Making A List Of Quotations That Sum Up Some Worldviews Of Mine

 (This list will updated frequently)

literalism was the altar which religion is sacrificed upon

Unfortunately most of these authors, like Alexander Dugin, replace one hegemony with another which might not be suitable for the place its supposed to occupy, and end up making more of an ass out of themselves than what they're critiquing.

most Eastern cultures are built on eunuchs, living metaphorically through their institutions

People that don't pick a path to stick with will have their paths picked out for them

Marxism is ultimately, without a question a worship of the physical, on the altar of science, towards death's door, it is antihuman and machinelike and will make mankind obsolete, in dialectical fashion, the negation of human life into total mechanical process and finally the end of human usefulness, ground into the dirt by gears and molten steel, replacing the natural with the "unnatural"

The Soviet identity is constructed out of artifice, through the process of so-called "natural selection", it is rootless and fully made of artificial materials, where the man does not make his steel, the steel makes the man

the universe, besides being a product of God, is nothing more than forces of energy situating themselves in peculiar places

no one should sell their soul to something that already has been manifested in flesh

all religions are true in the right contexts

Just because a nation has a hard time creating new saints doesn't mean it's not worthy of redemption

I unironically believe that if enough time, money and elbow grease was involved, Bertrand Russell would have built a replica of the Tower Of Babel himself just so he could climb to the top of and say "what? I don't see God up here"

Jesus has probably revealed himself in many religions, however when Jesus revealed himself to be king of the jews, and you still have many of them saying "we're still waiting" im not so sure they're looking for him but rather something more sinister

Like Jim profit once said, paraphrasing, the quickest way to nip censorship in the bud is simply make banning illegal. Its not the internet's job to coddle you if someone said something that hurt your fanny. You can always just stop being online.

God is the idealized conception of mankind, and women are a derivative of man, greater than beasts but lesser than spirits, the general will of all mankind is to approve or disapprove all acts against the harmony of nature without conceding to authority, but rather reinforce acts which are constructive to the harmony of the state and excise outward the acts which divide men among themselves

most "peace activists" usually favor war if they're on the side of globalists

most corporations are in favor of shutting down free speech like they did in the Soviet Union or places like current day China, furthermore, people who talk about "there is no such thing as free speech" are often the same type of people who get offended when someone says "nigger" or "faggot", they're just being coy and facetious about it.

what even is "pure racism" or "pure misogyny"? there's no such thing as a "racist theory of economics" or "racist ontologies" in a pure form. nor "racist epistemology" these are just in their purest form, nothing more than spooks if nothing is attached to their identities. that's something I reiterated in my essays, that words with many definitions usually mean nothing at the end of the day, and unless they have actual branches of knowledge tied to them, cannot be used as ideological framing of any particular or broad concepts.

animals are conscious and are capable of having souls, just like mankind. but there are not capable of rational thinking, and since rational thinking divides man and beast ultimately, those with the ability to calculate whether something works in their interest versus what works against it, those that cannot master this simple exercise are not worth of guaranteeing rights for them, but rather watched over and cared over by those who CAN exercise rational judgement in their place.

the problem with feminism is essentially its a life-hating Malthusian ideology that believes only the top 1% of men should carry on their genes. its closely related by proxy to Marxism via Charles Darwin, essentially why its pro-abortion. guilt by association. it proposes that by giving women reproductive control, it attempts to reduce the population to allow more consumer goods to grow, when the more palatable solution would be to allow everyone to partake in more labor so the amount of consumer goods triples. not only that but it favors K-strategy which eventually will reduce the amount of people who are more or less mind-centric and more physical-centric, depleting the world of thinkers and the world will basically center around about a million controlled brutes where civilization will eventually stagnate and fall to anarchy.

if you live in darkness all your life, you will die in darkness as well

the entire concept of historical materialism denies a prime mover and is harmful to moral discourse, not only this but ontologically, it implies if something came from nothing and everything is a result of physical action, then all morals are based only upon the presumption of consequences, that is, the result of things happening, and not why they're wrong in the first place

transgender individuals are ontologically creations of humans, not a higher power, so it would logical proceed that they would never call God their father as they are a product of artifice and not found in nature

And why perchance, should anyone take anything seriously if Marxists never did? Everything about it them is about subversion which is sort of a hand maiden of irony which in turn is a hand maiden of comedy. A comedy of errors which has yet to actually formalize

Scientists should be disposed of unless they serve the zeitgeist of antiquity

while I'm all for having pets and treating them as "good boys and girls", the big issue is the infantilization of nature and treating animals as creatures that don't have their own natural "way of doing things", which is reflected in the domestication of men by females, the curtailing of certain behaviors such as brutal abation, and domination of lesser creatures and flaunting one's prowess, carnal or otherwise.

my general view on class distinctions is that the urban classes are too far gone into borgeiousie "lifestylism" to be redeemed and revolution must come the rural outbounds of society. of the former, that includes people that can be co-opted by moneyed interests, including scientists and philanthropists. so the revolution must happen outside city limits.the urban homeless could be a noble exception, however, many of them engage in behaviors that are exemplary of the post-modern condition, either by choice or by determination

Ideologies like Duginism want the destroy the west, there's not much difference between your average Dugin disciple and your average social justice warrior, they both have a singular, destructive goal in mind

I think the universe might repeat in any given direction, looping back in time back to where it began, hence the "infinite"

because history is geared towards the assimilation and destruction of all cultures, whether we like it or not, new cultures will arise out of the ashes of former cultures and the cycle begins again. look at how the Roman Empire dissapated with foreign invaders, and the mixing of genes created new cultural idenitities. Europeans may talk a big game about how much purer they are than say, Americans, but going farther back, their ancestors would consider them mongrels. its inescapable.

the idea of a great Satan is a theopolitical fiction that just depends on individual perspective, when in reality the great Satan transcends borders

Logical fallacies are just forms of morals used to debate people when actual "debate" or "conflict" in physical terms doesn't actually account for morals and is just a struggle for power.

Until men are thought of as more than the sum of their parts, so to speak, we will continue to have problems. from a reading of Aristotle's "Logic", we can deduce that there always something that gives an object or a person or a beast its "refinement" or particular significance, going by that, if we have ten guys named "Tom" there's one particular quality that separates A Tom from THE Tom. Hence, every man should thought of in this way. We're not mindless sperm guns.

the more complex and intriguing an art piece is, the more gatekeeping has to be done to protect its legacy. high art is for initiates only

Aristotle believed every substance had a unique character to define it attributes from other substances, following that, every man is unique from other men. Since men are unique among themselves, each one of them has a special place to fulfill in a society, however if we look at Hobbes and the school of legal positivism, one should not attempt to act against the interests of this society of great individuals. There are mental and physical properties, as Descartes believed, interpreted through our concepts and our souls/mind will exist beyond ourselves so acting in the interests of everyone else, these mental properties, if they are against the spirit of society will be phantoms that exist as a reminder of what evil things minds can create. By dwelling on a negative interpretation of the world, one will essentially produce something as equally as evil. So make sure to produce joyous thoughts!

The only alternative to religion is suicide

God the father is a corporeal substance that begat two distinctions, the son and holy ghost, the son is the word of the father given to the gentiles and the holy ghost is god/consciousness within his children. in order to receive his grace thereforth, people should seek him out in order reconcile the spirit with word.

A man without honor works against the teleological ends of society and should be viewed as a deviant on the level of pederasts

all things proceed from one substance, and gets divided into even numbers of ordered things that are direct oppositional substances, each with a consciousness of its own (plants, animals, humans) all things except rocks and dirt. the consciousness of these things can exist post-mortem and affect the consciousness of other beings anno domini, such as drive something to violence, mass death or other emotional affectations. see how a dead person can move people to sadness, anger, or regret, or how crows circle a dead person or animal, or how trees grow in places where one has fallen, etc etc.

voters have little control over the direct experiences of the intitution or experience of politicians, something can turn one from pro-gun to pro-gun control, from pro-life to pro-choice from pro-taxation to anti-taxation. the public wields very little influence on the personhood of politicians and what statues they set for rulership. One bad experience could turn someone you voted for to backpedal on their plans that you, yourself, voted them into place for that sole reason, so the best policy would be a direct democracy where a politician simply takes orders from the populace and does their bidding rather than representatives who set rules for the ruled.

the only way to "prove" the scientific method works is to use the scientific method on the scientific method to prove induction. however, this would create an infinite regress.

When people use the term "bodies" in discourse it makes me think they're either transgendered, mulatto or both. These people barely qualify as human so their first instinct is to dehumanize the English language

I would generally classify myself as a socialist and believe in the common welfare of the people, however, I generally think, for the good of the people, most people like to own things of their own merit and to have a bit self-reliance and taking that away sort of unpersons the individual, and in turn affects the general welfare of society at large.

so-called "mental disorders" are just different sets of personality typologies that need no "cure" but rather certain societal adjustments should be made to accommodate each and every one of them. to resist this is to pathologize alienation.

riddle me this, if evolutionary theory is true, wouldn't you think that, to use an example, ducks, bears, dolphins would have evolved at the same rate humans did from "apes" as you say to become as rational, thinking creatures who, in time, would develop their own technology and governmental systems and codes of ethics, natural science, and defense systems that would be able to rival our own in terms of abstraction and might, so in turn would have their own nations (not mere habitats mind you) that could defend themselves against the predations of other creatures (including our own) to ward off invasive populations (again, like our own) on a global scale?

We elect representatives who are supposed to do our bidding and We cannot control the free will of imperfect individuals who might change their views based on empirical observations, and politicians are known to go back on views that people have elected them to act on. Since we cannot trust a bureaucracy of representatives to tow the line of the peoples will, some changes should be made. thus, the vote must represent the collective will of the people who the sovereign puts into law, or what's the purpose of voting in the first place?

Denying moral goodness is the equivalent of denying ones one consciousness

 the problem with deterministic arguments against listening to foul music, whether religious or not, is that it doesn't account for personhood or a conscious actor between human and object. it would be one thing if people were just slaves to the world around them and let everything control them but such is not the case. like, video games don't necessarily make you violent, nor does listening to Deicide at loud volumes to the chagrin of your parents, housemate or landlord, except maybe being told to turn it down or threats of eviction, worse case scenario. however, to deny people have control over sensations that music, or movies or video games or tv, etc etc denies that the self even exists, that essentially we're just on auto-pilot or worse yet, part of the same primordial substance that produces such violence and innuendo, which if that's the case, we're just as guilty as what the rest of our existence embodies and nothing more. so its self-refuting.

the burden of proof, much like other rules of rhetoric and debate, acts as a gatekeeper of information exchange. its much better to throw all of that away in favor of a pluralistic epistemology, which allows for a wider contigency of knowledge attainment.

Live not, as you are other people, but rather other people are "you", everyone merely in this universe are just copies of you, if you hold idea "A", then it posits that everyone observed by you holds idea "A" as well.

If anything, an American Fascist movement must be strongly anti-Eurosceptic as well, as their interests are inamicable to our own like any other nation, and we should be focused on becoming distinct from other cultures, despite the similarities

Technology works as much as humanity gives it power, the more faith people have in technology the more it controls the lives of the people who use it. Henceforth, since technology is a product of mankind and not the divine, there is no soul or consciousness inside it, so the machine will only work based on utilitarian ends, and there will be always a portion of people who are alienated by it for the pleasure of the majority

Narcissism is quite misunderstood, as a condition of physical mental states when it may be considered that one could have been born into specific circumstances and given a specific purpose to fulfill on earth. Hence loving one's self could be analogous to loving God

The barrier of body language between the neurotypical and the autistic show a deeper root of something that may be more than skin deep

People who bitch about consumerism need to die. You like food, right? Well you have to "consume" it in order to reap its benefits. The same thing with everything else in this world, what you read, what you see, what you play, literally everything that involves money (which you need to have a basic standard of living) involves consumption. People who think consuming things are bad should try not eating, not reading anything (literally any words placed anywhere), and avoiding listening to anything, be it music, speeches, or conversations. They would eventually die from sensory deprivation. Good riddance.

Small flyover communities is what I live for. They may be slightly deluded, but their hearts are in the right place. The hatred for them is mostly based on arbitrary reasons that are out of their control. To blame voters for something that elites mostly manipulated thru force and fraud is an example of mistaking the chicken for the egg, that its proof that government in the west is illegitimate and should not be obeyed in the slightest unless the laws are morally objective and rational.

The philosophy of Spinoza assumed that God was equal to nature, the antithesis was the absolute independent spirit of Hegel which was dialectically (via Feuerbach) into the absolute materialism of Marx, from there we postulate that postmodern dialectic turns of his philosophy into thinkers like Debord who see the spirit of Hegel as not only a non-entity but outright mock it with antireligious fervor as the "spectacle". Marxism is demiurge worship of the worst variety and should be combated like any other heresy.

approaching dualism from a free will position, minds are independent of bodies because if they were grounded on physical premises all of history would never be able to have epistemic innovations, everything would just be geared towards a very basic, utilitarian mode of production

in a democracy, most laws such as consent laws and public consumption, are mostly a scaremongering tactic by older women, who make up the majority of registered voters. in essence, they are the "muscle" being misandric law policies under the guise of "what about the children". wanted to add, since the majority of voters are women, that would hence make most developed countries by default a gynocracy, which is one of the reason men on the right, like myself,  want to do away with voting since the lowest of humanity gets a say in what gets passed as legislation, much like how most social etiquette since after the iron age was in essence, driven by the fairer sex, which is why censorship is overwhelming favored by women.

anything feminist is a slight against God, as women are the evil counterpart to men, mother earth as father sky, women being the hylics of the universe.

people with high emotional intelligence have deficits in basic logical arguments, so you trade one trait for another

being well liked is a beta trait, well behaved men rarely make history, erstwhile ill-behaved women ruin history.

the very fact that so many people are more readily concerned with advancing themselves over the collective ideal of a society centered around chartible acts towards others is very troublesome and it could be well put that the material world is an evil place because it does not force humans to think of others as themselves

the belief in a self-correcting state is on par with a "self-correcting economy" believing that just like Adam Smith's invisible hand, somehow the state will correct itself from being dysfunction to functional when in the real world, both need propped up by internal forces in order to ensure both are working for the people they both serve

being transgender is a lot like being an illegal alien. companies jump through hoops to hire them and they refuse to adapt to a culture that sees them as guests and not the other way around but they doth protest much and we end up having two distinct worlds where everyone in the host nation has to speak two different languages in order to get points across and avoid offending the other party.

In China they have a word 書呆子 that literally means "Made stupid by books", The most common English translation being "nerd", so Chairman Mao Tse-Tung didn't want people to become smart so in a classic case of Marxist subversion, switched out smart for dumb to trick the denizens of China not to think for themselves, lest they overthrow the government. I mean, you have nothing to lose but your chains, right?

the problem with reducing history to materialism denies metaphysics, and the fact so many people deny Gods existence is because they live a life of misery, that's why they more so identify with Satan, who just like Marx was the so called "great liberator"

the virile European cannot help but proclaim his intellectual arrogance, for it was liberty that gave him that right, erstwhile its all too proper that the armsmen of the United States keep him barracaded like the wild animal he is, hungry for bloodlust, drunk on his own prowess. For Pride comes before the fall, and its our duty to protect the virile European man from himself.

Its a rather odd paradox about feminists and the symbolism of Medusa, one would think its the opposite of what feminists want, they want to repulse men so the physionomy of someone like Andrea Dworkin should appeal to them more. But 2 +2 = 5 to women as well so don't expect anything sensible said by them either

Marxists who see fascism as merely "capitalism in decay" have a wholly materialist conception of fascism and are mentally ill hylics

Work is an expression of art, and without artisans, there is no reason for aesthetic life. It leaves no human to be a master of their craft to create aesthetic pleasure, and is plainly mitigated by machines which lack an existing soul, which means everything is a fascmile of art rather than true beauty. Art is not art without human input.

denying our own "reality" denies that existence is a predicate for consciousness, which in turn if experience is not real, and consciousness is not real, then what is the purpose of life? Certainly if its all phony then why are we here? God is everything.

in a curious fit of irony, the left is known to be full of bourgeoise rich academics that get by on pure nepotism which is why there is more of them than on the right.

I never got why so many people love a country that goes out of their way to censor everything because they think their population is incapable of using their independent judgement to just not be a degenerate. I guarantee you China would be just as bad as America, if not worse, if they left to their own devices, judging by the amount of inane nonsense like tentacle porn, rape fetish video games and eating everything that isn't human including monkey brains and bat soup.

Since politics is downstream from biology, why not control the passing of genetic code through a state apparatus? Its a real shame many men die as genetic dead ends, so why not ensure every man has that opportunity, via intervention? You might say "oh but the poor women" which is nothing more than appeal to emotion and is disservice to effective teleological ends.

women are the primary selectors of sexual success. In order to reproduce, the woman has to have the last say. So yeah there's a reason they (incels), not to mention the world (depending on time and place) women outnumber men in most cases, can see why they would be angry.

There's literally no such argument that can be leveled against “entitlement” If you can't defend your institution/property/job from being taken, through either force or fraud, you don't deserve to have it.

to boil down fascism to a completely economic peculiarity shows that communists are lacking in perceptions of honor, blood, courage and other metaphysics that exist beyond pea brained physicalism.

the state's current definition of "eugenics" is to weed out characteristics they deem "inappropriate" for procreation. despite the state claiming to stand for “the oppressed” peoples, this does not include men, unless they are gay. if anything, if the state was to promote eugenics, things like "autism" and "short height" would be strictly delimited. there's a reason why the federal govt would never try to make optimal women for breeding, because it makes men happy. in short, so to say, the state should not be involved in eugenics of any kind unless the telelogical ends serve the men of the community, not the women. I am NOT against eugenics wholesale, since its really about what institutions define "eugenics" as it stands. there is no such thing as an anarchist eugenics, as that would implore that scientists and bioengineers would have to breed people by an individual basis, meaning that whatever the individual wants to improve in themselves would not require state approval.

Here's the problem with science. Because the state and science are so intertwined with one another, it produces results that are in step with who pays them, in fact the state gives generous sums to the scientistic community which furthermore, engage in a style of nepotism called peer review which further ensures science produces results that never challenge the status quo because they ARE the status quo, thus never passing the test of falsification.

Homosexuality isn't an example of "Being" its more about "Becoming”

I see it this way, no one knows what exists outside of one's subjective mind, so there must a consensus that's agreed up on what people consider a collectively agreed upon convention, hence, if one were to say God exists, then society would be better off if morality proceeded from that than having no heavenly ruler or agreed upon perceptions, true or false, that may exist outside subjective judgement than if society agreed he did not exist. I think there is a case for rational judgement although if humanity needs to hold onto something irrational to stay united then so be it.

Knowing ideals of orientalists versus jews, there's three degrees of separation between them and Jews rooted in the Afro-Asiatic basin. Both also display curiously bug-like tendencies and passive-aggressive mannerisms

The Marxists actually want you to be enslaved by the state in any way possible so you constantly cry for emancipation, so they create this false "reality" to make sure nothing you do actually matters. Debord is not the antichrist but is very close to it, hes the Marx whisperer who via Baudrillard created the pleasure pod which eventually Klaus Schwab, in a dialectical turn, is the actual final boss of Marxism, which is why so many Marxists actually like him. If the underclass cannot create communism, communism will come from above

its a bit of a conundrum you cannot make criticism of atheism unless you presuppose its a belief, which makes it unfalsifiable and therefore unprovable?

Because corporations have too much control over our population, they push humanist nonsense with spiteful intentions to make sure no one secures their personal interests

all anti-beliefs, from ANTIFA to antiracism to antisexism to antitheism can be traced back to enlightenment rejection of religion. God gave us reason we should not use empirical judgements to cloud our reason, which is God given intution to posit ourselves towards the good, instinct is numero uno. in order for society to function, we must balance reason with religion, and not use reason to overcome it but rather live alongside it and like Rorty said, liberals are extreme in reason like the religious are extreme with God so a truce must be struck between both to allow society to coalesce into a functioning unit for everyone. In this I disagree with Adorno, that the enlightenment project is a pathway to the concentration camps but rather the reverse, that its main goal was the abandonment of reason, of good itself, that led to the formation of critical theory first and foremost.

Since it stands to reason if the intuition of the fairer sex is so great why is so consistent they fall in love with Ted Bundy types who mutilate their bodies and throw them in dumpsters? You would think if they had premonitions about certain individuals they'd consistently avoid these types of characters more consistently but never have I heard of many men getting killed by strange women, aside from the usual "black widow" case. Thus, it would imply women have street smarts when most serial killer cases the woman is usually on the receiving end of such attacks. You might also implore that men should be less violent, but it usually stands to reason why men exhibit such behaviors is due to the fact they're not in a state of constant combat, which aeons ago would have been another Tuesday.

women are a mirror to men like God is to the devil

No language follows any sort of laws and can mutate itself on its own accord throughout history, now there is a type of language that "ought" to be, but doesn't not necessarily follow that it "wills" to be however the complications of future syntax, such a single phrase or word containing more than several meanings, or several words for one meaning, will place man well outside the bounds of reason.

Why should we give special treatment to every atheist who worships science like its infallible when the entire criteria for science is the exact opposite? Because doing so, implies they deserve special treatment, which logical implores they have a belief when its actually a negation of belief so no such rights should be given to them? Makes about as much sense as giving antifascists protection when they have no defining features. Negative liberty was a mistake.

I always assumed God was our consciousness/instinct par exellence, anything outside of it is much like empirical judgements is just deception, the idea of the good is the realization of ourselves as fully functioning humans. if God created man in his image he would give us the power to create and build objects that improve our conditions. those that try and take those away or destroy human accomplishments are the embodyment of evil, nevermind my personal sentiments that there's difference between the god of the jews and the god of the gentiles, one who only knew destruction so he lorded over a destructive people, who passed it down epigenetically to its modern inheritors and the one of the gentiles who is about to be sacrificed for the bloodlust of the former.

I always saw human behavior more so motivated by society than ones mind, at risk of sounding like a behaviorist and I don't want to be too deterministic, and believe human beings have a bit of control over how they act. Because how do we explain deviants, not in the sense of people who engage in transgressions, but those who say "nope, I enjoy my freedom"? That being said that's why a state of some sort is needed to guide people and why abject anarchy never usually works out in the end, echoing Hobbes. That way people can act in their own self-interest while kept in check by a sovereign ruler. A balance if you will. People are not inherently evil as determinists claim they are, but evil takes root with those who aren't occupied. Humans need purpose.

why the left is so successful: they don't have a misplaced sense of "virtue" the right has currently. It might have worked in the past but one should not have to play by the rules in a society that debates with logic and pragmatism.

there is an ideal version of everything that exists outside our consciousness that we can only perceive the phenomena of, according to our immediate senses, which can be a source of deception. To find absolute truth we must use our instinct which preceeds our senses a priori and is God given, and is the intermediary between our consciousness and bodies, the latter of which is an extension of our minds/consciousness.

Atheism and antitheism are fanatics in reverse, oftentimes jihadism for Big Science

In society everything traverses through the exchange of property look at all corporations, individuals and governments. You can't have freedom without taking the freedom of someone else. So if certain individuals are unhappy in a just society there’s a good reason for that. Someone has to occupy the bottom

If human beings had true freedom they wouldn't know what to do with it, let alone would they be anything but ignorant of their own rights, so its perfectly fine that there is a sovereign who sets boundaries for humankind to function within. you cannot expect all humans to act according to the needs of others because some people display disfunctional characteristics, such as being attracted to small children, being miscegenators,or generally disfunctional people who think committing injury to other people is a way they find enjoyment, so there needs to be some kind of order to dictate they do not do as so, and that order comes from above, way before the time of secular political theory everything came from God. of course we must distinguish the god of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament, since the God of the old testament is the one of the jews, who have since their inception been a violent, antisocial people whose covenant was destroyed once the God the gentiles made his presence known to all other peoples that he was here to be their guide towards securing their birthright and why ever since he has appeared on earth the former have been finding ways of trying to deceive the gentiles of their lands, cultures and rituals through blood libel and genocide.

step out of your comfort zone. if this was pretedermined, you never would.
over the last four years I've developed nothing less than a total abject hatred for hard determinists to the point I would kill them, but I won't, because if I did they would already be dead.

having a taste for exotic cuisine betrays a certain aesthetic judgment towards the person consuming the stuff. Hence, partaking ingesting odd or unusual or revolting foods is similar to how art critics think something like feces on a blank canvas is "deep" and "profound". very bourgeious mentality.

Libido is the first cause to drive weak people to gain power, however to ascribe this to a deterministic evolutionary clause, is a fool’s errand because asexuals exist, or rather people with a low sex drive due to experience with other people. or MGTOWs who opt out also due to experience, not everything is "pre-determined" by libido, some people have the capacity for it some people don't. some just opt out. empirical reasoning must have a first cause from the act of going out and finding knowledge. I think trusting your gut is probably a good thing but every population has its numbers of malcontents who just don't "act" like the anon above, I mention Elliot Roger who couldn't approach a woman if his life depended on it so it came out as violence out the "otherside". things can always be misdirected if the will cannot not act on the initial plan. thats why he was presented with choices, and had no choice but to “make choices” because his original will could not be fufilled.

I’m quite convinced that since women make aesthetic judgements on men based on something they CANNOT control, whereas men to women on something they CAN control. Hence, this is borne out into a logical error, which means women are incapable of making judgement calls on almost every facet of life even if it harms them. If they cannot even make a basic value judgement on something that even a first grader could figure out , who knows where else they may be lacking, thereby affirming Aristotle's claims, when taken to their logical conclusions.

the aesthetic of the transcendent triumphs the aesthetic of the profane, because it betrays a realization of history

curious though how Atheism become as dogmatic as Christianity and continues to influence elite bourgeious values at the detriment of the rest of humanity. not only that but I wager its very existence, belief or not, as a testament to why negative liberty is overall threat to the continuation of society.

in a way, Rousseau might have been right. all these Non-governmental organizations, are institutions institutions govern society and are partially an arm of the state, through grants. the fact they advertise foul behavior, like eating insect meat, giving your child horomone blockers, and generally spreading virtriolic propaganda against all Indo-European and descendent people, as do colleges, corporations, etc do, is a corruption of mankind's true nature

if we study the international relations theories of liberalism, they always paint NGOs as the ones trying to bring about peace, conversely, realists see an international anarchy that no NGO could penetrate. However, if one theory sees them as inherently good and incapable of falling into error and the other sees any action of nations to be their own doing, and mind you the globe is in a permanent state of anarchy, who is there to regulate the policies of NGOs towards nations? no one ever sees them as being the culprit of bad policy in either theory, its either the fault of the states themselves or NGOs can never act against the interests of the global citizen. you’d think someone would question this gaping maw in comparative politics and I think they prefer it that way, the institutions never want to take responsibility for wrongdoing and the elite universities makes sure no one ever does.

“Men always wrongfully excuse the sex act. They always justify themselves to themselves, rationalizing themselves, no matter their inclination. The heterosexual, the homosexual and the pedophile all alike imagine their rut to be "correct" in some sense.” Well, if it wasn't for the former (heterosexuality) being indicative of creating life, I guess you're right. But feminists don't know what its like to be a man despite their more radical adherents getting in an awkward situation of imitating what they despise so they really can't justify that without sounding like a complete hypocrite.

You see, when I was growing up I was rarely praised and heavily criticized so I often withdrew within myself to find one person who would praise me without question and it was my own subconscious that became my only friend. It led me to go through my memories of life and thusforth I ended up realizing everything happened to me for a reason and it was not my own fault but the fault of God, as he makes these events occur in life to persons for a very good reason, to grow and learn as time goes on and I then realized that if something happened to me I had no choice but to say it was the will of God and not my own doing, that I have free will to make choices but only if my general will could not pursue it, and it became deflected on other things, that all humans have an individual will but God places obstacles in the way of humans where it becomes it impossible to satisfy our desires and our desire is not to blame, as it is in all people and even animals and plants. Every bit of fault against the human will is an act of divine intervention.

Explain to me what designates a fair distribution of values between the genders and where men have advantages and women have advantages? You cannot, because its apples and oranges, otherwise what's the point of having women (or men, for that matter) around if both genders have the same innate qualities?

Who decides what behavior is tolerated in society? Certainly not men, and that is root of our present day problems

It must be such a naive, innocent and docile mindset to only believe in physical matter, that your entire universe has no thoughts, or emotions, just atoms and particles. And its just there, its always been, nothing resembling abstract nouns, just pure concrete language, hence no concepts like honor, courage, love or pride, because those are "spooks" everything has to describe something that physically exists, a real dire, boring existence to live life as a soulless automaton.

A Platonic manner of "ideal forms" that exist prior to creation, the soul being a human/animal/plants ideal essence before being brought to earth. For example, my soul might be purer than my physical manifestation, but if humans can only the phenomenon of things, then the soul is not visible to the human eye but rather to something of higher order or calling. Such as God knowing the true intention of things that mortals only see an impression of.

Money only has value because society puts one on it. If gold reserves were plentiful there would be no need to make a synthetic judgement a posteriori on its value, eliminating it as an object of society and sharing property in common would eliminate the grip of poverty for everyone except those who hold power in society, becoming just as common as the people without power.

I would wager the best English is one with specific definitions for all words and not one where the synonyms are endless and language is not a phenomenological impression on the psyche and real definitions exist outside sense perception. The world itself, taken as a physical concept, is not the thing in itself but we should try to define language as getting "closest to the facts" as possible, even if what we perceive is not able to be defined. In this way the superior world of ideas is closer to the truth than the world of matter.

My main beef with Marxism is its grounded on erroneous historical assumptions, mainly, which people like Max Weber smoothed out in his works. I don't think all of history was a material struggle for resources because some people are elected to posts not based on pragmatic reasoning, but rather their sway with the people in regards to their general character or mythical ability that is attributed to them through their actions. The general population (at least in America, could be different elsewhere) cares less about long term solutions and more about immediate answers to difficult problems. After all, we're a society who, to a fault, is often obsessed with immediate gratification since we have the illusion of free choice provided to us, tend to gravitate towards people (men) who have something that sets him apart from everyone else, whether it be his manner of speaking to the public on important matters, or his general appearance in regards to aesthetic normative judgements that makes him "the one". Class plays a very small if insignificant or none at all role in American politics, I'd even say none of us really have it in us to obtain that consciousness

I'm not one to condone people using libel laws against other people, but if the accuser is misrepresenting a priori assumptions about someone's character based on the opinions of other "people" then it assumed the plaintiff is going about it in a very indirect, feminine manner of speaking, always assuming the "crowd" is always correct, instead of making an individual judgement independent of other minds.

Sex work is not productive labor, because in order for it to be so, a child (end-product) must borne of it

I would garner that wages should be based on income rather than fixed rates, neither on the state or federal but based upon individual personal income, for instance one person who might struggle with rents and bills would be afforded higher rates of pay than someone who has a higher standard of living and possibly the economic would eventually “even out”

one of the takeaways I got from the film “Back To The Future Part II” was how little Biff Tannen cared about money after awhile, that it was just a "means to an end" to him and was mostly used for acquiring investments such as buying out the police force and the military. Thats why its so naive that people think that the profit motive is what drives these robber barons to become self-appointed oligarchs. after awhile, they really don't care about money as an end in itself but rather as a way of acquiring resources and power over other people through investments that control the general public. who's to say some CEO won't gain enough power to buy out the world's militaries and defense systems and surveillance systems so everyone is eventually under his (and nowadays even her) thumb just because it gets their jollies off to make puppets out of everyday people?

Francis Bacon invented the scientific method so he could continue sinning without having a guilty conscience

(On modern white women):they're cancerous, and I'm the race who has to put up with them. They get coddled as children as their fathers (and I have personal experience with this, growing up with a sister) is that our fathers seem to treat them too softly and its almost like the movie The Whipping Boy, only they have a vagina. Its like they're royal property that cannot be touched so they never get flogged (evidence also suggests that women as a whole "get off" on pain so its a fool's errand to even administer corporal punishment as 1) the won't learn anything and 2) they'll just act out more because it turns them on) and usually the punishment is deferred to the oldest boy in the house (sort of like how the Egyptian prince in the book of Exodus wanted to kill every first born boy in Jerusalem). That's my take.

IQ tests are an example of a classic "self-fufilling prophecy" that if you get a low or high score it determines your self worth from that point forward and you're stuck (especially if its a low score) in a cycle of self-doubt and second guessing. its psychologically harmful and can have adverse effects on your mental well-being. point is: don't fall for the trap.

Moderate functionalism is the only possible motive for the holocaust, since the Jewish machine was too powerful to stop, Hitler had to resort to extreme measures.

aggreance implies that everyone is universally co-ordinated mentally, which couldn't be further from the truth, your consciousness may be shared by the world but cognitive difference of opinion is what makes society, society. Otherwise history stagnates.

(On whether Islam and communism are compatible) I say, that since both follow the doctrine of anti-racism which is prevalent in Dugin's Boasian anthropological roots, All three try to prove how being a good black ally compared to Americans is so important to their ideology, and thus probably spurred so much of the riots in lieu of George Floyd, as both communists and Muslims want to export their line of thought globally.

Constitutional interpretation should solely be based on literal statements written, not indirect metaphorical interpretation, legal statues have nothing to do with such things as scriptures and mystical documents, which are written in riddles, since there should be a clear distinction between secular texts and religious texts

Ideal being is all there is, there is no actual being, just the "phenomena" of being

We must commit to poetry once again, as the trash needs taken out. Year zero is approaching.

Atheism needs God as a prerequisite to validate its existence. If God didn't exist there would be no such thing as atheism, as it would be the default state of human existence.

How would a materialist describe the kind of diction that would be needed to describe emotional states of mind? Like how does "sad" feel? How does "angry" feel? Now you might just say they feel "bad" but anger and sadness are not the same thing, neither are feelings like "joy" or "fear". Simple platitudes do not describe wholly transcendent states of mind, and one might say they are just chemicals. However if that's the case, then feelings are inconsequential and if you're depressed, its probably a "you" problem and nothing external, the world of experience being secondary to yourself

the root of gentile problems can be traced back to the jews, but they have a creator who must have imbued a sense of his essence upon them, since the god of the old testament was not without wrath and anger and it became a part of their essence. Jesus (and Paul by extension) deterritorialized Christian belief to the gentiles and saved the world from his father, thereby creating a separate set of beliefs and commandments for those not born under the sign of the jewish god, whose beliefs entail a conditional mortality that only his chosen people could enter through. Jesus reversed that.

Nietzsche once remarked the modern state was an invention of the Christian church, however the state is very secularized today in favor of machiavellian humanitarianism, I think Nietzsche would be a statist today considering how little impact religion has on modern humans. however, the transvaluation of values now marks an ever present adherence to anti-epistemic science which is a suitable substitute for God or the idea of God.

You can't disprove a negative is literally the most hive minded of so called "logical fallacies" it absolves the one positing such arguments as essentially being free of responsibility which at its root is a core common problem of liberal minded people.

The thing is the burden of proof fails since it absolves the atheist of responsibility so they can never be challenged on virtually anything, even if their theories are more unbelievable than what a theist would argue

As a Gnostic, I've seen parallels between consumer lifestyles and the embrace of the demiurge as being a positive force, not that it actually is. I do diverge a bit and don't necessarily believe nature is inherently bad, however the creation of this plane originated with the god of the Hebrews and Jesus came as a demigod to right the wrongs of the father in order to make this plane a safe, albeit temporary domain for the Gentiles. But the jews are not pleased with this and are doing everything in their power to make slaves of the Gentiles through economic force and/or fraud.

You see pigs and broads have this special relationship that goes back to Steinem and Davis, with alphabet agencies as the arm of the state and police as their ground troops. It has a very Althusserian bent to all of it. That's why male sexual freedom is a revolutionary concept in this day and age. The very thought of it quakes the boots of the strongest ham sandwich because it would dissolve that political bond that benefits both parties, cops and broads alike.

women, on average, make appeals to authority on a constant basis. If the consensus says a certain behavior is wrong, they will accept it without criticism. That's why women can never be ubermensch. There's a reason its called "great man theory" and not "great woman theory" despite modern academics (puke) trying play mental gymnastics to justify why "le wimmin are oppressed" because truthfully women "on average" are painfully average individuals who don't live life on the edge and create new ways of life (read: lifestyles, subcultures) which eventually become normal default behavior over time. Almost every "woman's movement" was a mix of astroturf and puppetering by their betters. That's why Gloria Steinem and Angela Davis got groomed by intelligensia because they're so easy to manipulate. Now of course you might say "well men can dragged to their death by their genitalia" well that's true but its a double edged sword. Shit test a man doing this and there's a chance the dog might bite back, and you'll be sorry. Its like when a three year old who doesn't know any better, unsupervised, might end up sticking a fork in a light socket. Sure they coo and gaga but that kid is gonna get fried to death eventually. Reminds me of the zoo.

We can only know God by his creations, as such we have an unconscious will that perpetuates said creations, which is why the development of land and resources honors the gift that man has been given, to harness the world that God provided to us, in exchange for the bountiful harvest that provides food and shelter for all his creations, animal and man alike, so we might live to see tomorrow and the future that awaits us.

one thing I noticed was in alt-reich circles it seems to be oh so fashionable to not only agree with the take that the United States is going to fall, but doing everything in one's power (especially if one exists outside its sphere of influence) to even contribute to its downfall. This is a very subtle nod towards the Semites who will not only agree we need to fall, but even handle you the tools to accomplish such a task. For a set of people, especially the Eurosceptics of the bunch, who claim up and down that everything they're doing is against the great big satan of Israel, actual aids them in the destruction of another great big Satan (in their eyes). it seems no matter how auntie semitic one might get, it always circles back to them, in the current zeitgeist, we see two rival powers, Ukraine and Russia duking it out on the world stage, however a closer inspection of either side shows that jewish influence cannot be escaped.

religions are usually culture dependent, and there is a passage in Romans (don't quote me on that as I would have to double check) that describes that all people should be divided by nation and language so they do not come together to conspire against God, that is the purpose of nationalism. it has nothing to do with anyone being racist towards other people, though its understandable that humans like what is familiar and are revolted by what is not, conversely, familiarity can also breed contempt, which explains why some people are more patriotic than others.

men have the innate need to always to be morally correct in any given situation, betraying a sort of deontological moral compass, whereas women tend more towards utilitarianism. this conflict of interest is why societies tend to fall apart, because neither party can come to an agreement on how one should conduct one's behavior.

jews and blacks are two sides of the same coin when it comes to intellect but both lack the compassion for other human beings, they just go about it in different ways

the idea that everything physical perceived by the naked eye or felt due to sensations in the body is merely a phenomenon of its actual content and that every experience is unique and that finding objective truth is a fool’s errand and most things are sensed by their relation to others. Since there is no object without “time” and or “space”, without those qualities existing as a first order business, nothing can be sensed, by either touch, smell, sound, sight, etc. What we sense is the phenomenon of actually existing matter, the object itself is not sensed directly but through phenomena caused by its relation to time and space, which is the governor of all in the universe. Time and space, being separate but equal “wills” of God, as a way of showing his creation to all living creatures, however ignorant we will always remain to his true nature.

​ When the left talks a big game about getting rid of religion, most working class folks will shut you down. You can’t expect those people to burn their bibles and Qurans and torahs and sutras and expect them to worship crass materialism at the drop of a hat. That’s why some people on the left are now parroting fbi talking points and siding with capitalist conglomerates because they truly think “hey at least corporations believe everything has a material basis, the working class is believes in sky daddies and deserve to get exploited”. So essentially, none of them actually have principles they just side with whomever feeds their delusions, despite thinking they’re on a moral high ground by laughing at people whose metaphysics point to someone other than Karl Marx.

If a musical culture says they’re pro freedom of thought, they’re mostly lying and have strict definitions of what’s allowed and what’s not allowed. If that truly was the case they’d accept all ideologies under their banner, barring that they might dispense with ideology altogether as it’s restrictive. But they often do none of those last things, and tend to only accept the former as true.

if mankind is free to do as he pleases and there are objective moral values, why insist there is a God" my answer would be "God would not knowingly create a world where people are taught to kill each other, and going from that, what is the point of creating the universe if he instruct his people to destroy what he has made?"

if God created man with the intent he’d honor his creation, why would man destroy it? Because God being all knowing and all seeing would not create something that would end up destroying his very essence, hence God would not make something just for it to end up knowingly vaporizing the universe itself. One might ask, then why does man do exactly that? Because he is receiving instructions from something that opposes the creator and not God himself

I tend to believe that most people who act against the universe are possessed in some way or manner of form

Despite punk rock essentially being a free speech medium there was also the dissolution of boundaries between concepts, which bled out from the merely musicological to the social/political/cultural, which depending on your perspective, could be a good or bad thing, however, when the origin of your movement calls for “no rules”, it can kind of be inevitable, but oftentimes people discount humans have the capacity for free will so people end up digging their own graves instead of building themselves upwards.

You can’t explain things epistemically unless they’re empirically verifiable occurrences, anything that exists outside that realm like miracles, synchronicity, and most of human consciousness, I.e, what “being” is like cannot be broken down to mathematical data.

Mental disorders are just used to persecute and classify those who do not 100% follow middle-ground tepid beliefs. Since the world is basically a gynocracy now, extremism is being persecuted at an all time high. Putting women in their place, out of politics and back into the role of housewives indefinitely would make sure there would a more democratic and varied freedom of thought, and since women are more likely to be censorious, your average joe would be able to express this thought in public without fear of retribution.

The more reason creatures attain, the more susceptible to possession they become

Because women’s value is solely determined by their genitalia, legalizing prostitution flattens the playing field. That’s why the attitude of what determines a man’s value is how much sexual intercourse he can get, because women run the show. If men ran it, men’s value would be determined by objective criteria like what kind of purpose they serve in the community, which is what Aristotle said was the mark of a virtuous society. Everything has its place. We had slaves for the same reason we have women.

Apocalyptic dates are symbolic, not “actual”. These periods are markings of culture loss in certain “time periods” that only the believer and God knows, and nonbeliever, does not.

What exists outside reality? this was a source of fear to me as a young man, but we really don’t know so it’s best to remain agnostic about it because it could very well be worse than “nothing”

Many socialists today, at least the ideologically honest ones, support the WEF’s measures to rid the world of private property as its the only way a genuine socialist movement can exist anymore. the metaphysics of free will and free trade (within limits) frighten both the far left Marxist and WEF alike, because nowadays the two are quite interchangeable.

Women are never truly independent, they are always at the whims and fancies of their in-group, whether they like it or not. great works have always been a masculine project.

Since society has drifted away from its core essentials, why wouldn't I agree with the unthinking millions on metaphysical principles since everything stands to the opposite of what it once stood for, considering many of you are academic professionals, and I, not so much. the academic world is congested beyond bureaucracy to the point that if I were among your kind I would be drowned out to the point of abject silence, or worse yet, cast out among the throng of undesirables you deem intellectually inferior to the everyman.

Like it or not, but I always saw criticism of any kind extremely jewish and that's why I troll people who attempt to dissect my views. It's either kosher or marxist in some manner. If you look at critics of any medium you'll notice a pattern they're either jewish or some shade communist and that's why I think my ideas are above it, definitely above any form of crass material analysis.

American exceptionalism is true in some sense, we are, or were different before the elites tried to make us a worse version of Europe, with hate speech laws and pushing for gun restrictions and a giant welfare state. The truth is, we’re not like them at all, and trying to do so will sap of us of the little identity we have left

Since time immemorial, women have been unable to critique their own behavior. that would require the ability to have introspection which they do not have. they are always for the "current thing" no matter about evidence to the contrary, because they see themselves as perfect creatures and not only that, pathetic men reinforce that notion. unless women are left to their own notions, without outside help, they will begin to develop some sort of DIY aesthetic. meaning that since the dawn of history, only men have been able to forge ahead with new inventions and ideas, women have not, so hence, in order to plant that seed in their heads they need to be forced into adapting to the current conditions.

Lebe dein Leben trotz anderer! (To Live Is To Spite Others)

                                                                                               J./Adolf Stalin

Part 2 -

Free will denialism has a history of Jewish advocacy, since Jews exist as the darkness to gentile Yin which is why they’re biologically predisposed to undermining culture. And they must force this essentialism on everyone else, limiting the potential of gentile culture to reach the Platonic ideal state.

I oppose determinism in my writings. I used to abhor existentialism but realized the existence-essence distinction is a false one instead, they work in tandem to draw up a canvas and then paint. Mankind will always be an unfinished work of art, and is not bound by any variable except what limits God puts on him.

Incels have grasped that the different classes of people, which is not merely “cosmetic” can be divided between those who have sex and those who do not, which in order to create a just society, would have to be reorganized in a violent fashion not too dissimilar to any Marxist or anarchist ideology. The big problem is the ones on demographic decline do not fit the narrative of “poor brown people” and this angers leftists.

Nietzsche's death of god was a lament, i do not think that regardless of his belief that the European soul lost its “vigor” due to influx of Christianity but that Europe as we know it would not have existed without its influences. otherwise. In a word, it would just become a bastion of confederations which know no peace and appear aesthetically ugly.

I think all of current society's problem just boil down to hating lower class middle Americans, in a word. It always goes back to that. Almost every bit of negative criticism on things ranging from big trucks, auto racing, wrestling, simple food, Donald Trump, organized religion. Even things like voluntary capital exchange; the soothsayers of popular culture, the critics holed up in high rise apartments, the purveyors of so-called “good taste” from Christgau to Albini to Bourdain can be deduced to this very thing. it even extends to political theorists like Edward Said and historians like Noel Ignatiev. they just are appalled at how "default" we are. the fact we are the "norm" as if they somehow mark themselves as being its direct opposite, a deformed mass of crippled, multicultural, post-Marxist lepers whose only distinguishing feature is spite. So therefore, why should I respond with anything less than what they give out?

My view is that scientific atheism is more of a socially conditioned outlook and one with historical background, even prehistoric background. A lot of the time it has a sort of underlying political motivation that has anchored most revolutionary movements from the early Hussite peasant revolts to the French Revolution itself and the revolutions of 1848 and the rise of Soviet communism. It can be traced back to the biblical snake and the psychological need to rise above established power structures. Which, if God really created the universe, it attempts to undo that very establishment of physical presence and can be seen to echo in the sentiments of the German and Russian nihilists that paved the way for Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, respectively.

The biggest problem is assuming the lack of an American hive mind is a good thing but people think China is the savior of the white race for being impotent bugs without a spine. Liberty and democracy are the white man's invention, and a lot of legal ideas like natural right, habeas corpus, and due process are noble ideas and it's just a shame brown people are too low intelligence to appreciate them. Even Marxism, for all its faults, was termed "The German Ideology" by Karl Marx’s co-conspirator Frederich Engels and as it seems even the east cannot escape western modes of thinking. Even if we perish, you cannot kill ideas, especially if other races are too imbecilic to come up with their own.

Academia paints itself as very populist despite internally being quite elitist, casting out those who do not adhere to the party line of “liberty, fraternity, equality” despite its meaning being distorted by contemporary history and politics.

those who consider Marxism must reject empiricism and vice versa since Marxism is primarily sourced from the rationalists, continental thinking. However, this leads to another dilemma. With rationalism, historical processes are innate rather than experienced, which the reverse is true for empiricism, which turn towards values that are novel rather than time tested values, building its own socially-constructed epistemology. The only way to escape the vicious circle is to dispense with both and retreat to instinct so that the bond between the physical world and the world of forms becomes one in and of each another.

Plato’s word of forms and the physical world were not always separated historically and prehistorically, the legends of nephilim alone prove otherwise, the problem with the modern world is the gulf between the two is so wide. We are stuck in a wholly material hellscape, when that wasn’t always the case. Every advance of scientific progress is what separated us further from the biblical world of miracles, millennia long genealogies and the Greco-Roman gods and goddesses.

If so many of the soothsayers of what passes for science and reason claim that “reality has a left-wing bias”, the lower classes wouldn’t vote for right wing politicians, and Africans would be the most civilized people. It’s pure social engineering. I do not deny that propaganda does not exist, on the contrary, even without it people would still behave roughly the same. At their core, people are driven by local concerns and nothing all encompassing like the myth of a united proletariat, which is just that, a myth. Not reality.

Almost all nations or cultures become empires in one of their “many” stages of development historically, the inherent problem is that America is the dominant power at the moment and the sentiment that the inverse of our values would solve societal alienation or the values of the rising hegemony of our so-called replacement, such as China or Russia, would not be usurped by the need to maximize not only the acquisition of economic power and/or general sphere of influence on the world stage, is a vain and hopeless pursuit for justice.

Despite the possible absence of altruism within us all, we ought to act as if it really exists, since faith should be the primary driver of all human motivations.

For the accusations of Christianity bringing forth social control by essentially universalizing values across cultural borders, one cannot help to notice there is simply not enough primary sources to restructure even a semblance of pagan political law and even then, who’s to say it wouldn’t essentially bring about new forms of authority based on arbitrary rules and distinctions? Would, if they could be recovered, produce more divisions of labor upon vague social and political lines? That’s why it’s important to know that Christ came for everyone, and while it’s not so possible for all people to heed his word and conflicts will always be a fact of life, those broker a contract with him will always be united against those who did not.

Evolution is a nonsense concept. If it were true evolution would cause all useless species to die. Much like Schumpeterian economics, it should follow that, once something refuses to adapt it dies, which should be the logical course of evolution but there are still species that exist in which the modern world has no use for but continues to persist despite changing material circumstances.

Just because nature is interdependent doesn’t mean that certain things don’t have their place in the grand design of the universe itself. To think otherwise you’d think women could very well be fathers or children could lead nations, even if the latter had historical precedent, in almost all cases it ended in disaster and women trying to be men and vice versa will as well.

Critics are often people, who, more often that not, are operating from a base of resentment towards people who actually make art, and those same people are drawn to murderous ideologies like communism that feed on their genocidal urge to destroy things. Punk might have been destructive, but its impetus to destroy led to the creation of something new, the art of criticism is similarly fashioned but is marred by abject impotency.

No one without full functioning mental and spiritual faculties could lay claim to a perfection of a Babylonian or Assyrian empire, or Roman or Greek, up to a British Empire or Third Reich. Every single profane regime in history existed in spite of human error, the kingdom of God (which is eternal) is the only that makes claims to perfection, since it existed prior to man and will exist long after man has perished.

I think the main problem between anarcho communists and anarcho capitalists is a purely linguistic one, both want justice in different ways but their shared values get lost in translation.

Islam has always been a thorn in Europe’s side since the Middle Ages, Christianity from proper examination was a mostly peaceful conversion that was undertaken by both missionaries and clan leaders. Islam has no such claim and have mostly been intrusive to the west, even going as far as blockading trade routes around the time of the Carolingians if the “Annales” historians are to be believed, on both accounts. If Islam historically made conversions a mutual agreement between the two groups of people, the clan leaders and missionaries from out eastward, history would have played out differently and I would be praying on a woolen rug three times a day. Do not mistake this for a grudge of any kind, but it’s always been an alien Afro-Asiatic faith that never congealed with the Roman authorities. Christianity was a mutual process, in which the conversion of Constantine, him being the vicar of Rome was a very important aspect of my perception between the faiths. If historically Constantine converted to Islam it would have been a different story altogether but that did not happen. The church in the west has a historical tradition that even stretched to Roman Britain so I will gladly wear the label of Catholic Christian. Islam never had the same historical significance and remained an alien faith to the area until recently, in which the days of the saints have mostly expired and we live in an age of unbridled mechanical thinking and loss of meaning.

The largest problem with those who currently complaining about the current wave of unbridled misogyny is they seem to believe liberal democracy is working as intended and are not at all interested in solving the problem because they either are willfully ignorant and don’t “see” a problem or  just want to double down on feminism thinking it helps men, which it doesn’t. It’s like taking apart a broken lawnmower, sitting on its seat and then complaining it’s not cutting the grass.

Getting rid of the United Nations would solve a lot of problems because of how corrupt and inept it is at actually solving humanitarian issues, often just compounds them. When Kenneth Waltz talks about structural realism, it implies that there is a structure to the international system outside of the “anarchy of states”. Many neoliberal theorists of international relations see this as beneficial to a world in which states have to engage in either “self-help” or a balance of power in order to prevent the outbreak of war. My personal thesis is to argue the opposite and these institutions as well as its prior formation, Woodrow Wilson’s “League Of Nations” have only served to complicate the the process of Realpolitik and have actually contributed more suffering towards an international community which is better off taking international law into their own hands instead of the United Nations adding to the body count and then shifting the blame to the nation states instead of taking responsibility for spilling extra blood, regardless if human life was lost in the first place. It's like the tax system, never telling the citizens how much they actually have to pay then penalizing them for assuming too much or too little, instead of taking responsibility for their end of the bargain. Both are unjust institutions that would be better off eliminated.

The right has been quite compromised at this point so it tends to follow the left in terms of their denial of natural right as the days since the breakdown of absolutism it has always "reacted" to the left; it is not the default position anymore. In order for the right to break free of the leftist thought prison, which calls the shots ever since the age of reason, it has to first assume the left always acts in bad faith so any retribution against them doesn’t carry any guilt in the aftermath. The spontaneous order spoken of Mr. Hayek cannot exist as long as they are bottom feeders that want to take credit for human achievement. That means any salvos directed toward "universal human rights" or "protecting the most vulnerable citizens" must be reframed as a compromise towards a genuine realpolitik, instead of a noble goal.

Our biggest issue as Western Europeans is that we were at the forefront of the enlightenment, which gave rights to everyone else while eroding ours as men. It remains to be seen if this was accidental or purely by design, as the latter would have very dire implications that we are a suicidal people hellbent on letting our women run free and destroy our lineage, giving them autonomy so we as men have none. Which is why we must escape the trappings of reason and bureaucracy and return to a more primal state of being, free yet hierarchical away from the great equalizer known as modern society.

The Enlightenment was a very feminine time period, from the dress code to the music to the appeals to “humanity” and “democracy” I would say traditionalist beliefs are the product of a hypermasculine, autistic mindset which repels women. Ironically, most men usually become mellower when they enter a relationship with a woman and studies have shown that a man’s testosterone drops when he enters into such an union as well. Which explains why men soften up and sell out their values when they get a taste of sexual pleasure. but i wager the older you get the less women are able to nudge you. It follows, that the right, holding onto the youth as the forefront of restoring traditional ideals is a bit hamfisted even if molding these young men to be warriors, a woman's touch could undo all the work put into them, which is why older men need to be integrated to enforce a standard of conduct in their impressionable minds.

People forget that there’s a shadow government above the international system that has more confirmed kills than any third world dictator.

I think a lot of the world’s psychological problems could be solved by getting in touch with nature and getting away from formalized therapy.

One can only hope that the intersectional dreck poised take the reigns for the rest of human existence crumbles under the weight of its own incompetence so that women walking around in the ruins are sized up for reproductive services by the same population they so vehemently worked so hard to eliminate.

Its the perfect example of cognitive dissonance when tried and true Marxists turn into instant Social Darwinists any time the male sexual crisis is brought up

Epistemology in essence is very reductionist, particular, whereas metaphysics is more of an overarching narrative, the big picture. That’s why all the best thinkers made metaphysics a first philosophy. You can see how Descartes reversed that and began with fundamentals, his self and worked upwards and out from there, which is where modern modes of thinking replaced old notions of grandiose myths and stories. all symbolic vestiges of religious worship eventually became self worship but would never been possible if man did not erect monuments to nature, before he began to know himself and rebuilt the temples in his own image. The path to self-discovery began when he realized the natural world reacted to his actions and wasn’t completely ignorant of his existence.

There is something a bit suspect of the recent campaign to stamp out so-called "sinophobia", Interestingly enough that much of was because of the recent medical lockdowns regarding a very notable infectious disease a few years ago. It seems there is a certain tolerance over special interest groups being allowed to be irresponsible (gays, minorities and women) but not white heterosexual men. Case in point was the whole Silence = Death pink triangle nonsense when the homosexual community could simply stop having irresponsible casual sexual encounters with strangers. But it seems to be too much to ask. And now, we deal with the aftereffects of too much social justice and now regular white European men are prevented from even engaging in sexual intercourse with opposite sex anymore and demographics are plummeting.

A genuine free market, to me, is where trust busting is good and businesses should be discouraged from asking for handouts, where welfare belongs only to private citizens, and only those who need it like the disabled and elderly, not poor slum dwellers who can’t stop having unprotected sexual relationships and engage in drug and alcohol abuse.

I see it this way, while religion and politics are seen by laymen as being wholly divorced from each other, a keen eye will notice the shadow of the old orders dancing behind the pulpit of a prime minister or president. And not only is it theological it’s cultural and anthropological as well. Many embedded cultures, regardless if the demography changes, still hold on to general principles of their given region or community. much of Quaker progressivism drives neoliberal resentment politics, such as their ideas of women pastors and general egalitarian values that can be seen in feminist movements and mass line democracy. I genuinely believe, Richard Nixon, who was born a Quaker, essentially tried outreach to their Borderer rivals, who are/were hopeless meritocrats in a defiant act of fellowship, and was summarily dismissed for doing so, as both shared their belief that their faith and culture would ascend them to heaven and the opposition be damned. It’s one of the reasons I have come to have a problem with Protestantism and their belief of limited atonement in of itself. instead of appealing to all of God's children, its sectarian, much like any leftist ideologue.

Democracy invariably leads to communism. Liberalism makes no guarantee on the equality of people, unless democracy is a part of it, where every voice supposedly counts and is equality weighted, it’s the bulwark of utilitarian ethics, based on consequential outcomes, devoid of merit, where everyone starts out by their own individual merit and ends up at the same place. You need as much of a strong state to support equality of opportunity as much as equality of outcome and true classic liberalism makes no guarantee on either, in an ideal world people should be free to form contracts with those who support their trade, but no insomuch as it leads to tyranny, as their rulers should be expected the same, any government that does not expect their citizens to act in accordance with their government and their government in accordance with their citizens is a dictatorship.

True, unadulterated liberalism, which the United States was founded on, has no relation to neoliberalism, in that neoliberalism exists because of state power, not in spite of it.

Pol Pot, or known by his family and friends as Saloth Sar, was the only genuine communist as he was anti-elitism, meaning he was against the true enemies of the working man, the academics.

(Joseph) Stalin was not a class abolitionist, but rather a monarch governed by scientism.

Women have no business humoring higher education, in fact, the original aim of the institution was for men of god to study scripture and study the natural sciences. Now it’s just a daycare with sports teams.

conditional immortality mimics leftist sectarianism, having a universal law for all people is the ideal governing structure. This is also not just limited to Christianity, either, but found in most if not all faiths.

Communism in practice is neither stateless nor class conscious, it’s just secular monarchy fueled by scientific fundamentalism rather than religious fundamentalism

It appears in modern times that the utmost concern from both the left and right is to play the role of ambassador for the asiatic and African races, whether it's to further the growth of a progressive or regressive agenda. At the end of the day, as long as they stand on the receiving end of a firearm or blunt instrument for their services towards these unfortunate souls, the European races are doomed. The goal is give them the bare minimum or nothing so they eventually check out of the world, or progress into eventual fundamentalism or abject deviancy as each side feeds into the other like an ouroboros. We must break the cycle. We must be rational but not agnostic. We must tread the golden mean, as these races are completely incapable of doing so.

I only, for all intents and purposes, only garner that the disabled and elderly people should get welfare. My reasoning is that the latter is too physically unable to work and the former is because, and this probably only applies to autistic people like myself, that because we live in a “social” based society not a merit based one, gainful employment is more about how well you get along with others not on how well you do the job you’re assigned.

Usually if something gets banned, it fosters resentment and more of an inclination to act out. The only solution is either legalization with regulations or outright deportation of problematic individuals. Which if severe enough, can make the people in question martyrs and delegitimize the state further along depending on how unpopular the ruling is or was. However the state should try to place limits on toleration in regards to groups of people depending on how much they interfere with the rights of others. That is unless the subjection of one group by another ends up being the glue that holds the entire society in place and does not completely cause the entire system to collapse.

I have a desire to be authentic, not what's considered "right", as the consensus is tyrannical.

The twin pillars of Dunning-Kruger and The Paradox Of Tolerance are the golden rules of the painfully average, insignificant masses.

There is a distinction between the morals of men and women. Women display a sentimentalism like that of Hume whereas men display a Kantian intentionality. Men's main objective, then, is to provide a moral correction like Kant did to Hume, which is not only moral but essentially reworking the metaphysical framework of the social sphere.

My main criticism of Marxism, and by extension, Marx and Engels, both, are epistemological and anthropological, not sociological and economic.

Miracles were prevalent in the early dispensations, especially during the time of the prophets and the apostolic age, to establish the foundation of faith and the early Church. With the completion of the biblical canon and the establishment of the Church, the need for miraculous signs decreased, leading to the cessation or significant reduction of such events. As such, The Church, as the fulfillment of Israel’s role, now carries forward God’s plan without the frequent need for miraculous interventions, relying instead on the completed revelation of Scripture and the ordinary means of grace. As such, the separation of God and man in modern times is possibly due to the fact that so many still cling to the old covenant.

the American indians, without having a concept of land ownership, I would wager, is the primary reason they lost their claim to the North American wilderness. That being said, while I do believe true altruism to be nonexistent, I don’t think it’s in anyone’s best interest to be greedy. As such, at least acting as if we have obligations to one another (even if we really do not deeply concern ourselves with it mentally), is most likely the best course of action, in accordance with Plato’s idea of the “noble lie”.

Let us entertain when Khrushchev reformed the Soviet economy, to which China responded by breaking ties with Russia, not long afterward Deng Xiaoping reformed the Chinese economy….why that it was okay that China did what they did but in the case of the Soviets it totally was “not okay”. I, have always found that some eastern ideologues get a pass for hypocrisy while we do not, like Dugin’s embrace of Franz Boas’ ethnographic theories on race, that race is either arbitrary or nonexistent and brings up Russia as an example of a multicultural world that works as opposed to ours and that Americans pushing notions of liberty and freedom in light of thinkers like Madison Grant. Who, by all rights saw race as scientific and rooted in evidence in which Dugin pushes the idea that dictatorships work over a people that otherwise would be divided over cultural differences. Hence, “keeping the masses in check who otherwise might form alliances contrary to the greater Eurasian project”. But I’m sure it’s also because America was founded on a principle of reason and, at a push, a British analytical tradition which has no room for logical inconsistencies, whereas the continental and spiritualist traditions of the east in which consistency is a vice, and hypocrisy nigh tolerated, something (David) Hume would dismiss as the primacy of sentiment over fact, is a prime example of “hypocrisy for me but not for thee” grandstanding.

Locke and Hobbes both erred in that former saw no need for man to pay his dues to Adam and his kin, the latter in that contracts were non-negotiable, the middle way ensures proper tributaries while emphasizing a purely voluntary duty. If only Kant had not banished the ontology to reason, instead of divine intervention, this would approximate my thoughts on the matter succinctly.

The feud between the Greeks and Turkic peoples goes back to the time of the Mongol invasions where a group of Turkic tribes diverted from adoption of Hellenism as the religion of the near East to avoid becoming absorbed by Greek cultural influence and exchange who saw their way of life disappearing and instead rebelled by adopting a belief system that was essence "anti-Hellenism". This became the impetus of modern Judaism in due time.

A lot of modern atheists do not realize how good they have it in the era of “universal human rights and dignity” From the dark ages Emperors, the Crusades, the Inquisition and then the successive Hussite rebellions, the Thirty Years War, and then the Salem witch trials, they would have not survived. Now they can say anything they want without repercussions. But are we really better for it?

The simple fact of the matter that most default human ideology is some form of spiritually agnostic social liberalism has affirmed my belief that humans are their own worst enemy, voting for policies that trample on positive birth rates, outsourcing of work, and extreme separation of faith and government, where the acquisition of knowledge leads to loss of meaning.

the reason why China is so successful is because they’re not Indo-Europeans. If they were the jews would infest their state and subvert them. But because they’re not, they leave them alone. Now one might bring up the Great Leap Forward but that was quite literally, a western subversion. Maoism is inherited from Marxist-Leninism which is not a native Chinese philosophy. There's a reason it's called "The German ideology" only that the Chinese inverted the source of the proliterarian to mean the agricultural class instead of the industrial workers. Taoism, Mohism, Confucianism and Legalism are the real Chinese traditions, the latter two of which were subverted by the Marxist-Leninist cabal to serve genocidal ends. There’s also a problem with certain strains of leftist and Marxist thought that conflates the elites with the masses as a tool for demoralization, that’s even found in the west, which is broadcast from the compromised ivory towers of Beijing. Chinese, thusly, is not naturally communist or Marxist and has been under foreign influence since the earlier half of the last century. In fact I would wager their successes on the world stage means bad news for everyone else, and these foreign agents forget the world is not a windowless world from China's own point of view.

I think one of the main reasons female philosophers only make philosophy around their gender is because they’re unable to think beyond themselves.

I find it peculiar that polytheism, a religious belief that predicates strength and power would essentially put females on a pedestal for reasons other than the fact they’re complimentary in nature, but instead put them leagues ahead of men for dubious, ulterior reasons as a way to give the middle finger to historically patriarchal feudal society. At that point, It just becomes an exercise in spite or because their fathet tried to discipline them as children and they’re rebelling against natural order. Furthermore, even from a nonreligious standpoint but on a historical and scientific one, matriarchal societies rarely evolve past the Stone Age, except for jewish culture which at the very fundamental level, should be the baseline for opposing feminism. Not because of anything else.

Because atheists don’t actually get called out on their drivel by mainstream society, they never face any real challenges so they gloat over their victories and become complacent, and in its place is a hollow atheism built up by resentment and pride, anti-life affirming and bitter. And they use this ideology to suppress anything left to contradict its existence, often colluding with governments to produce excessive bloodshed.

Much of the subjectivist, empathetic, sentimentalist ideas (consider the so-called “woke” phenomenon) might actually be a reaction to the hyper-rationalization the west has been going through the last few centuries, but increasingly so the last fifty years. It essentially is a perversion of the primordial truth beset by the ever compartmentalization of meaning. And the ever rising power of censorship usually ends up codifying acceptable thoughts regardless of wherever they originate from creating a very narrow, parochial, mediocre culture and society.

If the Marxists and communists actually believed in the nonsense they spew, each ability would facilitate a need, but they would probably just complain about exploitation. I’m not talking about mere sexual intercourse, but the ability to have families. Insofar that the so called “eugenic” sexual practices of women, which have been revealed and proven to be anything but, are a violation of the rights of men to continue their bloodline.

My criticism of Herbert Marcuse, and by extension, Theodor Adorno, perhaps would entail that their ideas of how an entirely efficient society functions quite like a prison, both suggest that the removal of the technological apparatus that on which the system operates must be truncated, which would lead to a desolate meaningless freedom. Both him and Adorno essentially believe that since our technological infrastructure keeps capitalism running as usual, authentic meaning can only be found outside civilized society, this was taken to its logical conclusion by thinkers such as John Zerzan and his ilk. But upon closer inspection, the problem is one of a psychological, not a technological disposition. One may act closer to one's primal, instinctual origins without disposing of the technological arm that enables man to carve out his destiny and free himself from his own limitations.

I think (Ian) McGilchrist's theory that society is moving towards hyper-efficiency has some unintended side effects of overemphasis towards emotion and sentiment to make up for its lackthereof, the absence of sentimental qualities within a very formalized framework, sort of like how infections cause bodies to build up a defense against them with white blood cells.

I think a lot of people are just going to have to realize politicians are flawed human beings just like the rest of us. The fact that so many (even on the right) like to idolize world leaders is a troublesome endeavor. Even social scientists, for all their contributions, are influenced by outside factors and no ideas or people exist in a bubble, whether historically, pragmatically, or socially.

It’s humorous how practitioners of argumentative logic insist ad hominem attacks are improper discourse but if Nietzsche or the Greeks do it, it’s not only tolerated but promoted. To the point of where making light of a man's virility is now acceptable argumentation. Very feminine behavior.

The more I attend to my studies the more I tend to see less, and less yet still, of a tangible difference between Hegel and Comte’s worldviews, the progression of history to higher and higher forms, but the designation of one as innatist and the other as epistemological guaranteed one would control analytical philosophy and the other continental philosophy for centuries on end.

In regards to socialism and Marxism there is nothing patently wrong with "owning the means of production", however, when it begins to traverse towards the territory of usurping property from those who voluntarily want to opt out of either state or societal contracts for the "greater good", it is best for all interested parties to "wash their hands of it" and dissolve the agreement altogether.

There is something to be said of the world-denying philosophies of the east and their embrace of authoritarian politics, the removal of personal autonomy and the rejection of the natural world lends to a cold indifference to things such as creativity and culture.

There is a thing to be said about recalling lost media that may just not exist but rather is a part of one’s childhood subconscious and could be entirely self generated, through dreams or thoughts.

There is something complimentary about the twin philosophies of Arthur Schopenhauer and Frederic Nietzsche in that former possseses a stringent, reserved masculinity and the latter a hysterical, unhinged femininity, one Apollonian, one Dyonisian, to paraphrase Nietzsche himself, in that Nietzsche very much sounds like complaints of a woman who is unsatisfied with her husband, represented by Schopenhauer's insistence on rational discourse, an extended set of editorial footnotes to "The Art Of Being Right", where the editor makes apologies for the author's retrograde sensibilities through appealing to modern notions of sensitivity.

Its not really the act of consumerism thats bothersome insomuch that people who engage in such activities just contribute to the financial stock of already established mega corps. But you’ll never see someone such as (Guy) Debord support the “buy local” thesis as he’s a godless Marxist and just wants to eliminate the profit motive entirely, which is a utopian prospect no matter how scientific Marxism claims to be.

The thing is, there’s a large subset of the population who think that second and third world countries can just enact policies that, beyond the usual trope of “well, the US just invades countries that don’t allow legal homosexuality” when it’s much more dire than that, in the case of actual existing human rights violations while simultaneously advocating for the American government to clamp down on the male population for wanting a society that doesn’t enable the stratification of families through 100% legal abortions and the whole “gender affirming care” nonsense.

The discovery of the legitimacy of the shroud of Turin has vindicated the writings of Rudolf Otto, in that science has vindicated faith, we will just wait until the favor has been returned to complete the circle.

The current existing left, at least in the US, is only leftist in terms of social values, it’s virtually indistinguishable from the right in a fiscal sense, lots of deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, etc. it’s not leftist in any meaningful way. Any actual leftist movement here would become compromised the instant the authorities would become aware of it. The Rich simply don’t want to give up any of their assets to the less fortunate despite standing up for progressive values and policies.

- J/Adolf Stalin