Quotes, Excerpts, Anecdotes.

Jung, Carl wrote:

Since each individual conforms more or less to a type, his testimony can be accepted as a fairly valid description of a large number of people. And since those who conform to other types belong none the less to the human species, we may conclude that the description applies less fully, to them too. What Freud has to say about sexuality, infantile pleasure, and their conflict with the ‘principle of reality,’ as well as what he says about incest and the like, can be taken as the truest expressions of his own psychic make-up. He has given adequate form to what he has noted in himself. I am no opponent of Freud’s; I am merely presented in that light by his own short-sightedness and that of his pupils…
As for Freud’s idea of the ‘super ego,’ it is a furtive attempt to smuggle in his time-honoured image of Jehovah in the dress of psychological theory.

Modern Man in Search of a Soul

Junk, Carl wrote:

If a union is to take place between opposites like . . .  conscious and unconscious... it will happen in a third thing, which represents not a compromise but something new [and again] The confrontation of the two positions generates a tension charged with energy and creates a living third thing... a movement out of the suspension between opposites, a living birth that leads to a new level of being, a new situation.

(Jung, 1916/1957, par. 189,)

… The unknown third thing . . . finds more or less adequate expression in all these similes, yet – to the perpetual vexation of the intellect – remains unknown and not to be fitted into a formula.

(Jung, 1940, par. 267)

… the idea of the pairs of opposites is as old as the world, and if we treated it properly, then we should have to go back to the earliest sources of Chinese philosophy.

(Jung, 1925b/1991, p. 72)

“The Universe” is their fashionable way of referring to God without being cast out of their urbanite hippy in-group. Only their version of the absolute is the all-encompassing physical plane we’re entrapped in. It’s very much “of this world”, as they seek entirely physical reward

— Faceberg (@thefaceberg) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thukydides wrote:

Φιλοκαλοῦμέν τε γὰρ μετ᾽ εὐτελείας καὶ φιλοσοφοῦμεν ἄνευ μαλακίας· πλούτῳ τε ἔργου μᾶλλον καιρῷ ἢ λόγου κόμπῳ χρώμεθα, καὶ τὸ πένεσθαι οὐχ ὁμολογεῖν τινὶ αἰσχρόν, ἀλλὰ μὴ διαφεύγειν ἔργῳ αἴσχιον.

Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not makes us soft | For we are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and we cultivate the mind without loss of manliness

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Funeral Oration of Pericles

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Or they might not like the taste. Or the testosterone reducing and muscle degenerating effects.

Schmitt, Carl wrote:

The Concept of the Political (1927)

1

The concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political.

The equation state = politics becomes erroneous and deceptive at exactly the moment when state and society penetrate each other.

2

A definition of the political can be obtained only by discovering and defining the specifically political categories.

The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.

Only the actual participants can correctly recognize, understand, and judge the concrete situation and settle the extreme case of conflict.

3

The enemy is not merely any competitor or just any partner of a conflict in general. He is also not the private adversary whom one hates. An enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity. The enemy is solely the public enemy, because everything that has a relationship to such a collectivity of men, particularly to a whole nation, becomes public by virtue of such a relationship.

The political is the most intense and extreme antagonism, and every concrete antagonism becomes that much more political the closer it approaches the most extreme point, that of the friend-enemy grouping.

The inevitable lack of objectivity in political decisions, which is only the reflex to suppress the politically inherent friend-enemy antithesis, manifests itself in the regrettable forms and aspects of the scramble for office and the politics of patronage. The demand for depoliticalization which arises in this context means only the rejection of party politics, etc. The equation politics = party politics is possible whenever antagonisms among domestic political parties succeed in weakening the all-embracing political unit, the state.

The friend, enemy, and combat concepts receive their real meaning precisely because they refer to the real possibility of physical killing. War follows from enmity. War is the existential negation of the enemy.

War as the most extreme political means discloses the possibility which underlies every political idea, namely, the distinction of friend and enemy.

4

Every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively according to friend and enemy. The political does not reside in the battle itself, which. possesses its own technical, psychological, and military laws, but in the mode of behavior which is determined by this possibility, by clearly evaluating the concrete situation and thereby being able to distinguish correctly the real friend and the real enemy.

That the state is an entity and in fact the decisive entity rests upon its political character.

5

The state as the decisive political entity possesses an enormous power: the possibility of waging war and thereby publicly disposing of the lives of men. The jus belli contains such a disposition. It implies a double possibility: the right to demand from its own members the readiness to die and unhesitatingly to kill enemies.

As long as the state is a political entity this requirement for internal peace compels it in critical situations to decide also upon the domestic enemy. Every state provides, therefore, some kind of formula for the declaration of an internal enemy.

6

The political entity presupposes the real existence of an enemy and therefore coexistence with another political entity. As long as a state exists, there will thus always be in the world more than just one state. A world state which embraces the entire globe and all of humanity cannot exist.

The concept of humanity is an especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and in its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism.

7

What remains is the remarkable and, for many, certainly disquieting diagnosis that all genuine political theories presuppose man to be evil, i.e., by no means an unproblematic but a dangerous and dynamic being.

Political thought and political instinct prove themselves theoretically and practically in the ability to distinguish friend and enemy. The high points of politics are simultaneously the moments in which the enemy is, in concrete clarity, recognized as the enemy.

Walt Whitman wrote:

I exist as i am, that is enough. If no other in the world be aware,
I sit content and if each and all be aware i sit content.

One world is aware and by far the largest to me
and that is myself.
And whether i come to my own today or in
ten thousand years or ten million years,
I can cheerfully take it now, or with equal
cheerfulness i can wait.

There's something about Upper Middle Class snobbery which is more offensive than the most absolutely debased aristocratic snobbery- I think it's the petulance from anxious attempts to distance from the "lower (middle) class"- the real wealthy don't care what proles do.

— R.Сам (@Logo_Daedalus) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ignoring the biochemical side of addiction, opioids are so deadly because from a psychological POV all your problems melt away, nothing hurts, and you don’t give a care anymore.

They seem to be tailor-made to “check out” of this world while still living.

— Faceberg (@thefaceberg) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It’s similar to weed in the sense that opioids “fast-forward” through your life as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] recent thread described, but they’re a much darker drug.

Your breathing slows considerably and you’re flirting with the abyss. Closest thing to being “living dead”.

— Faceberg (@thefaceberg) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Spengler, Oswald wrote:

Classical number, integral and corporeal, therefore inevitably seeks to relate itself with the birth of bodily man, the σῶμα. The number 1 is hardly yet conceived of as actual number but rather as άρχὴ, the prime stuff of the
number series, the origin of all true numbers and therefore all magnitudes, measures and materiality (Dinglichkeit). In the group of the Pythagoreans (the date does not matter) its figured sign was also the symbol of the mother womb, the origin of all life. The digit 2, the first true number, which doubles the 1, was therefore correlated with the male principle and given the sign of the phallus. And, finally, 3, the “holy number” of the Pythagoreans, denoted the act of union between man and woman, the act of propagation — the erotic
suggestion: in adding and multiplying (the only two processes of increasing, of propagating, magnitude useful to Classical man) is easily seen — and its sign was the combination of the two first. Now, all this throws quite a new light upon the legends previously alluded to, concerning the sacrilege of disclosing the irrational. The irrational — in our language the employment of unending decimal fractions — implied the destruction of an organic and corporeal and reproductive order that the gods had laid down. There is no doubt that the Pythagorean reforms of the Classical religion were themselves based upon the immemorial Demeter cult. Demeter, Gaea, is akin to Mother Earth. There is a deep relation between the honour paid to her and this exalted conception of the numbers.

Decline of the West

Bolton, Kerry wrote:

'

Yockey wrote:

As Zionists they are committed to the destruction of Western civilization

and hence in this sympathise with any anti-Western state or movement including Russia, although as leaders of the USA they must maintain Western technics and wealth: "In a word they are working simultaneously for an against Western civilization.' Russia represents 'Stupidity'; the Zionist-run west, 'Malice'. The play on the world stage is entitled 'Where Ignorant armies Clash by Night': '

Yockey wrote:

The producer is destruction, and the company is called The Forces of Darkness.

Yocke's premise might seem off: that the Jewish-American leadership strata can be both pro- and anti-Western simultaneously; both pro- and anti-Russian. However, it is well known that many parasites have an innate tendency to destroy their won host, and hence themselves. While Yockey does not use this precise analogy it does accord with his idea of Culture-pathology.

Yockey - a Fascist Odyssey

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” (Greek proverb) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Wrath Of Gnon (@wrathofgnon) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Spengler, Otto wrote:

A strict morphology of all the morales is a task for the future. Here, too, Nietzsche has taken the first and essential step towards the new standpoint.
But he has failed to observe his own condition that the thinker shall place himself “beyond good and evil.” He tried to be at once skeptic and prophet, moral critic and moral gospeler. It cannot be done. One cannot be a first class psychologist as long as one is still a Romantic. And so here, as in all his crucial penetrations, he got as far as the door — and stood outside it. And so far, no one has done any better. We have been blind and uncomprehending before the immense wealth that there is in the moral as in other form languages. Even the skeptic has not understood his task; at bottom he, like others, sets up his own notion of morale, drawn from his particular disposition and private taste, as standard by which to measure others. The modern revolutionaires — Stirner, Ibsen, Strindberg, Shaw — are just the same; they have only managed to hide the facts (from themselves as well as from others) behind new formulas and catchwords.
Had Nietzsche regarded his own times with fewer prejudices and less disposition to romantic championship of certain ethical creations, he would have perceived that a specifically Christian morale of compassion in his sense
does not exist on West European soil. We must not let the words of humane formulas mislead us as to their real significance. Between the morale that one has and the morale that one thinks one has, there is a relation which is very obscure and very unsteady, and it is just here that an incorruptible psychology would be invaluable. Compassion is a dangerous word, and neither Nietzsche himself — for all his maestria — nor anyone else has yet investigated the meaning — conceptual and effective — of the word at different times. The Christian morale of Origen’s time was quite different from the Christian morale of St. Francis’s. This is not the place to enquire what Faustian compassion — sacrifice or ebullience or again race instinct in a chivalrous society — means as against the fatalistic Magian-Christian kind, how far it is to be conceived as action at a distance and practical dynamic, or (from another angle) as a proud soul’s demand upon itself, or again as the utterance of an imperious distance feeling. A fixed stock of ethical phrases, such as we have possessed since the Renaissance, has to cover a multitude of different ideas and a still greater multitude of different meanings. When a mankind so
historically and retrospectively disposed as we are accepts the superficial as the real sense, and regards ideals as subject matter for mere knowing, it is really evidencing its veneration for the past — in this particular instance, for religious tradition. The text of a conviction is never a test of its reality, for
man is rarely conscious of his own beliefs. Catchwords and doctrines are always more or less popular and external as compared with deep spiritual actualities. Our theoretical reverence for the propositions of the New
Testament is in fact of the same order as the theoretical reverence of the Renaissance and of Classicism for antique art; the one has no more transformed the spirit of men than the other has transformed the spirit of
works. The oft quoted cases of the Mendicant Orders, the Moravians and the Salvation Army prove by their very rarity, and even more by the slightness of the effects that they have been able to produce, that they are exceptions in a quite different generality — namely, the Faustian-Christian morale. That morale will not indeed be found formulated, either by Luther or by the Council of Trent, but all Christians of the great style — Innocent III and Calvin, Loyola and Savonarola, Pascal and St. Theresa — have had it in them, even in unconscious contradiction to their own formal teachings.

Decline of the West

"The culture of advertising eroded our capacity to dinstinguish between the truths and the lies."
— James H. Kunstler, Geography Of Nowhere [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Wrath Of Gnon (@wrathofgnon) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]