as Egalitarian, or 'Good for the most people' of a particular society.


The "Freest" Will, then, is More Quantity + Highest Quality, added together. At least, this is a novice interpretation of Free-Will, by which the "Hard Determinists" would still reject "in the end", because of a specific Bias and core-Belief system they have, underneath (Metaphysics).

The Slave Races of the world, would never be "Free", and never advocate for or argue on behalf of "Free-Will" even if they were hypothetically Free or Freed...

We observe this effect and reality in the American, Westernized, Negro populations and "People of Color". The more 'Liberalism' they imbibe, the less "Free" they seem to become, needing to victimize themselves, blame "Evil Whitey", on behalf of their Middlemen Jewish masters.

And Jews? I've never seen one Jew, in my entire life, argue on behalf of Free-Will... why not? As I analyze this, I suppose, because what life must be like for a Jewish person is a daunting prospect. Jews convince their children of their Mystical, All-encompassing, Victim status. They are poor victims, never responsible for anything, and the rest of the World "Hates" them for no reason or cause at all. The religious ones teach, that "God did it", and they must Suffer for what God has caused. This is the reason-why, in the end, Jews cannot tolerate or advocate for "Free-Will", because it is against both their Secular *AND* their Religious Existence.

On the Secular ground, Leftism, they cannot give up their coveted 'Victim' status and narrative, because of all the positive, immediate political benefits it creates for them (Secularism).

On the Religious ground, Rightism, they cannot give up "Hard Determinism", because then that would mean that something other than 'God' is Causing Things, and therefore, their religious narrative, Torah, Talmud, are all undermined.


Therefore it is not an irony, nor a Cohencidence, that Jews cannot advocate for Free-Will... even if they wanted to. It's too abstract an Ideal, for the Slave-races of the world.

This is why there is a categorization between Master and Slave Dialectic.

And it is also why a Slave cannot 'pretend' to be a Master, while a Master can 'pretend' to be a Slave.

The Higher can properly imitate the Lower, but the Lower cannot properly imitate the Higher.

Inferior =/= Superior.

These degenerate postmodern who go around declaring that free-will implies 'my way or the highway' are projecting, as always.
It is their determinism that implies that there is only one way, and no other option.
They've outsourced their own authoritarianism, so as to claim innocence - they are the victims of the same authoritarianism - with or without god, as defined by Abrahamism.
Because everything they know is defined by Abrahamism - over 2,000 years of social engineering.

As always, these degenerates accuse others of what they are most guilty.

Authoritarianism is, for them, a relief, because then they can justify why they love being slaves.
There is no freedom, and they are the on es who know it - have been fated to know it.
They claim to be the slaves who are woke - knowing that there is no way to escape. The very idea of freedom is defined in ways that make it impossible - an absurdity.
Defined it 'out of existence.' so that they can comfort themselves that they are awakened slaves - converting their shame into pride.

Free-Will, on the other hand, implies the exact opposite.
It is part of natural selection.
There are multiple ways up the mountain.....and ech climber is free to choose from available options.
Options are made available by their previous choices, their climbing skills, their courage, and their ambitions: do they want to climb fast or enjoy the climb? Do they want to challenge themselves or take it easy?

Shifting metaphors....the oasis is in the desert but there is no single path to it.
A traveler can choose any route...and his choice will determine his success.

But the degenerates don't like this, because this means they are responsible, and that their own courage and skills are factors. It implies inequalities, and risks and costs.
They want guarantees and equity. They want all to find the oasis.
If god cannot guarantee success, then cosmic fate, determinism....They must have someone other than themselves to blame.

- denier of free-will, and other concepts, such as race, gender, identity etc.

* He must ignore the experienced he is trying to nullify, e.g., he must ignore the act of willing, of choosing, which he experiences himself, because this is what he is trying to prove is illusory.

* He must define the words, representing the concepts he is trying to nullify, in ways that make it impossible for it to exist.
What I call "defining it out of existence."

* The concepts he is trying to nullify must be kept on an ideological level - as abstract as possible - which is why he ignores the experienced and perceptible actions of willing, choosing, or ethnicity/race, or sex/gender, or identity/self.
Ideas can be easily nullified by deconstructing their definitions, but actions cannot because what is present, and interactive cannot be dismissed, without exposing your motives and the psychosis underlying it.

*He places the bar of evidence so high as to make it unattainable.
He claims that he will only be convinced if his standards are met, and then describes standards that are impossible to meet.
He does this arbitrarily, because in every other context he demands far less stringent and absolutist standards to sway his judgements.
His "skepticism" is very uneven - ranging from impossible to non-existent, because when the context is within his comfort range, or what he finds pleasant, then his skepticism is reduced to nil, and is easily convinced of what he desperately wishes to believe is true.
This is why he is usually a person that has made many mistakes in his life and has learned almost nothing from them.
In most cases, when his objective is to dismiss and undermine, before he nullifies, the bar is absolute certainty, absolute evidence, necessitating omnipotence or omniscience.
Any flaw is reason enough for him to entirely dismiss all alternatives, even when he offers nothing comparable.
The motive is to negate anything that challenges his objective, which must be denied or concealed, because it will expose his weakness.

* For him there is only one acceptable answer: that all these particular concepts are social constructs - are ideological, and therefore amendable.
His authoritarianism he must conceal with a pre-emtive attack on his adversaries, accusing them of what he is most guilty: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, absolutism... Might is Right.
But his authoritarianism is collectivized - Marxist, proletarian... based on the collectivization of individuated compromises.
He imagines his enemies as individuated authoritarians, challenging his collectivized authoritarianism.
Each individual must sacrifice his free-will, his identity, his past, and become a member of a collective identity, a collective will...
He undermines whatever resists assimilation into his uniformity, his totalitarian singularity - a revision of Abraham's one-god.
He outsources his motives, accusing some nebulous cosmic absolute (god or universal order - immutable, indivisible, eternal) - cosmic determinism replaces god's will.

* Just as he ignores the acts of willing, of choosing, he must ignore the moral acts, so as to reduce them to the codes men used to describe them.
In this way he implies that they are manmade and therefore based no power relationships.
In fact, moral behaviours, acts, are not unique to man. Wha its unique to man is language - converting these actions into words.
we witness these behaviours across many species practicing the same survival strategies: intergroup tolerance, bonding or what he calls 'love, self-sacrifice, sharing, etc. Other species may not have words for them, but they do have the actions.
he then confuses manmade amendment to these moral behaviours as the root of morality, because then he can dismiss and ignore them, or substitute them with his own amendments that completely ignore the naturally selected advantages these moral behaviours provided.
These moral behaviours are true across species, and across cultures, and the only thing that changes is these ethical amendments, guided by the particular ideals of a culture.
So, morals have a common ground in nature, whereas ethical amendments have an ideological foundation that cannot contradict its natural grounding.
We see these "moral behaviours" in many species, in all species that have adopted a cooperative survival and reproductive strategy: canines, felines, bovines, apes, insects... and these same basis rules are common across all human cultures: intergroup tolerance, bonding or what he calls 'love, self-sacrifice, sharing, etc.
Ethical amendments are guided by cultural ideals, facilitating more complex social cooperation... like the ethical amendment concerning monogamy and adultery, or the human construct, marriage... all amendments of naturally selected rules regulating intergroup sexual behaviours, determining group cohesion, and consequently, group competitive effectiveness relative to other groups - the ethical amendments concerning abortion 'right's are extensions of these sexual regulations, affecting a group's health and stability.

Free-Will, like God, like Meaning of Life, like any other core Philosophical axiom--is the best conceptual device into revealing an individual's psyche and as a further reflection of his/her greater genealogy/heritage, society, and culture, or lack thereof. Each of these axioms are like a Lens or Prism, by which their Interpretations are refracted and exposed. What would a Slave think of "Free-Will" or "Freedom"? Not much, Not highly, unless they fully understood the difference of one life to the next. This is why you can jail a man, for exposing his genitals to prepubescent teens in public, and whether he is jailed or not, he denies Free-Will either way. He is a Slave in either case; because he cannot think of any possible scenario, in his mind, what it would mean to be 'Free'. Similarly, an Atheist cannot think of anyway that 'God' may exist, say as an analogy to what our tribal Ancestry worshipped as their Nature and Origin. Or with Meaning, humans without meaning in life, without much 'value', all those with no joy or zeal for life, expose their Nihilism by their Denials.

With Free-Will specifically, a particular or individual mind exposes its potential for Independence, or more expectedly in this Postmodern, Nihilism-dominated world, the Dependency after Dependency, whether State-enforced or Church-enforced, imposed upon their lives. A man or woman is 'NOT' free, ever, and because these State-tools or Religious-fanatics are "educated" (indoctrinated, propagandized, screened) by their societies, they become willing, witting, and even enthusiastic slaves for their Masters. Liberalism, in the West, was supposed to 'Enlighten' the masses through "Education". What is the result today, where more Westerners deny "Free-Will" than ever before, and admittedly repeat that they are "NOT" free, or 'less' free than ever before? Because what is the basis of the average man and woman's measure for "Freedom" in America today? Consumerism, Standard-of-Living, selection of Drugs and Narcotics, ability to Dissect your unborn child...

If these are "Western Freedoms", then yes, I agree, the Western masses are *NOT* free, and have not been free for quite some decades now. Sloth, Gluttony, Lust, "Pride", the Catholics were onto something special when they categorized the ways in which Vices turn Free-men into willing Slaves. Ironically, Postmodern Westerners consider themselves 'Human', but how can they be Human when they cannot differentiate their desires from base-desire, or their Ideals from what is common as copper coins? Any 'High' desires or 'Noble' pursuits have long since dissipated from the Western commoner.

At least, when USA and Russia were competing to be first into space, man space station crews, touch the moon, send probes into space--at least then there were Noble desires and ideals leading men. Everybody can see now how quickly the masses relent from the notion of higher ideals, and back to their base-desires: porn, debauchery, gangster-rap, negro "culture", this is what the West has "won" since the 1960s.

Now that wars are starting all over the world, and we may be entering WWIII, can we speculate if this is all part of cosmic determinism, or did humans have a role in what is occurring?
Is this all part of a cosmic plan?
Should we sit back and watch what it has in store for us, or is this also determined, and inevitable?

If, as quantum physics claims, a wave collapses into a point when observed....then is this not a form of willful participation?

If all is not ordered, but chaos is not complexity, but the absence of order, then would not will, be more than accidental?
Would it not be essential to life?
Would not all that survives cosmic flux, and replicates, not pass on the methods that contributed to its longevity?

would not, even the emergence of life, so mathematically improbable, be more probable if we factor in chaos, and how it randomly affected order, bringing about at a fraction of the time required?
Non-patterned interactions with patterned energies, producing unexpected unities: randomly adjusting what is unbalanced (disharmonious) - harmonizing repulsive/attractive interactions so that they can produce complex unities?
Random effects or patterned iterations producing unexpected mutations.

Satyr wrote:

Methods of a Postmodern Nihilist

- denier of free-will, and other concepts, such as race, gender, identity etc.

* He must ignore the experienced he is trying to nullify, e.g., he must ignore the act of willing, of choosing, which he experiences himself, because this is what he is trying to prove is illusory.

* He must define the words, representing the concepts he is trying to nullify, in ways that make it impossible for it to exist.
What I call "defining it out of existence."

* The concepts he is trying to nullify must be kept on an ideological level - as abstract as possible - which is why he ignores the experienced and perceptible actions of willing, choosing, or ethnicity/race, or sex/gender, or identity/self.
Ideas can be easily nullified by deconstructing their definitions, but actions cannot because what is present, and interactive cannot be dismissed, without exposing your motives and the psychosis underlying it.

*He places the bar of evidence so high as to make it unattainable.
He claims that he will only be convinced if his standards are met, and then describes standards that are impossible to meet.
He does this arbitrarily, because in every other context he demands far less stringent and absolutist standards to sway his judgements.
His "skepticism" is very uneven - ranging from impossible to non-existent, because when the context is within his comfort range, or what he finds pleasant, then his skepticism is reduced to nil, and is easily convinced of what he desperately wishes to believe is true.
This is why he is usually a person that has made many mistakes in his life and has learned almost nothing from them.
In most cases, when his objective is to dismiss and undermine, before he nullifies, the bar is absolute certainty, absolute evidence, necessitating omnipotence or omniscience.
Any flaw is reason enough for him to entirely dismiss all alternatives, even when he offers nothing comparable.
The motive is to negate anything that challenges his objective, which must be denied or concealed, because it will expose his weakness.

* For him there is only one acceptable answer: that all these particular concepts are social constructs - are ideological, and therefore amendable.
His authoritarianism he must conceal with a pre-emtive attack on his adversaries, accusing them of what he is most guilty: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, absolutism... Might is Right.
But his authoritarianism is collectivized - Marxist, proletarian... based on the collectivization of individuated compromises.
He imagines his enemies as individuated authoritarians, challenging his collectivized authoritarianism.
Each individual must sacrifice his free-will, his identity, his past, and become a member of a collective identity, a collective will...
He undermines whatever resists assimilation into his uniformity, his totalitarian singularity - a revision of Abraham's one-god.
He outsources his motives, accusing some nebulous cosmic absolute (god or universal order - immutable, indivisible, eternal) - cosmic determinism replaces god's will.

* Just as he ignores the acts of willing, of choosing, he must ignore the moral acts, so as to reduce them to the codes men used to describe them.
In this way he implies that they are manmade and therefore based no power relationships.
In fact, moral behaviours, acts, are not unique to man. Wha its unique to man is language - converting these actions into words.
we witness these behaviours across many species practicing the same survival strategies: intergroup tolerance, bonding or what he calls 'love, self-sacrifice, sharing, etc. Other species may not have words for them, but they do have the actions.
he then confuses manmade amendment to these moral behaviours as the root of morality, because then he can dismiss and ignore them, or substitute them with his own amendments that completely ignore the naturally selected advantages these moral behaviours provided.
These moral behaviours are true across species, and across cultures, and the only thing that changes is these ethical amendments, guided by the particular ideals of a culture.
So, morals have a common ground in nature, whereas ethical amendments have an ideological foundation that cannot contradict its natural grounding.
We see these "moral behaviours" in many species, in all species that have adopted a cooperative survival and reproductive strategy: canines, felines, bovines, apes, insects... and these same basis rules are common across all human cultures: intergroup tolerance, bonding or what he calls 'love, self-sacrifice, sharing, etc.
Ethical amendments are guided by cultural ideals, facilitating more complex social cooperation... like the ethical amendment concerning monogamy and adultery, or the human construct, marriage... all amendments of naturally selected rules regulating intergroup sexual behaviours, determining group cohesion, and consequently, group competitive effectiveness relative to other groups - the ethical amendments concerning abortion 'right's are extensions of these sexual regulations, affecting a group's health and stability.  

He rejects all objective standards for evaluating a subjective opinion, because he intuitively knows his own beliefs are not supported by anything other than his own desires.
He must accuse all of what he is most guilty. to conceal his responsibility, his willful choice to ignore his own self-serving irrationality.
Since we all share the same reality, he must reduce this to a singularity, so as to then dismiss it as authoritarian, implying that reality itself is willful.
He cannot let go of the benefit of Abrahamic superstitions, realizing that many of its tenets were beneficial to him, and he is unable to liberate his judgments from his self-interests....so all must be equally guilty of his subjectivity.

Degenerates want to cope with having poor judgements...
If all is determined, and inevitable, and there is no right/wrong, then their judgements are just as good as anyone's.
They are no longer imbeciles or weak or dominated by their passions... because everything anyone does is inevitable, and it could not have been any other way.
So, they don't have to do anything differently.
They can continue to surrender to their impulses, and their subjectively self-serving convictions.

Free-Will is an evolving analogy for Human's growing Self-Consciousness.

Conscious lags behind the Mind.
The Mind lags behind the Body.
The Body lags behind Instincts.


The masses are easily duped by higher IQs and those specially trained to manipulate pubescent and adolescent Conscious minds. During the early years, the human mind and thought-process is malleable to Indoctrination and Programming. In Western Cultures, these are separated by State and Church institutions. In the Eastern Hemisphere, Old World Cultures, each society, nation, and race are more 'centralized' in their institutions. State and Church are 'One' in the same, there.

Western Cultures, led by the European Enlightenment period, are fixated on Freedom and Liberation. What they skip-over, though, is defining and understanding 'What' exactly "humanity" is being freed from, and to-what to-when and to-where. The lack of definition is required, by the Priestly castes, so as to dupe the masses. The masses are not actually intended to be 'Free', but rather confined to pre-selected choices. This is the Western concept of "Choice", as presented to you by the State or Church, Left or Right, which actually server the same underlying institution ("The Deep State" or "Uni-party"). The United States Uniparty is demonstrated, in rare moments, when Netanyahu address the US Congress, with 25-minutes of applause from Democrats and Republicans.

The true Ruler appears, but not to the masses, not clearly.


The European Enlightenment period, then, can be revealed for what it is...a sophisticated means of Divide et Imperia. By appealing to the European or American "individual", he or she can begin to be separated from his/her society, culture--eventually to the point of dividing from Ethnicity, Race, Kin, Tribe, and now we see--from Gender, from Sex. All of these false-divisions are symbolic advancement of the Enlightenment propaganda.

The implication is that the human Body is separated from the Mind, Gene from Meme, Nature from Nurture.

The goal of this propaganda, ultimately, is to turn parents against child, or child against parents, for the sake of either the State or the Church, whichever of the two most effectively, consistently, and persuasively applies dogmatic pressure to the society's Youth. In America, the State and Church are 'One' in Zionism, Abrahamism, ZOG, and dying for Israel. This is an extension of the American Protestant and Evangelical roots, their fanaticism and naive ignorance, easily turned and manipulated by world Jewry: the Goy. American Protestantism is barely "Christian", from a theological perspective, but should be considered a fully 'Jewish' religion, set apart from European Catholicism (Christianity proper) or Eastern Orthodoxy (Pagan Christianity).

Even a rudimentary reading or understanding of the symbolic figure of Jesus Christ should convince any student of Christ's outright rejection and turn against Pharises Jews and Judaism, hence the 'Betrayal' of Christ, treason within the Jewish peoples, genetics, and faith. Since that time-period, two millenniums ago, many European wars and Crusades have been waged for or against the Holy Land, and against the greater Muslim-Arab invasions into Eastern Europe. From those Crusades, the original 'Evangelicals' were spawned, and later found their way to the Eastern Shores of the Americas.

They haven't changed in 2000 years. So why should they believe in "Free-Will"?

As they admit, readily and enthusiastically by philosophical argument and debate, it is their Abrahamic God that grants, or deprives, 'Free-Will' based on "His Judgment". At least these types are more honest than their "Secular" or "Atheist" counter-parts, who dress up their denials of Free-Will in "Scientific" jargon. Yet, their conclusions, mysteriously, (not) surprisingly, are exactly the same.

Free From:

Classically, the notion of Liberalism was designed to 'free' humanity 'from' earthly and beastly, animal desires.  These began as the Ascetic philosophies and traditional Catholic Monasteries.  Eastern Monks, to this day, try to free themselves from bodily desires: sex, hunger, thirst, all derivative bodily cravings.  The underlying belief here, is that by 'freeing' the human body from animalistic desire, that this necessarily leads to a Divine experience or intuition, "access to The Gods".

But this notion of "Classical Liberalism" radically changed, and was usurped, in the 20th Century, and especially more so now in the 21st Century.  Liberty transitioned from liberation from earthly desire to...liberation from Political Rule, which is Anti-Social.  And then, 'Liberty' as an expression of Hedonism, which is mutation and complete inversion of the original meaning.  Now, to show your "Liberalism", is to embrace and indulge in animal desires.  It is now to be an animal, and to not be "Human", meaning, Morally or Ethically driven.

These transitions can be demonstrated by the change of general Western "Education", Indoctrination, and Propaganda.  The masses 'needed' to be manipulated, by specific respective, Centralized Governments.  In America, for example, the newly exploring, settling, and conquering Europeans became Wild, less Tamed, and therefore dangerous to any notion of a centralized government or church.  This is why the American Civil War was/is so important, because the rise of a federalized, central government, is as Anti-"Liberal" as one could get, from the notion of Classical Liberalism.  But, since the Federal United States won the Civil War, they were then driven to re-define Classical Liberalism into something pro-Centralized-Government.

From that point on, Liberalism no longer meant 'individually free', but rather, 'Free' with direct accordance, guidance, and support of the Federal United States.  'Free', as long as you obey, the Central Government.  Liberal-Leftism is the spawn of this, today.  And that is also why, today, "Liberalism" is interpreted as Hedonism, feeding base/animal desires, instead of disciplining oneself from their power and influence.


Stepping back a few paces, it becomes clearer how and why 'Classical Liberalism', from the European Enlightenment, at one time referred to the Empowering ability of European colonists in the New World, having their own Autonomy and 'Righteous Destiny' (Manifest Destiny), changed from that of 'individual choice' to that of Centralized Governments (Federalism). Because Individualism was required by the European settlers, explorers, and conquerors, to empower their drive West against Native Injuns...but became dangerous to all those who originally supported (The Old World political, social, cultural, and religious powers).

Free To:

The Ideals of the 16th Century were primarily those of Colonialism: exploration, settlement, and conquering of the New World. Individualism was required during this time, in order to empower all Europeans on the "lunatic fringe", frontier societies, still referred in America as the "Wild West".

But as with all trends in history, ideals come and go with the Times, and according to their Necessity. Once the Conquering was complete, was it still as useful to Central governments, to have 50 states of 'individualistic' Americans, with newly acquired territories and ideologies? No, instead, Federalism was then required by Washington DC, and the East Coast Anglo establishment, to maintain control over Authority (military might) and Economy.

Changes in ideals correspond to these changes in history. Now, in recent times, everybody watches and experiences the exponentially increasing persuasion and influence of Ideals toward a Federal, Centralized State. These are the current political conflicts in the American Anglo-sphere. There is a lot of chaos, as Western Civilization plateaus, and no longer shows the previous strides of "Progress". The West was won...and now there are battles looming about 'who' controls what, exactly, why, and how. Global Elites and (((They))) want to carve the pie of the New World, to ensure that coming chaos does not affect all these accrued Assets in the New World.

Propaganda and Ideology in the West have all changed 'Inward' facing. No longer are Americans concerned or interested in...space travel, exploration, technological advancement, save a small faction (led by Elon Musk, for now). Western Media is trying to 'Win' total control, of power and influence. American Democrats, for example, know that if they can get these new, recent 10s of millions of illegal aliens to vote Blue, then there will be no more significant American Republican party. "Conservatives" will lose political power, forever. And it will not return, without great, severe, catastrophic violence. These are the trends in recent years and decade of American media and propaganda.

Yet all of these ignore that the American "Ideal", what Americans ought to be free to do and desire have become strictly controlled by Federal and global Conglomerate powers, of Media. Everybody wants control of what Westerners, and thereby the rest of the world, ought to do. And this message, currently, is that children should become faggots, castrate themselves, become complete degenerate drug-addicts, pharma customers, and as far Liberal-Left as humanly (or un-humanly) possible. The Media (((Controllers))) want complete, utter, slaves to Zion, a "perfect" Goy nation to serve Israel and the Middle East.

However, these battles being waged, are ever more Chaotic, and there's no telling which way things will go. Because even the hubris of the Liberal-Left, cannot anticipate what it would mean to gain majority control (55%) let alone total control (100%).

Because they deny Human Nature, animal instinct, genetics, or 'Nature' itself. Nature abhors a Vacuum. And this means, people, societies, individuals deeply resent Totalitarian controls and systems. Use Han-dominated China as an example. China has been built and civil warred over, for 5000 years. And even now, they struggle to maintain absolute power and control over their populace. The vast majority of their time, energy, effort, and focus, is spent maintaining control. This is why China, although very powerful, is completely Introverted.

And it is why Europeans are more 'extroverted' with Idealism, looking outward, toward an Exit, or an Alternative, or any other 'Future'.

It is why the Faustian Spirit cannot be so controlled or enclosed. Totalitarianism fails, which is why (Classical) Liberalism always reasserts itself in the fact of such abusive or incompetent Authorities.

American Postmodernism:

Freedom From: Responsibility, Shame, Guilt

Freedom To: Dissect your unborn child, Dissect your son's penis, Women to engage in hypergamy as teenagers, Men to engage in faggotry, Homeless to own the streets


American now demonstrates a valuable, timeless lesson.  Peace can be more dangerous than War.  Waging Peace...can be more difficult and challenging than War.  The post-WWII boon, the victory, the celebrations, the booming economy, all of it has come to an end.  And those Good times, enjoyed and consumed by the 'Boomer' generation, now lead to Weak men (transexuals, fags, homos) and Hard times.  Diversity hires.  Airplanes will crumple and fall out of the sky.  Food tastes worse, more bland, less quality in every aspect of enjoyment.  More people have Less.  Inflation will destroy all Savings or possibility of financial security.

Americans will move from Capitalism to 'Inheritance' as the primary means of wealth...leading to, Socialism, as it is in the Old World and European countries.  This leads to more, increased, more savage infighting.  Families turn inward and against one-another, fighting for scraps left from their deceased Boomer parents or grandparents.  Animosity and Distrust become common place.  All of these are historical trends, they come and go frequently throughout the Centuries.

The Conclusion to American Postmodernity, eventually, must be to Blame somebody.

America needs a new scapegoat, a new whipping boy. Because without a common Enemy, all of the guilt, shame, and embarrassment, cannot be offloaded. All of this Degeneracy needs an outlet...a Sacrifice. Without this sacrifice, pressure builds and builds into an explosion and then an implosion. The American political apparatus is steeply divided. The Left want to blame 'Trump', with their Trump Derangement Syndrome. While the Right, are divided, lost, confused, and have no cohesive idealism for the future. Some on the Far-Right believe in 'Accelerationism', intentionally leaning into the edge in order to capsize the entire ship. Maybe there's some truth to it, maybe not. I don't think these fools know what chaos they're inviting into their homes.

Either way, the US Federal State will treat whomever their new whipping is, very, very poorly. Trump will get pulled into a war in the Middle East. He'll likely be assassinated by Mossad, who will turn it toward Iran, through their stranglehold on US Media. US would likely employ a new Military Draft, under Republican lead, so that they then fall from power forever. Israel gets their war, with US military boots on the ground. Democrats gain complete control, indefinitely, with their newly 10-30 million illegals voting bloc. This would also allow Democrats to completely dismantle all remaining American 'Conservatives', and change the Underclass position to American heterosexual white males.

However, Jewish control of Western Civilization will have blowback. Already, the liberal-left are betraying their Zionist leaders and controllers, by protesting on behalf of Palestine and Israel war-crimes and genocide. So all of these forces have limits. Political choices, and shifting world powers, will have severe consequences.

A man's or society's free-will, is contingent upon the restriction of another man's or society's free-will.

Therefore, "Free-Will" relative to the man or society, according to his 'Power' (Nietzsche).

Free-Will is expressed and identified according to every man's Idealism.

If a man were 'Free', hypothetically, then it would most clearly and readily appear in his capacity for Imagination.