Challenging Atheism and Libertarianism

Quote :

Religion is opium for the people. - K. Marx

This is a propaganda phrase by Marx, so that he was able to implement his own Religion: Statism.
Take the religion away from people and you take their heart away and you make them rats in a cage, that act by your commands.





"Gnosticism" is the religion of the money elites.

Paganism has potential to free people. Whereas atheism is the seed for communism. It is the foundation of Statism. I see that very clear today.

I've met and talked to a lot of Libertarians and that is their big blind spot. They reject the state and the marxist approach, terminology ect.., but they fall into the same trap, except that they never even get to power, because they reject that too. They reject politics. But their ideology is not so different. They too are atheists. They consider themselves rational and so on. Social, even. Humanitarians.

Paganism is the opposite of Atheism! Paganism is contrary to Gnosticism too. But even Gnosticism is more powerful than Atheism. That's why the money elites have more order, than the atheist or exoteric, blind-believing, god-fearing, judeo-christian masses. Because they are esotericists. Not of the highest kind, like in my opinion Paganism is, but at least with more sense than the nihilistic atheists and the judeo-christian believers.

The God Debate is a fake one! Where is Nietzsche in that debate? Which side is he represented by? Exactly, he is not represented by either side. And that shows you that these debates are worthless entertainment for the masses. Nietzsche may be looked at as an atheist, but todays atheists reject him. Especially the Libertarians. Because he was no humanist. He was an Elitist.

Libertarians basically just worship the Economy. That is the kind of empty capitalism, like in Japan today, that leads people to depression and suicide, breaks up families and takes away peoples reason to live. Libertarians are arrogant. They are market supremacists. New rich, some of them. Ambitious. All of that. I like them better than any leftists. But I haven't met an elitist amongst them. All I hear them say is that the market takes care of everything and we need less bureaucracy. That's their whole slogan. But the structures have grown over the years. Here is the essential Tarpley vs Kokesh.



There is another one, where he buries Alex Jones, from the same week. I'll spare you that. Or in case somebody has a lot of time:



Now Tarpley is a democrat, but his criticism is right on. Like Hitler was right too from what I get from the first chapters of "Mein Kampf" in evaluating the political situation back then. Critique and good evaluation are but a necessary first step. But not everything.

Religion is institutionalized spirituality.
Marx was right.
Without religion there is no possibility for civilization.

Plato, through Socrates, was correct when he realized his original mistake in spreading scepticism amongst the youths who had no capacity to make use of it and who were lead to disillusionment and to totalitarianism.
Only a few, the Philosopher Kings, if you will, can tolerate the idea of a world with no god, and not go mad.
The masses must be given an authority, beyond the corporeal and the attainable, to scare them towards self-discipline, and most need it to remain sane.
But spirituality can come in many varieties.
In my mind Paganism is the absence of A God.
It worships nature, which is a vague reference to the processes (forces, conditions) that participate in existence or, more precisely, in the emergence of an ability to perceive (sensation, consciousness) existence.
In Paganism there is no overruling authority, for all are part of the same entropic decay.

Originally the Greeks (and many other pagan tribes, I'm sure) worshipped no gods. They paid homage to their ancestors, offering them food and wine – pouring it over their graves – and from them they asked for guidance.

This is what I do.

If I pray and at times seek help and guidance it is not from some fantastic, supernatural;, projection of human nihilism, but from a known persona and figure in my own family.
In his image I see my entire past. When preying I ask for my past to come to the aid of my consciousness, which is struggling.
This past is me, since I am the result of it. So, in effect, I am digging into my psyche, connecting to my entire past through every cell in my body.

It’s akin to lucid meditation.

All this talk about Republicans and Democrats leaves me drowsy.
We have the same system wanting to control the same mass of people trying to find a happy medium between necessity and individuality.
It is a debate over methods of husbandry at any given time. As circumstances change so must the methods of farming change accordingly.
The masses must be kept asleep, hedonistic, materialistic and unaware.

I really do not care to save the herds.

As long as there are no accessible frontiers any method applied which keeps these dumb oxen working and docile and timid is fine by me.

Lucidity should be about seeing for your own benefit. To laugh at the shopping sprees and promiscuity talking about love
and loyalty and depth, and be unaffected by it.
But we are social animals and our method of reproduction does force a social structure and an (inter)action of sorts, therefore the question comes down to taste, and remaining indifferent by a world you are forced to exist within.
If we consider Hegel's master<>slave dynamic then we must recognize that what separates the master from the slave is a degree of need.

Both need each other and are dependent upon one another, but to different degrees.
They are, in fact, not representations of opposites, no more than Masculine Nihilism is the opposite of Feminine
Nihilism. Both approach the same outcome form different directions and with different attitudes.

The real antithesis to the master<>slave dynamic is indifference; to not care to be either master or slave.
And the antithesis to Female Nihilism (Absolute Chaos/Randomness/Emptiness) and Masculine Nihilism (Absolute Order/Predictability/God) is existence.

Quote :

Only a few, the Philosopher Kings, if you will, can tolerate the idea of a world with no god, and not go mad.

That's why I reject the promotion of Atheism. It's the WORST thing for the masses. They do go mad.

Quote :

The masses must be given an authority, beyond the corporeal and the attainable, to scare them towards self-discipline, and most need it to remain sane.

Exactly and the consumerism of today is a replacement for the dead god.

Quote :

In Paganism there is no overruling authority,

Yes.

Quote :

for all are part of the same entropic decay.

Yes, but Paganism also gives sense to life. Atheism on the other hand just hits you in the face with the feeling of decay.

Quote :

I really do not care to save the herds.

But the herds do effect you too. And there needs to be some sort of soil for even you to exist. Communism is the worst of all possibilities for any kind of free speech, such as on this forum here.

Quote :

But we are social animals and our method of reproduction does force a social structure and an (inter)action of sorts, therefore the question comes down to taste, and remaining indifferent by a world you are forced to exist within.

With this topic, I just want to refute this newest of trends: Libertarianism. The Ron Paul movement, because it is still most popular. And these people consider themselves elitists too and all knowing, like the MRAs. Libertarianism was a third option, kind of. It was neither Republican nor Democrat. I compare it to tibetan Buddhism. It's a creeping poison. Not like the Pope, who is openly criticized and ridiculed by many, but more like the Dalai Lama. The friendly optimistic psychopath from next door. Patrick Bateman.

In Paganism we get the sense for a coming and going of things. A circle of life. Not just senseless decay everywhere like with atheism. In nature we have the seasons. Spring, summer, autumn and winter. Every winter (death) is followed by a spring (birth). For birth to be, there's gotta be death. And putting death at the end is a mere human standard measurement. Our calander year for example ends in the middle of winter. The astrological spring doesn't start until near the end of March. The modern atheist has an attitude: "après moi, le déluge". They don't care for future generations, because they have no sense for nature. They don't care about nature. Like these MRA. They hate nature. (the feminine) And that's why they debate fundamentalist believers, but feel so comfortable in their midst. Because they are not opposites. They both hate nature. They are anti nature. Atheism isn't a sub-category of Paganism. Atheists ridicule Paganism, from their "superior rationality". They look down upon nature from their modernistic high horse of science-worship. Atheists don't procreate either. Their family is the state. And their parents: politicians and other officials. You will never get an atheist to "convert" to Paganism. Pagans however likely would call themselves atheists.

This is the most famous youtube atheist talking about Paganism or what he understood of it. (Nothing.) His foul language is exemplary of the majority of these people. Dawkins just has british manners, that prevent him to use these words.

This turd seems to have confused paganism with emo kids.


Another victim of modernity.

He was molested as a child.

Satire (NSFW): [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Atheism is but an interesting facade people put on to appear more intellectual, than they are. It has become synonymous with the "New Atheists" that intellectally debated and defeated the fundamental Religions of the Middle Ages, in recent years. Mostly modern sceptics. With one evolutionary Biologist, a journalist, a philosopher, a neuro-scientist, a physicist. Mostly harmless nerds. Nice consumers and next door democrats. Humanists.

Paganism on the otherhand...can't have that in a society. Must ridicule these individuals...make fun of their gods like Zeus or Odin...

They don't get the difference between the pagan gods and the judeo-christian one god. They don't even try. Why are there multiple gods? Why do they act like regular humans? Why do they have human features, drink beer or wine, have women, ...? Why do they have the same emotions and problems that we do? Why do they experience the same struggles? Why do these stories of the gods exist? Why are there no commandments? No mission? No converting? Why are there so many references to nature within these stories? Why is nature painted as being alive? Isn't it sinful in the Bible?

So these intellectuals haven't even dealt with Paganism. They just put it together with the Arabic Culture, so they don't have to deal with it's fundamental difference and can place THEMSELVES as this fundamental difference towards Judeo-Christianity. WHICH THEY ARE NOT. As humanists. They simple are scientifically more ambitious, but hold the same humanitarian beliefs, that are devoid of human nature, want to suppress it and extinguish it, to paint their nice picture of the "good man", the man that is above his nature.

Then we have the Gnostic tradition. That was kept secret throughout the ages. But they have an esoteric quite contrary interpretation of the Bible. There the old testament god being Lucifer. (See John 8,44

Jesus to the Jews:

Quote :

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

or the temptation of Jesus in the desert or the Book of Job). That clearly underline this reading. So the "New Atheists" ignore this whole hermetic occult tradition also. The Kabbala as well. Goethe revealed some of it within his Faust. Today it's more common knowledge. More openly available. Also horrible diffused and confusing.

Paganism today is merely to be found in the genre of "Fantasy" and thereby belittled and ridiculed. Pushed aside into the "fiction" area of unscientific superstition. The Fantasy genre draws heavily from Paganism. For example the Lord of the Rings is influenced by the Nibelungen Saga and the Nordic Edda.

What the New Atheists try to do is paint every Religion as anti-scientific and hindering progress, even those that are pro nature and describe real natural processes and real human nature as well. New Atheists like to think of themselves as purely rational, with no kind of sexdrive whatsoever. (Dawkins as the most obvious example of suppressed nature, as Apaosha pointed out correctly.) No emotions either. Pure intellect.

This suppression gives leeway to tibetan Buddhism (and new-age nonsense also), which is considered harmless, because it promotes the same judeo-christian, humanitarian ideals. Which is also an export from Asia and can not connect westerners to their national territorial roots.

Regarding the superstition:

"Magic" is Philosophy. It's just the natural more female side of it. To study it bears power. Take Thors hammer. It was described as some kind of a super weapon. But why does it have to be considered fantasy? Look at todays weapons, they too would have looked "supernatural" to people 100 years ago. But they were developed by scientific research.

We must take into consideration the fact, that the Middle Ages in Europe were a dumbing down, and that cultures/civilizations with advanced technologies may very well have existed long before our modern times. See Erich van Däniken and others for infos.

Heroes

The New Atheists promote no kind of heroism. Instead you are lead to believe that this bunch represents the scientific elite and has your best interest at heart. And you should instead follow them, like in Communism. They even work on unitarian and humanitarian manifestos. For the good of all people, except maybe muslims. It's a Brave New World of scientific government they are aiming at, with them as the elite. No psychological insides are promoted. No races, no sexes, no male-female dynamic. Instead: Egalitarianism. Just genes. Just material, that can be mixed however you like. No sexuality, just stimulation of nerves. A transhumanist future. Transcending the human, making him superhuman, but unlike the Titans from the greek Mythology, w/o any knowledge of their past and where they came from, who they are. And no goal but progress itself. Progress for the sake of progress.

In Paganism on the other hand heroism is the other side of the gods. It's the same stories, just in the human realm. And it doesn't have to be about slaying dragons. For example the tragedy of "Oedipus the King" would be considered a heroic journey. It is representing every mans archetypical journey through life. Making the tragedy (play) by Sophocles a spiritual/psychological cleansing for the audience experiencing it, back in those days, like todays Batman-Movies. It works better than any psychotherapie, and is in fact just that, because it offers role-models, a path to go and shows someone who has the courage to do so. (Like Prometheus, but he was a Titan, so half-man and half-god, that's why I stick with Oedipus here.) The 3 stages in life being: Corinth, Thebes and Colonus. Representing: Childhood, Adulthood, and (wise) Old Age. Not everybody leaves Korinth, because it's the childish place, without very much responsibility. Today many people don't go the whole path of Oedipus and stay in Corinth. From the parents, to the father state, the father in heaven. Parents just get switched. But the "grown-up" person of adult age stays a child, even after his/her parents are long gone. It's a state of delusion. This is because today we lack an initiation ritual into adulthood. The initiation ritual in puberty (usually accompanied by a task to prove courage, like in the Movie "300") set the initiates off to adulthood. Which is a phase of rebellion against the established order, seeking for answers, creation, procreation, but also many mistakes and stumbling, falling and confusion. (Which is necessary to reach the 3rd phase though. And a part many of todays man-children would like to skip, by becoming academics and getting diplomas instead.) The last part in life is a coming back. Looking back at what was achieved and ordering the useful and cutting off the not useful. It is the most aware phase of realization. Seeing beyond the outer appearances of phenomena. Represented by the blind seer Thereisias and the blind Oedipus in the last part of the tragedy.

Todays Batman myth as told by the movies, hasn't reached this 3rd phase yet, but certainly plays in Thebes and not in Corinth anymore, because the Batman challenges his fears and is struggling in the world. That is significant for the second phase, beyond childhood. Maybe at the end of "Dark Knight Rises" he has overcome the second phase and entered the realm of Colonus.

Oedipus is the archetype for the heroical journey of man. The essence of any mans spiritual journey in life, in whichever form it may manifest itself in reality.

And isn’t every pop-cultural icon a caricature playing out this journey to a crowed that experiences it second-hand, and so remains adolescent but feeling like he has gone through the trials?

For one thing "pop-cultural" icons are based on ancient pagan tales. They are all deeply rooted within a past, aside from the judeo-christian narrative.

Secondly YES, the viewer of, for example, a Batman movie or a Sophocles play in the old days, feels like he goes through the trials. Aristotle describes this in his "Poetics", the recipient lives through the experience on the stage/the screen and experiences a Catharsis in the end. But all life is based on Mimesis ("imitation" or "representation").
That's why the Jesus myth has grown so popular. Don't we all feel like we have to carry a heavy cross? and so on. So I agree with the part of your statement, where you state that the viewer feels like he himself has gone through the trials, even if he has just watched a movie sitting on his sofa. And he also remains adolescent for the time being. But there is a seed implanted within him, that can now start to grow and that wasn't there before. An idea has been put in his mind. A role model, that he can now imitate, within his own limits and niche in life. The adolescent watching a Batman-movie does not become Batman himself, but he might find a sense for his life, a purpose in that case to do good, help others ect.. He might also feel inspired by a villain like the Joker and be exceedingly active in a egoistic way. It is a form of "magic" that is happening here, it is not a conscious process, but a subconscious transformation process, that occurs involuntarily. It is not like a philosophy lecture or a rule book, but something that effects the subconscious of a person. A connection that these icons establish with the viewer. Something that makes this form of "entertainment", more valuable than any Psychotherapy, that just looks at the problems, the symptoms, but cannot offer solutions, because they lack the tools that only art like this can provide in their full spectrum. Today movies are great with images, sound and special effects, that work themselves deep into the psyche of the viewer.

So the "second hand" metaphor doesn't fit. It's an engaging experience with all senses (like the clip I posted in "Height of courage", that makes my hands sweaty watching it), that engages more than one sense and lets you experience the struggle yourself. It's not first hand, because you are safe from falling or getting hurt yourself, as a mere viewer. But you grow more confident. This is the reason why I do not totally dismiss video games either. Even if I don't play them myself and haven't much done so in the past either.

Second hand because the experience is transmitted by an otherness and lived vicariously.
The experience is easy, and so the mind grows irrationally confident and begins to belittle all experiences which are then associated with this fake one.
He sits there, watches a hero go through trials and tribulations, and he feels empowered, as if he were the hero.
The experience seems simple, easy, until he tries to replicate it. Then the mind fails and belittles the second-hand experience as nonsense and fantasy. Now anything associated with the images or the terms used are considered a joke. The mind is jaded, primarily because it cannot meet the criteria he experiences vicariously.
The mythoplasts are in on the joke.
They want the spectator to know that it’s all fake.
In this way the ideas, ideals, connected with the storyline are slandered. The Hollywood ending also offers a moral message: it accepts the ideals, belittles them and then presents a negative outcome for whomever might still remain inspired by it.

Quote :

The experience is easy, and so the mind grows irrationally confident and begins to belittle all experiences which are then associated with this fake one.

No. Not irrationally confident. The mind can still distinguish between the "reality" on the screen and the real world.

Quote :

He sits there, watches a hero go through trials and tribulations, and he feels empowered, as if he were the hero.
The experience seems simple, easy, until he tries to replicate it.

No one tries to replicate it one by one. It's an impulse. A metaphysical impulse.

Quote :

Then the mind fails and belittles the second-hand experience as nonsense and fantasy. Now anything associated with the images or the terms used are considered a joke. The mind is jaded, primarily because it cannot meet the criteria he experiences vicariously.

No. That's a too pessimistic view.

Quote :

The mythoplasts are in on the joke.
They want the spectator to know that it’s all fake.
In this way the ideas, ideals, connected with the storyline are slandered. The Hollywood ending also offers a moral message: it accepts the ideals, belittles them and then presents a negative outcome for whomever might still remain inspired by it.

I don't understand this passage fully, but it's too pessimistic. The Matrix Trilogy never inspired me at all. I understand your cricism of the Hollywood Hannibal ending. The first Batman of the trilogy left me pretty unmoved. But the second and third are off the charts perfect. The second one, with the Joker, who turns the White Knight into a Dark Knight...
Batmans weakness is his compassion for the masses (growing up as an orphan he depended on the masses, so he feels like he is in karmic debt), so that's why the Catwoman is introduced in this latest movie, as someone who shows Batman that he is being altruistic and making a fool of himself for people who are not worth it. No happy ending there! Just more work to become whole. After all the action is over, Bruce Wayne has to face his demons. Merging with his shadow.

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

Pessimistic?
Now that’s funny.

Batman is a Platonic figure.
He sacrifices self for the salvation of the many.
He returns from the desert a changed man.
He is moral, in the Christian sense of the word.

What is dark about him is that he knows it, like Jesus did, that he fights for those that will never understand or appreciate his pains.
He’s Socrates killing himself to make a point to the blind.
A tragic comedic figure…and the Joker laughs at him.
The audience is Batman’s redemption. They can appreciate his goodness and his suffering, like you do.
Through him they avenge themselves against those who are beyond good and evil, or at least beyond the Christian version of good, but also against those they remain moral and good towards but who can never appreciate it in them.
Batman is a Christian figure.

Jesus, too, had to “face his demons,” or THE Demon….his own Joker.
The Joker is a modernistic version of the Satyr…

And we all help you to become more of a Satyr on here, Apollo. At least I do. Open yourself up to the female side. The wisdom of nature. It's not all rationality like those New Atheists preach, but instincts. Perception on all levels. I love the Joker. He got me interested in the movies in the first place. I didn't come to "like" the Batman until the last movie, because now I see his journey. And the tragic comedy about it. (Plus the documentary you posted.)

You're Apollo, so your shadow is Dionysus and the Satyrs. (You've made your Avatar your goal. That's what I did too: Laconian.)

Have you ever thought that there are way more Jokers out there, than Batmans or Jesuses or Socrateses. Whatever they call themselves: Christians, Atheists, whatever. All labels without meaning. Fucking fashions, lifestyles, no more. Pretentious peer pressure, mostly inherited. You know how you shouldn't listen to womens words, but look at their actions instead... The 2nd movie was so well received, because of the Joker. He's within all of us and way more in those, that deny him completely, than in those that are aware of his qualities. So you are a Jesus figure, a male hero, a tragic comedic ... sorry, I'm a little drunk. Cheers to you, Apollo! You are my hero! And I bet for many on here too. You are the rarity. And that is no Satyr. I know plenty of Satyrs and you're not one, like I am no Laconian, but a chatterbox. I'm drinking whiskey. Fuck normal people.



In an insane society the Joker in that movie was the sane one and Batman the villain for trying to stop him, that's why Batman couldn't kill him in the end. Couldn't do it, because he hadn't yet learnt his lesson from the Joker. So the Catwoman in the next part represents the same principle in a lighter fashion. More reachable and understandable for the Batman. "similia similibus curentur" (lat.) "Let similar things take care of similar things." She is more similar in her outlook with the Batman than the Joker was. So he may learn his lesson from her. She also looks hot, so he might get closer with her.

But of course there are more satyrs than Apollos out there.
This on-line persona is me being more of a Satyr than they are. It's a caricature of their normality.

Satyr is my mask.
My internet personae; my social personae.
In many ways it is contrary to my real self, or perhaps it is but a part of me; the part I express the most in public.

Maybe it is my Apollonian side which is being hidden.

Very few have managed to see that this persona is really the opposite of who I am in real life.
I never lie about my opinions but the way I express them and the character I am on-line, or was on other forums, is really an extreme side of me.
Here, in this forum, I am more myself.
This is why I’ve chosen a different avatar.

Satyr wrote:

Originally the Greeks (and many other pagan tribes, I'm sure) worshipped no gods. They paid homage to their ancestors, offering them food and wine – pouring it over their graves – and from them they asked for guidance.

This is what I do.

If I pray and at times seek help and guidance it is not from some fantastic, supernatural;, projection of human nihilism, but from a known persona and figure in my own family.
In his image I see my entire past. When preying I ask for my past to come to the aid of my consciousness, which is struggling.
This past is me, since I am the result of it. So, in effect, I am digging into my psyche, connecting to my entire past through every cell in my body.

It is this concept which attracted me most to this forum.

I went through an "atheism" phase as a teenager. I'm so thankful Youtube didn't exist then or I would have been caught up in this internet "Skepticism" guru orgy. Richard Dawkins would have been my ersatz father figure. I've had a few arguments with friends who are only now reaching this phase. They worship the likes of James Randi, Christopher Hitchens, and Dawkins. It's been good exercise for me to talk with them, finding how to pick the right battles. Or if it's even worth it.

On my winter vacation I'll be visiting some old friends back in the States. If I were to explain to them this ancestral piety, my longing to connect with my past--and my despair that I may never find such "personas" as Satyr says--they would just joke that I have spent too much time in Asia. Think about how sad that is for the West. Americans in particular are actually PROUD of this. Germans as well, perhaps, Laconian?

Laconian wrote:

Quote:

"The experience is easy, and so the mind grows irrationally confident and begins to belittle all experiences which are then associated with this fake one."


No. Not irrationally confident. The mind can still distinguish between the "reality" on the screen and the real world.

Not the feminine or feminized mind. Not children's minds. Think about it; if you are correct here, then Hollywood would not have the power it has. Mass propaganda and advertising wouldn't be able to mold people's prejudices as well as they do. Women in particular, and of courses children, are the easiest to mold. Your mind may be able to discriminate, but you must remind yourself that most dumbfucks do not analyze the shit they let into their brains. They emerge from the cinema feeling enlightened and smug because they saw Morgan Freeman roll his eyes at his clueless white sidekick and say something quasi-profound. Considering I barely escaped this kind of life, I know how strong the movies are. Especially in America. Surely you get what I'm saying here?

Maybe that's not really the point...Satyr says the viewer tries to replicate what he has seen on the screen, finds it too difficult, and then dismisses it all as useless fantasy. I would agree for many people this is the case. As a result the myth becomes like the transcendent God, like Yahweh...inaccessible. The viewer has a love/hate relationship with these myths of the modern hero like Batman, just as the Jew or Christian has a love/hate relationship with the God who remains hidden and irrelevant to their material lives. Jadedness, nihilism, etc., follow in the wake of this disillusionment perhaps. In a real Culture, the cinema would reflect the living traditions of the society.

For instance, in much Korean pop cinema the hero is a husband or wife who struggle to maintain their sanity against overwhelming odds and hold their family together. Keeping the family together is THE most important thing. I'm thinking of the movie "Yeongasi" in particular. I imagine a family man saying to himself: "If I were in this situation, I would have to do that. Or I would die trying." And I believe he really would. No nonsense about saving "humanity." You save your family. That's what you exist for.

Such heroism would not even make sense in modern urban America. I defy any Hollywood team to produce such a thing, using the majority white population as its template.

Not to sharply compare and contrast as if Korea is a "real" culture and the Anglosphere is not. But the family-centeredness is a stark difference. Asian culture has not been infected so deeply with the Judeo-Christian virus.

Yes...the movie presents the viewer with a caricature.
The writer, director winks at the audience, letting him know that he is in on the fallacy. He knows the movie is a fantasy and that the audience shares in this knowledge.

The imagery is so fantastic, even if the ideas and ideals are more real than the world outside the theater.
It is now forever connected with the movie. The average movie watcher is introduced to certain ideas only through these mass media pop-cultural mediums.
The idea(l) is now ridiculous, even if for those two hours it absorbed him.

Some do connect on a more visceral level, but are now ensconced by the images and the methods used to introduce these ideas and ideals to him.
These ideas speak to him, but they are forever connected with the medium through which it was made tangible to him.

Does anyone think that the system would allow, promote, and disseminate material that challenges its premises?
Who funds these productions?
Who writes them?
Why are they all “happy endings” or moral stories of good versus bad?
Why do they all share the same premises even if they momentarily entertain some challenging ideas?
Why are these ideas immersed in fantastic violence and brutality and action?

The one who know “know” that certain ideas are out there, and that certain minds are more sophisticated to fall for the usual materialism hedonistic propaganda crap.
Repressing it would pressurize these ideas and make them explosive.

This is the modern sophistication of mass population control or human husbandry at work.
No authoritarianism, violence, required because this only makes things worse in the long run. The first stage is indoctrination, from a young age.
Then the minds institutionalization within principles and premises it cannot think outside.
The few who get away are then placated using these last methods.

They feed the dissatisfaction, the blooming awareness, then leading it back to the original premises.
Certain ideas are never challenged: equality, the notion of one humanity, rights, deserving or entitlement, the absolute (good/evil, bad/good, friend/foe).
The mind is mesmerized by the images of ideals he feels in his own self or has come into contact with through other sources (books, alternative culture, underground sharing, peers, and most often family, particularly the father etc.)
They cannot repress this. They deal with it with these methods.
They feed into them, turn them into consumer goods, symbolisms, and then lead them back to the status quo by insinuating the common morays into the storyline.
There’s almost always also a hint of a threat. The one representing the unwanted ideal suffers some great tragedy in the film, or the book.
The herd exacts tis vengeance upon al that do not fall into line.

Satyr wrote:

The first stage is indoctrination, from a young age.
Then the minds institutionalization within principles and premises it cannot think outside.
The few who get away are then placated using these last methods.

They feed the dissatisfaction, the blooming awareness, then leading it back to the original premises.

I think of the villains in Dark Knight Rises. Ra's al Ghul represents the return of Traditionalism in a Dark Age. It was impossible for me to watch this movie and not see the connection. They think Gotham, the modern megalopolis, is wretched and pitiful, let's just push it over. Let it burn and start all over again. They even cynically exploit the proletarian mass, telling them to take over the city, because they know this will turn the place upside down and destroy it.

But HEY! HERE COMES BATMAN to reassure us all that No, no no no no no......HUMANITY IS WORTH SAVING!!! They took it to such an extreme that he detonates a fucking atom bomb. And somehow survives. For what? As I sat in the theatre I couldn't imagine how anyone wouldn't want Bane to have his way. But then again I'm not an urbanite and have always felt a disconnect from the cultural centers of the U.S. (That's a strength we midwesterners and southerners have.)

Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents said somewhere that he has gotten orders for titles by Savitri Devi et al, from Hollywood screenwriters. You are always being watched.

Satyr wrote:

The imagery is so fantastic, even if the ideas and ideals are more real than the world outside the theater.
It is now forever connected with the movie. The average movie watcher is introduced to certain ideas only through these mass media pop-cultural mediums.
The idea(l) is now ridiculous, even if for those two hours it absorbed him.

Some do connect on a more visceral level, but are now ensconced by the images and the methods used to introduce these ideas and ideals to him.
These ideas speak to him, but they are forever connected with the medium through which it was made tangible to him.

I've experienced this with ideas presented here as well, mostly through video games. Just by an idea being presented through a video game, it automatically makes it 'unreal' because of the medium it was presented in. The closest the average white male in the USA has contact with cruelty now is through video games where they vent their masculine energy. Remaining children, they wouldn't see the difference between the virtual world and the real world. Just like a boy is scared by the thought of boogiemen in their closets. They're told a story and imagine it as real. Ideas become real to them.

Any form of media is then equated to this - it would be considered laughably immature to fear (respect and thus take seriously) any message presented from a source that isn't socially accepted as being trustworthy. Your only options to take seriously are news TV stations and government approved books (college, high school, etc.) Anything else is considered unreliable, including your own senses, instincts and rationality.

This is an insidious method of mind manipulation.
You make the real seem unreal and the unreal real.

This is what Nihilism does.
It turns the world on its head.

It’s also a way of expunging pre-existing natural inclinations.
You set up an artificial world within which the participants can react naturally.
This feels pleasing to them.
But by associating it to medium and artificial avenues you discredit it.

Meanwhile outside this medium you establish an artificial reality where all are equal, deserving, protected, certain…safe.
In other words you set-up a false reality. It is obvious that the seductiveness of the latter exceeds the pleasure of self-expression in the first.
The path-of-least-resistance is used here to exploit a basic, natural, organic tendency to minimize costs and to be attracted to any semblance of order, and its parameters of certainty, predictability, safety.
The mind, being a product of more severe, austere, circumstances, is naturally attracted to safety, order predictability, abundance….just as it is inclined towards sugars and salts and fats, because it evolved in environments where these ingredients are rare, or, at least, not as easily accessible.

This makes it easily manipulated by the easy answer, the comfortable outcome, the least resistant.
Watch predators, what do they hunt?
The strongest, fastest, biggest, in relation to them….or the weakest, the slowest, the most vulnerable?
This is the tendency towards the path-of-least-resistance on display.
In inanimate reality this is exemplified by the vacuum. Actions always occurs towards the weakest point.
Air flows towards a vacuum; water flows downward and always through the weakest points in matter.

This is also why flow is characterized as a towards chaos….or a towards the void.
Will, guided by awareness interested in preserving and increasing order is the only thing which can go against this trend, this natural, feminine, tendency.
Only the Will can choose the path-of-most-resistance. It evolves to do this, of course, so as to gain an advantage over others.
This Will is the masculine drive.

The manipulation of this natural tendency for ease and comfort, is what underlies nihilism and the modern methodology of population control.

This is why in many of my posts I use the analogy of a river flowing down a mountain side, to describe what is occurring.
No conspiracies required. Man does not create the circumstances or natural processes. Man simply finds them, understands some aspects of their qualities, and tries to manipulate them to his advantage.
Therefore no grand scheme is necessary.
When a man creates electricity he does not invent this energy nor the liquid that he exploits to bring it about. He simply analyzes, understands, to some degree, and then manipulates, redirects, represses and releases…this is how man using dams and turbines and magnets and water and slopes and gravity can produce electricity.

Therefore man does not invent sexual differences or racial differences, he exploits them: repressing or releasing them at will, in accordance with his desirable outcome.
Those that imagine a human hand behind every natural event, like earthquakes or floods, or meteorites, are weaklings wanting an easy answer for a phenomenon that they cannot fully comprehend or come to terms with its unpredictability.
This need for certainty, even if it is one rooted in “evil,” is a by-product of this desire, this attraction to the path-of-least-resistance.
God is a perfect example of this…but amongst the secular kind He is sometimes replaced by rationalism or conspiracies that want to imagine a human hand behind every damn natural occurrence….this is a metaphor for wanting to think that there is an order, a meaning, a purpose, a reason, a Will, an ordering, behind every random event.
And what is another term for ”random”?
Yes…chaos.

The weakling unable to create and to be content with whatever level of order he can create must find it in otherness. This is the slave morality, the slave, herd, tendency in all its glory.
The uncertainty, the unpredictability, the chaos of existence must be remedies with fantasies about a Will, whether a God or a Human, lying behind and beneath and above it all.

But let me be clear, I am not saying that there are not men, groups, manipulating or trying to, processes and phenomena…but only that they do so with phenomena that already exist naturally.
Men did, indeed, invent marriage and monogamy but they did so by studying species who were monogamous by nature and by imposing a manmade ideal, morality, to impose a restriction of human nature…which they then denied as being real.
They did invent culture which resulted in symbols and traditions in dress code and spirituality and gender roles…but they did not invent the sexual types which were integrated within these gender roles.

It is nihilism, modernity, which attempts to discredit sexual types and racial types by convincing others – who are more than willing to be convinced – and themselves that all these natural categories are human constructs…when it is the elimination of them which is now becoming the prevailing, desirable, preferable, human construct.

They are not trying to redirect a naturally occurring phenomenon, give it a new symbolization, meaning, purpose, they are trying to eliminate it altogether.
This is what nihilism is.

They are not trying to convince all that the river should be taken this way, or that it should be exploited in that way, but that the river is a human fantasy…it does not actually exist.
In this case you do not need armed prison guards outside huge prison complexes, violence, authoritarianism….you’ve imprisoned the mind within cells it then upkeeps and remains within willfully.
Using peer pressure, morality, fear…indoctrination/institutionalization, you make of the individual his own prison guard. He restricts himself and punishes himself for breaking the rules.

Prisons and violence are used as a second level control for those that did not fully take to the training.

A basic element of institutionalization is that the ones exposed to it become enamoured with it. The regimentation, routines, ORDER, makes them feel safer than in a world of unpredictability.
This is order imposed and maintained from without….a submission to otherness, as an effect of this path-of-least-resistance.

Imagine…What makes infants and adolescents fearless?
The absence of experience with the world itself; the parent, the authority, stands in the way, blocking any negati8ve repercussions to their thoughtless curiosity.
This is a necessary part of development, but one men manipulate for their own reasons.
Maturation means stepping out of the parental protective shadow…no longer to play, blissfully, but to take care and to survive.
But it is easier to remain a child…it is seductive. This is why we worship youth in our time. It is like worshiping inexperience, naiveté, unfocused activity, stupidity…which we do.

This is how modernity becomes attractive to the average moron.
It is easy; it exploits his fears and preferences, and directs them; it knows human nature so as to dismiss it, from being knowable.

Good movies all deal in the grey areas. There is a cult around the Joker and Anakin Skywalker, just as around the Batman and the Jedis.

I learnt the most from movies, more than in school. I learnt that life isn't black or white, like the idea I was presented with in school. In movies I see other people struggle in similar ways than I do and I therefor am better capable to manage my own life, seeing them succeed one way or the other.

Samuel Hahnemann used the phrase: "Similia similibus curentur" (like cures like). It's a universal principle. You have to find the medicine that is the most similar (!) to your "disease", not different or the opposite. To find the cure you have to find the similar. ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) For example if I am feeling depressed: I don't watch a funny movie. Because it would be a medicine that is opposite to my "disease": depression. So it wouldn't help to cure me. No, I have to find a movie that is sad too. This way I can get cured. The very good movies contain a lot of medicine and thereby cure from all kinds of "disease". The most common "disease" of modernity being: lack of finding meaning or purpose in life, for a lack of role models.

If I am angry, I watch an angry movie. If I am happy, I watch a happy movie. It's all to get back into balance. Which is ultimately the state of health and wellbeing.

Satyr wrote:

In my mind Paganism is the absence of A God.

I consider myself a Pagan. And I do use the term "God". I even at times pray to "god". It just doesn't have anything to do with biblical stories. I pray to the whole cosmos. Nature as a whole. For me the term god is representative for this whole. I wouldn't know of any other suitable term. It comes naturally. So I don't imagine a deity there. I just go with the flow. Todays Paganism has become a fashion label (like everything else also) saying:" We are not Christians". But how better to SHOW you're not Christian, than to not constantly mention Christianity and how uniquely different you are from them as a Pagan. This is the path I am going with my Paganism.

Quote :

It worships nature, which is a vague reference to the processes (forces, conditions) that participate in existence or, more precisely, in the emergence of an ability to perceive (sensation, consciousness) existence.
In Paganism there is no overruling authority, for all are part of the same entropic decay.

I agree.

Quote :

Originally the Greeks (and many other pagan tribes, I'm sure) worshipped no gods. They paid homage to their ancestors, offering them food and wine – pouring it over their graves – and from them they asked for guidance.

Do you have any sources for that? That sounds really interesting. You also mentioned somewhere else, that the gods of ancient Greece actually came later and there was earlier Paganism.

You linked Paganism somewhere else heavily to Not-Knowing, so agnosis, which is close to scepticism. This might be a point where I'd disagree with you. Not claiming that I know, but the ancient Pagans knew a lot about nature and its processes and forces. And applied this knowledge too.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that the hearth was replaced by the TV screen in the second half of the 20th Century and has been replaced by lots and lots of Computerscreens and Smart Phones and the like in the 21st Century. Even family members cannot focus on one another anymore, the way they did before these new technologies.

If the families were still at the center (the basis) of politics and the state, we would't face the problems we face today, with out of control statism and markets. Todays religion is worship of money and work. Youth. The future. Progress. And the anti-nature god and otherworldly fantastic unorganic beliefs in a soul and paradies.

Just looking over a text like this: I feel its moral weight. And I feel like a featherweight compared to that. Like a liberal. This ancient time is gone for good. What of it is still manageable for our time? How do we get the out of control women back on track?, seems the most urgent question to me.

Drop out like the MGTOW (men going their own way)? Become cynics (or manwhores) like the playas? Try to change female nature like the MRAs?

I'd say to be really discriminatory in the own choice of women. Work with those that you get into contact with. (To even get into contact and them interested, do something to get in shape, to look a little more like an Apollo statue. Don't spoil them with money or presents. But show them an incentive on your side, that they possible might reach. Your own wealth is good enough. Don't share it with her.). And try to get them on track as best as possible. But don't waste time on the completely brainwashed ones, you cannot reach. Like cures like. Find someone like you. Tell women how to improve. Modernity is completely upside down. Sex was made into something women have and men want. (Peter Sloterdijk) In reality -and I believe this corresponds with the ancient greeks- the male is the truly aesthetic ideal of beauty. Not the woman. I think we should instruct women more on what they could do to please us. They are completely lost. The media kind of makes them narcissists... of course they have the potential in them. I've always seen myself as a teacher of women. Men should be teachers of women. Until they are married, then the husband should be her only teacher. My last experience was with the Buddhists. But I was lost there, because they were modern. So their ideals didn't match mine. That's a waste of time then. Even though I reached some women there, the indoctrination by the Lama(s) was too strong. They were the alphas and I was just supposed to be another follower.

I think we should instruct women more on what they could do to please us. They are completely lost.

I personally don't care about those women or men who are lost. The more I have contact with people, and learn what they are about, the less I care. Every experience teaches me that I have to take care of my self above all. I don't dream about any Utopias.

As long as I get through this world on my own, I could care less.

I don't know how you found this forum. In Spring/Summer this year Satyr made some youtube vids discussing different subjects, including the differences of the sexes. That's how I found him. He replied to and adressed some of the MRA (mens rights activists) directly in his vids and wrote in some of their comment sections. That caught my attention. (You find a link to his vids on this forum, someone saved them after they were flagged. youtube.com/user/stickysound)

We've witnessed with the rise of Feminism in the 70th up till now a breaking up of the family structure. The idea was to integrate women into the workforce, to get them to pay taxes too. This vid here explains it really good:



Since a few years or so there has been a growing counter movement. This MRA or MRM (mens rights movement). There are some youtubers who talk about it.

That's the background of me talking about this subject.