materialist analysis of inceldom Cyberurbanist 06-06-23 19:10:06 No. 13011
A materialist analysis of inceldom It is a well known fact that young males are having less romantic and sexual relationships than ever. Many on the right blame this on feminism which is half true but not the whole truth. The fact is that inceldom is a natural result of late capitalism.
In previous generations these men would have likely graduated (or even dropped out) of high school and gone into a unionized factory or other blue collar job, and made a high enough paycheck to pay for a house and support and spouse that likely didn't work. I tend to think of this documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AAUcmyXbg4 called two american families, which follows two blue collar families one black and one white in the midwest as they live through the deindustrialization of the late 20th/early 21st century and how it kindof destroys them. Not just singleness, but divorce, the breakup of families increased dramatically in this period, and while rightoids are half right to blame "feminism" what they don't realize is that capitalism and increased social liberalization are inherently linked.
In many cultures, especially in the past, marriage wasn't about love so much as duty and obligation to family, ethnic group, god(s), country, etc. Now it is about "enriching the already rich lives" of the people involved. If a market based economy goes on long enough people stop thinking of themselves as members of historically rooted and grounded ethno-religious communities and instead begin to think of themselves as CEOs of a corporation of one.
Capital is a totalizing force which commodifies everything it possibly can, and conservatives who think they can somehow draw a line in the sand at human sexuality and sexual relationships are mistaken. It's too late for that. The demonic entity known as capital has already been summoned, and it can't be controlled. Capitalism will eventually turn all social relations into market relations, making most human relations transactional, and this is the predictable result. In the past a guy would take a girl on a date, and pay for her dinner. Now the girl posts a nude photo on onlyfans which the guy pays for and masturbates over, and the girl uses the money to buy her own dinner on uber eats. What was previously an authentic human relationship has now been intermediated by the market and commodified.
This is on top of the fact that high housing prices (also a a result of late capitalist society) prevents young people from engaging in sexual intercourse for the very simple fact that it's difficult to bring a date over when you live with your parents. And those high housing prices are also the result of commodifying housing and making it a speculative asset inflating the price.
The only way to end inceldom is to establish a form of political economy more conducive to human flourishing. In other words, the only way to decommodify human sexuality is to decommodify everything in general i.e. end capitalism.
Anonymous 06-06-23 19:27:12 No. 13013
Men have been writing about their inability to get laid for centuries. <The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour. >In the past a guy would take a girl on a date, and pay for her dinner. Now the girl posts a nude photo on onlyfans which the guy pays for and masturbates over, and the girl uses the money to buy her own dinner on uber eats. What was previously an authentic human relationship has now been intermediated by the market and commodified >This is on top of the fact that high housing prices (also a a result of late capitalist society) prevents young people from engaging in sexual intercourse for the very simple fact that it's difficult to bring a date over when you live with your parents
Anonymous 16-12-24 00:18:26 No. 23174
i find this to be a bit ahistorical. lets not forget that prostitution is "the oldest job in the world", perhaps akin to an original sin by the natural division of labour (even as the masons regard eve to have been a luciferian prostitute). prostitution also held official office in pagan temples, as we see in the epic of gilgamesh for example, where enkidu is initiated into mortality and society by a woman's sex, like adam is brought into "matter" (mother) by his alienation in the feminine (after the split from his androgynous form in adam-kadmon); such that God creates light after witnessing his face upon the abyss. here, the feminine is man's primal alienation since he himself is born of a woman. but this is also the case of society - freud is more correct than marx then that before agriculture, there is the contradiction of sexual rights. prostitution is the first labour.
Anonymous 19-12-24 15:30:54 No. 23195
>>23174 i think youre reading too deep into this.
Also once again , this prioritising of procreation is the problem of all human society.
War and peacw are dictated by resources and respective quanta of etnic groups
Anonymous 20-12-24 07:56:16 No. 23208
>>23195 procreation has 2 considerations; qualitative and quantitative. this typically divides on class lines, where the poor will outbreed the rich (where the term "proletariat" itself means "those who have children"). the historical paradox has always been that those who "cant afford to have children" have the most children while the wealthy fall into bouts of infetility. this is due to different circumstances. the first is that the wealthy or affluent are often sublimated homosexuals, like we see in the history of art. the second is that royalty/nobility is naturally scarce by proportion, like we see classically categorised by the metals: gold, silver, bronze and iron. the more valuable the metal, the rarer it is. this is also represented by predators and prey. predators are crafted to be beautiful, while prey are "cute". predators invest their essence into appearance thus, while prey invest their genes into increasing populations (ends and means). this investment into appearance we typically see by the ruling class, while the poor are often unfashionable and vulgar. the rich have etiquette while the poor have "spirit". one is clean, the other is dirty.
the third consideration is that the powers of life operate in different sectors, like how a man's power is rational, while a woman's is intuitive; fiery and watery. this also accords on class lines based on how (as marx also sees it), the labour of managing capital is mental, while it is only physical for the proletariat. one activity is abstract (in exchange), the other is concrete (in production). the rational element of fire is centred in the head and so it deprives the abdominal and generative regions (of water and earth). this is also why athenians considered physical labour as the mark of slavery while mental labour as that of a master. this separation can lead to the dysfunction of either mind or body. a retard for example has immense bodily strength since they lack mental capacity, while the intellectual is either skinny or obese. there seems to be no healthy intermediary. in all this then we see the proportions of life energies (this is why plato suggests philosopher-kings as the "guardian" class of society; gold and silver).
this natural consideration must be made; beauty is rarer than ugliness, otherwise it would not be beautiful. so i agree that a procreative society is an ugly society, like how cats in the same litter will inbreed. having kids is not an end in-itself. the rule of procreation is also the rule of the "primal father" or sexual monopolist which freud describes as the first society. civilisation means regulating (sublimating) the sexual instinct, which also gives birth to the unconscious. this is achieved by the transition of polygamy to monogamy. where polygamy reigns, we only see women and children treated as mere disposable commodities. it is the merchant consciousness of buying low and selling high. the first king was literally the "father of the nations" like abraham, who is deposed by his fraternal sonship.
the social form of marriage however necessitates procreation as its planned product rather than spurious investment. casual sex is the familial form of speculation which gambles on its product. to marry is to come into mutual contraction of supplier and producer. the child is an investment (whose positive returns are typically economised, as engels makes note; that children are class actors, whose final product is money returned to the parent. marx also makes comment on how child labour turns parents into landlords - like how as soon as you get a job you are supposed to pay your parents rent. this is the "small print" of family structures. first you are a slave, then a tenant, and afterwards you continue the "family business" in literal terms by procreating). this crass form is the quantitative model of parenting which is based on incentive, not unconditional love. i remember for example my parents explaining how much they loved me in terms of what they bought me. here, love is a commercial contract, and when i failed to return a profit, i was shunned. the irony is that this is most common with the poor, which is why this is the quantitative model.
the qualitative model treats the child as an end in-themself, and is in some sense, a reversal of relations, where parents appeal to the child. this to me is best expressed by the clause of mutual recognition. the first step of this is an internal equality with the child. you cant use a "baby voice" to condescend to them, but must be fair. next is the child being made to be independent to a certain extent. equality means responsibility. next is the symbol of punishment. if one hits a child, they denote an unequal relation, which is ignoble (we must understand that all honour is in the relation of mutual recognition for example, where all classical warfare is an extension of the interpersonal duel, or formal declaration of conflict. 2 kids fighting in the grass is infinitely better than a coward sucker-punching a stranger. violence is only legitimate in its context. being "tough" is not about defeating your enemy, but in looking your enemy in the eyes. predators also display this principle of the glare. when we are angry we also stare at each other. this is the soul's gesture of equality: "look at me" is a way of saying "look at yourself". this is why liars find it difficult to look at you in the eyes, since they cant confront themselves).
so no hitting, since this debases the child to becoming a slave. what of confiscation or time-out? this is better since it resembles the civic code of just punishment based on crime. this must be met with its rational defense however. thirdly, like a real court, a child must possess a system of internal credit to defend himself, like when a person is bailed out. if a child has been good, they should receive credit. in some families, this is represented by stickers. fourthly, i believe that to cultivate a child's civility, they should also be granted an income beyond an "allowance" which is the servant's form. this lets them *earn* their independence in the same way and teaches the value of labour. a kid should be paid for chores, good grades and so on.
all of these revisions then represent the movement toward a *qualitative* form of parenting, which invests in the child themselves, rather than the child's end product. a child must be treated as a subject, not an object; a person, not a product. this is only possible by equality. so i agree that the over-production of children is unhealthy, but we must understand why. it is based on modes of production, not on the act of procreation itself. having children is the most perfect act, if it is done correctly. if so, it becomes the very purpose of life, as a means of "redeeming" humanity by the new man.
Anonymous 20-12-24 14:06:59 No. 23211
>>23208 >all of these revisions then represent the movement toward a *qualitative* form of parenting, which invests in the child themselves, rather than the child's end product. a child must be treated as a subject, not an object; a person, not a product. Big agree. Children are treated as alter egos of the parents. It's also disquieting that humans are the only species that infantilises their young.
Humans do everything in their power to limit juvenile autonomy.
When animal babies start walking, parents take them out hunting and foraging.
Humans out their babies in playpens.
Or dump them in daycares.
Or shoot them up with psych meds
.
Meh, I think men are also intuitive and women are also rational.
Men can sense when something is off with their fellow mates. It's just that women patronise male sentimentality.
Women can also make strictly business decisions. But men feel uncomfortable with female stoicism.
Idk. A lot of proles also have subliminal homosexuality.
A lot of workmen have their first loves with their best friends. Men used to write letters to each other complimenting each other's looks and character.
Men would make pacts with each other.
Anonymous 21-12-24 12:28:49 No. 23228
>>23211 >children are treated as alter egos i think the comparison to slavery is more apt. this is why many jobless parents also have kids, so that they receive government benefits. here, the kids act as a rented product. where it concerns child labour, the factory has also been replaced by schools (which carries over into "homework"). there is also domestic labour in chores without compensation. all leisure is pathologised, where if a child isnt working, they are seen as lazy. the parental relation then is a relation of property ownership. again, marx and engels also speak on this; that the nuclear family is a bourgeois model which reproduces the class system. this is also where aristotle and engels can agree, that the family is the basic model of society. freud also agrees of course. as we see from crime and dysfunction, what happens in the home has supreme significance. revolution then must mean a new type of family.
>When animal babies start walking, parents take them out hunting and foraging. in ancient greece, soldiers used to take youths with them to be spectators of battles. vocational education has also been the norm since before the industrial revolution - marx ofc is against specialisation though, and instead promotes the mass of unskilled labour to serve as the basis of social relations, which is part of the problem. the slave is the unskilled worker. the exporting of physical labours onto machines also leads to machines doing the thinking for us.
>Meh, I think men are also intuitive and women are also rational. yes but its about primary powers. reason is phallic since it begins as prideful posture. all occultists agree that lucifer is the power of reason, and so it is equally corruptive. what rises, also falls. reason is the brother of rhetoric, who is the father of bullshit. men are bullshitters, which is different from women. women can be liars, but never bullshitters like men.
>A lot of proles also have subliminal homosexuality. all men are homoerotic. the difference between the homoerotic and homosexual however is the identity of the unconscious. this is why the division of male sexuality is between the gay and non-gay (A and non-A). you can be straight and have sex with men, and be a gay virgin.
Anonymous 22-12-24 02:22:14 No. 23230
>>23228 Naziposter, you're the most dialectically coherent poster on here
No joke, most other "leftists" on here are more reactionary than anything.
So the Tree Of Knowledge is the symbol of reason, which is the modus operandi of Lucy Fair?
Also, yea, knowledge is often used for posturing and is used to patronize others.
Schools often act the same way as churches with its talk about "expanding your mind/opening the world" yet it condemns kids who don't confirm to non-liberal, non-idealistic thought
Many people get pissy at me for questioning the institutionalisation of public schooling.
Wrong on the last sentence.Women can and do out bullshit men. But, there's something women can never outdo men in.
Idealism.
Men are sentimental beings, more so than women.
Men are the ones who create philosophy and make arts and crafts and create romance. Women are often receivers.
Machines are not subtracting from the human element. They're only an extension. People don't remember that whenever we adapt a new mode of technology, we require a new field of study and maintenance for said technology
We never needed hardware or software engineers a century ago. But now we do.
Alot of medical imaging machines require supercritical fluids for coolant.
They also require maintenance on wiring.
Machines don't do the thinking for us, they do the hard to reach areas for us and we have to interpret their data.
Also, technical skills used to be taught in schools up until the 1940s thru 70s.
Well, bros before hoes.
I the Old Testament, David was on the run from King Saul because God sent Prophet Samuel to annoying David as the new king after Saul disobeyed a task.
David had befriended Saul's son Jonathan
Jonathan would go out to visit David to give him food and warn him of Sauls plans
David said of Saul: My love for you is stronger than my love for women.
Bros before hoes
The story of Biggie and Tupac. They used to be best friends who met up and used to do freestyle raps together.
Tupac helped Biggie with his rapping style.
The night of Tupac being ambushed, Biggie happened to being the same studio where it happened.
Poor Biggie was blamed and Tupac verbally attacked him every since. It turned Tupac against NYC until his death
But also, in the old days, men used to be touchy feely with each other. Hold hands, give bro hugs and bro kisses.
Used to be each other's first times.
A lot of gay guys used to have crushes on their own friends.
They never fell in love with them just by virtue of gender but by their character.
A lot of BL/yaoi focus on homosexual/homoerotic relationships from the sense of childhood friends or classmates or coworkers who hung out with each other enough develop fondness.
Alot of fanfiction of ships are often canon male characters who were primary comrades who stood by each other through thick and thin.
See Naruto and Sasuke or Sanju and Zoro
Anonymous 23-12-24 07:31:53 No. 23231
>>23230 >So the Tree Of Knowledge is the symbol of reason, which is the modus operandi of Lucy Fair? the tree of knowledge is the occult symbol of sexuality (or what foucault might characterise as the general will-to-know of sexuality. this is also what freud identifies in the sexual relation, or what lacan would implicitly see as the objet petit a of eroticism; this is why the scantily-clad woman is more erotic than the naked woman for example, since in signifying, yet not revealing, the sexual object, it gives us the negative, or phantasmatic knowledge of it. the "uncover" the woman is like "piercing the veil" in the holy of holies. this is why Sophia/Wisdom is the bride of the philo-sopher, as his own soul; anima). paul also communicates that all sexual relations bear the mark of original sin. the freemasons see this original sin in how lucifer copulates with eve (signified by "the lovers" card of tarot where the feminine aspect looks above - Wisdom/Sophia is feminine while Knowledge/Reason is masculine).
the "lovers" then are both adam and lucifer, which spawn cain and abel, with the masons being the spiritual spawn of lucifer, since cain's offspring are the craftsman as described in genesis. this is why lucifer represents reason, or worldly knowledge, as opposed to the sethites who represent piety. i make a bataillean distinction in this regard between cain (the earthly multiplier, or industrialist) and abel (the fleshly sacrificer, or the religious man). reason then is prideful for it is of the world (like how the fallen angels deliver knowledge to man, or how God destroys the tower of babel. here, worldly knowledge leads to destruction, while faith saves us from sin). Jesus makes this distinction between the sheep (aries) and the goats (capricorn). The israelites are saved by the blood of the lamb, yet offer up a scape-goat to God (like cain and abel). the scapegoat is an offer to azazel (the fallen angel who is scapegoated by the egregori), while Jesus is a sacrifice to the true Church. this is why many see jews as the synagogue of satan who have worldly knowledge yet lack spiritual humility, thus making jews cainites and christians sethites (luciferians and adamites).
"the first shall be last", like the dispute between esau and jacob. one is dark and the other, light. God loves one and hates the other. these brothers are reconciled at the clashing of their armies however, which is the synthesis the masons display in the temple legend, between the molten sea and golden triangle; or faith and reason. "theosophy" also applies this same task by its pseudo-masonry - of combining religion and science rather than choosing one or the other. reason then is lucifer, or worldly knowledge, who is mars (ares), the male. lucifer is also venus in his feminine mode however, which is aphrodite, or Beauty, or the quest of the initiate (displayed by the homeric myths; the iliad begins by the question of beauty and the odyssey ends with the reclamation of beauty in penelope, who is the soul, or "the bride of Christ". paris chooses aphrodite, which then spawns cataclysms, rectified by the journey of the worthy soul back toward its spiritual homeland, like ishtar falling from heaven into hell and rising back again).
pride is the uniquely intellectual sin. it is the faith we hold in ourselves, which never comes to fruition. as socrates says, "i am the wisest man in the world for i know nothing". i believe, but i do not know. when i think i know, i am become prideful and God casts me out of paradise.
the difference is that its illegal not to send your kid to school. school is institutional in the formal sense, which is why teachers are supposed to be "heroes". the function of schooling is to primarily farm children while their parents are working. its a matter of managing time around the working day, not "education".
yes. a boy's possessiveness over the mother is his lifelong psychic attachment. a man's phallic existence is also oriented around the ambition to outcompete other men, if only in the abstract. a woman by comparison has no concept of perfection, for she is gleamed as possessing this quality in herself by her lover. a woman is signified, while a man signifies. a man loves much more deeply than a woman, for a woman expects to be loved. this also applies economically as i say; a woman's existence is valuable, while a man's isnt.
only quantitatively, not qualitatively. i can amplify my voice across the world using a device in my hand, but that means negating what came before. approaching this dialectically also means approaching it somewhat pessimistically. we can never return to the past. are we driving history, then, or is history driving us? to me, progress means Geist (self-consciousness), not impersonal flux. the ideology of capital is the invisible hand of providence; the alternative must be in making this hand visible. apocalypse means "to reveal", and so it must be. each age must come into review; into Judgement.
>Also, technical skills used to be taught in schools up until the 1940s thru 70s. yes, before neoliberalism and the international consensus of financial speculation. protectionism is called nationalism today. people would rather be serfs than upset the market.
this is another facet of male love. men have brotherly love (loyalty, honour), while women cannot have stable sisterhoods.
>David said of Saul: My love for you is stronger than my love for women. indeed.
>But also, in the old days, men used to be touchy feely with each other. Hold hands, give bro hugs and bro kisses. the apostles say that they should greet each other with holy kisses. some churches still do this.
>Used to be each other's first times. well this is where male sexuality begins - with friends or with ourselves. to masturbate is to perform an act of autohomosexuality. the penis is an alienated object which we appeal to, like how we have to "try" to get our dick hard and so on. impotence with women is also common. the plastic penis today is the interpassive penis of cuckoldry which also reveals to us the truth of our own condition, in how we do not have sex for ourselves, but as a duty to the Other. our enjoyment is the Other's pleasure. this is clear from all the way back in the gift economies of antiquity, where we use all of our resources to appeal to this Other (which is the primary Other of our own penis - whose Will is mysterious, even as aquinas tells us; we can control our entire body, but we cannot control our penis). all warfare is an attempt to grasp the phallic weapon and slay our enemies with it. it is said that roman soldiers used to rape surrendered enemies, like how rapes happen in prison. the penis is man's alienation; his glory, his pride, his violence and his love. he is what he can never fully be; the universal penis.
Anonymous 23-12-24 08:38:32 No. 23232
>>23230 on industry:
the nature of skilled and unskilled labour should be based on a natural order of experience, where the young perform unskilled jobs and the older manage production (people have noted how this is often inverted, where a young manager supervises older employees). the idea that a minimum wage job can or is supposed to raise a family is total nonsense also, and it is a sickening defeat (or complacency) that the left lobby for "higher pay" in fields which cannot sustain an "aristocracy of labour" in marxian terms, since unskilled labour is not a sublation of guild systems of master and apprentice.
raising wages for entry-level jobs means an idea that this labour is legitimate for a career, when it isnt. what has happened then is that labour has been specialised in some areas, but radically deskilled in most. this is a natural tendency of industry, which seeks to debase labour down to a level where it can be paid at a lower rate. this rate is natural unfortunately, since industrial society is the quantitative society, as we see with overpopulation. more people = more unskilled labour. this is the merchant consciousness of slavery too which has high speculation but low investment. one buys a slave in order to create more slaves. this is also the contemporary strategy of human farming, which begins in the bourgeois family unit.
the destiny of industrial society then is perpetual bankruptcy, mass unemployment, genocide, slavery, or even extinction. marx's faith is that the proletariat has become a subject capable of producing value - but this only matters as far as he is a consumer, not a producer. his productivity can be outsourced and replaced. his subjectivity is a quantitative, not qualitative relation. "human rights" are the rights of alienated humanity, in capital. all sides seek to control the machine, but never to dismantle the machine. this is the anti-heroic complacency of civil society, which is always defensive, but never offensive. peaceful and submissive. "pay the slaves better" says the left, so that they will never revolt. "this is the end of history" they say, so that there can be nothing new.
at least let me die, i say. throw me out into the cold, so that i may learn to hate my masters. when i see a workers strike, i see an army without a commander. the plight of labour must be paid in blood, not gold. luigi mangione is a martyr; a vision of the hero, which is the only symbol of legitimate revolution. we dont want health insurance, we want dead businessmen.
Anonymous 23-12-24 11:59:45 No. 23233
>>23231 >pride is the uniquely intellectual sin. it is the faith we hold in ourselves, which never comes to fruition. as socrates says, "i am the wisest man in the world for i know nothing". i believe, but i do not know. when i think i know, i am become prideful and God casts me out of paradise. Socrates was the one who complained about the youth being "lazy" due to having newfound writing media.
Academics have a strong pathological contempt for worldly elements in the classroom.
I see alot of posts by teachers decrying the youth as being dumb just because they dont do cursive or "critical thinking" (i.e writing pretentious papers about some dead poets thought), yet the same teachers seem to be ignorant about technical skills or ethnic affairs.
Teachers can only see the world from their self-sheltered academic lens.
They dont like dealing with students who dont conform to the institutional stereotype of chikdhood innocence.
Teachers dont like precociousness or cynicism at all.
This. School functions like prison. Bullies and forced socialisation.
Adults will stop kids from sex, drugs, or bad fashion, but not from bullying. In fact, any sort of advocacy against bullying is mocked.
Whats worse is that adults will say schooldays are "the best years of your life" and say work sucks.
At least work has far greater freedom of choice.
You can choose another workplace if things get hectic.
You cannot do that with school.
Most adults think schooling will save their offspring from slavery. They beat ther kids for having difficulties in schoolwork.
Yet all the shit they make kids go through, when the kid graduates, all the acsdemic skills they learned in school mean nothing in the real world.
Adults nitclick/pathologise kids for misspelling or slang or not knowing random trovia.
Yet most adults when questioned about ther academic skill, theyre unable to recall what they learned in school.
All they recall is their dumb childhood shenanigans.
Adults think childhood is supposed to remain the same throughout every generation.
No new tech, no worldly/precocious instinct, no new slang, etc. Irony is, childhood as an anti-worldly hugbox is modern, not historical.
People say kids nowadays lose their innocence too early? Its the opposite. Theyre drowning in innocence.
Look at how its normalised to be awkward, weak, and unworldly throughout your youth.
Some adults even say "its important to have an awkward phase in your teens otherwise you become a terrible person". And the result? People waste their teens, twenties, and thirties with zero maturity/stability/life skills.
People complain about "mommas boys" but they get upset if boys arent loyal to their moms.
These same people also cling hard to their own moms.
Women are only valued for their beauty, youth, and innocence. Once they lose that to aging and worldly exposure, men dont want to associate with them.
Also again, alot of the criticism against modern women for not respecting/appreciating mens efforts is due to men infantilising women for centuries
Chivalry is simping.
People complain about "illegals taking over the local job market" when theyre doing the gruntwork that native born nationals dont wanna do.
People think themselves too good for manual labor jobs nowadays. They would rather go into student debt for white collar jobs they assume are cushy six-figure salaries
I meant to say Jonathan, not Saul
Maybe the Catholic churches, Protestants are cold affect.
Disagree. Women can have sorority. Theyre just discouraged from doing so.
Why is anything relating to mens bodies is always sexualused as homo?
I wouldnt count masturbation as "autohomosexuality".
Its autosexuality.
This is why I say man is not above the animals.
We claim superiority over beasts but we go crazy from lack of sex/affection.
Yet we are not allowed to acknowledge this.
Human socialisation is all about potential mating.
People cannot see each other as a fellow person, only as a gender role.
Humans try to philosophise romance and love but theres nothing deep about it.
Humans are the only species to artificially extend childhood to deny this fact.
Perhaps so. Thats why violence often uses sexual lingo. "Fuck shit up" " Beat his ass"
Or listen to punk or gangster rap.
Anonymous 23-12-24 12:38:28 No. 23234
>>23232 >the nature of skilled and unskilled labour should be based on a natural order of experience, where the young perform unskilled jobs and the older manage production (people have noted how this is often inverted, where a young manager supervises older employees). Unskilled labor is to done if one is lame or elderly or a child. Young adults should not waste their prime doing that. They should be in industrial training.
This. Unfortunately, most leftists nowadays are liberals at best. The right too.
This. Youve been saying the same thing Ive been saying but more words. Unfortunately, I get shut down as some reactionary/rightoid for suggesting that maybe people should do trades instead asking for minimum wage increase for shitty customer service work.
Alot of people feel entitled to have a spouse and kids without having any sort trade or business to support them. And since they have no technical skills, kids have to learn the hard way by themselves because mom and dad are just dumb breeders
Adulthood used to be earned, it meamt you spent your formative years learning survival skills ensuring you can get shit dome for yourself. Nowadays, adulthood is given. Its become an arbitrational consumer service give to those who are "of age".
Adults nowadays focus only on their rights and privileges as consumers. And they wanna childproof everything so they dont have to deal wifh watching over the kids.
You cam see how Boomers, Gen X, Y, and Z function as adults compared to the Lost, Greatest, and Silent Generations.
People are not peaceful but they are submissive.
People wanna talk about "freedom" and "rights" but nobody wants to work hard for it. People think themselves as transcendant of nature. Like I said, nobody wants to be free from "nature". They want favor from "nature".
Dead businessmen dont fix the problem either. Believe it or not, the CEOs are the biggest slaves to the system. They make the most money but that money is never theirs to enjoy. They have to pay for job insurance, review contracts daily, make sure subordinates arent backstabbing them, they cannot take breaks.
If a submanager decides to swindle the company of a few million, CEOs have to answer for that.
Doesnt mean theyre good people though. In fact CEOs are elected by a director collective.
Just like presidents or prime ministers.
Or even kings.
They dont have the most power. Theyre the biggest slaves. They are bound to the whims of ther respecive congress or council
Anonymous 23-12-24 13:40:06 No. 23235
>>23233 >Socrates was the one who complained about the youth being "lazy" due to having newfound writing media. i am not redeeming socrates, but only showing that the words of wisdom escape men at certain times. i credit socrates' daemon more than the man himself. what i find interesting in socrates however is that he says that general education is a mark of prestige, and i wonder if schools have taken this to heart? i have heard criticisms before that so many of the world's woes comes from the elites being platonic guardians, like how kant postulates a league of nations in "perpetual peace". the abstract aim of universal thinking is to subsume the world into its order. or as someone else once put it, "plato wasnt trying to get us out of the matrix, he was building the matrix"… we are many "noble lies" deep from then on.
>media you previously mentioned man's self-extension as well. marshall mcluhan fan? 👀
>Academics have a strong pathological contempt for worldly elements in the classroom. the thing with intellectuals is that they are equally dispassionate and deg.enerate. like how leftists (spiritual intellectuals) enjoy violence, in the abstract, but despise it in concreto. for example, the leftist impulse whenever something goes "wrong" is to have fantasies of extermination; "i wish an asteroid would blow us up", "i hate humans", etc. humanism is misanthropy (since both deal with the abstract, which is also why antinatalism and nihilism are uniquely leftist, as nietzsche identifies). the leftist frequently says "everyone must die", while the chud says "billions must die". here, we see the difference, which is between the abstract and concrete. the leftist says "have sex"; the rightist says "have children". there is similarity, but they are worlds apart.
>ignorant about technical skills or ethnic affairs. there is no "ignorance" of self-evident facts. freud understands unconscious denial to be an understanding of something without its acceptance. this is why "the truth must be spoken" for example, like the gay guy "coming out". the verbal is the public zone of truth. this is also why most rightists exist in a state of denial (by negativity). the rightist will very rarely admit they are racist, sexist and so on, and if they do, they ironically become "less" right-wing (this all makes sense if you read hegel - to come into identity is to simultaneously be negatively determined). the man who does not admit these things (even as sins) does not come into Geist, and so doesnt achieve self-consciousness. this is also why i think there is an internal split in the "right" between negative reactionaries, and what jonathan bowden called "the radical right", or "reactionary modernists", who are positively oriented to an ontological Politics like the left. the left and radical right then both hate idiotic reactionaries.
>School functions like prison foucault moment
>At least work has far greater freedom of choice. You can choose another workplace if things get hectic. this is why kids should receive an income.
>No new tech, no worldly/precocious instinct, no new slang, etc its really annoying how even gen z are pretending that every gen alpha meme is le "brainrot" and that there is something wrong with "kids these days". its a clear structure of ideological reproduction. gen alpha memes are also smarter and funnier than fucking doge and other reddit novelties than gen z pathetically cling to. i remember when "post-irony" became a thing, and now all forms of satire and parody are pathologised as schizophrenia. in the deleuzian sense, yes, of recoding (or editing/splicing) culture, but this is good. it at least shows creativity.
>Theyre drowning in innocence. to bring it back to OP's post, inceldom itself is a property of this extended virginity and youth which has been created for us. the memes of "30 years olds then vs now" show us the living face of history. you can see videos of kids from the early 20th century. they are dressed in suits, smoking and drinking, and it shows on their faces. like you say, "the good old days" are not days of innocence.
>Chivalry is simping. in the novel "vril: the coming race" it is said that men chasing after women is the unnatural order of things.
>People complain about "illegals taking over the local job market" when theyre doing the gruntwork that native born nationals dont wanna do. yes i completely agree. immigrants are a servant class today in the west, especially with things like food deliveries. in the warehouse too, there are many immigrants, including women. the old myth of the hard-working immigrant is true, because they are grateful for things we take for granted. this is why the master-slave relation leads to imbalance and the ultimate destruction of the master.
>Disagree. Women can have sorority. Theyre just discouraged from doing so. discouraged by whom? no one gives a fuck if women want to set up a tea party.
>Humans try to philosophise romance and love but theres nothing deep about it. it depends whether one practices what he preaches. the talker is not the doer.
>Thats why violence often uses sexual lingo sex and violence are both the same thing, just in different libidinal forms, like how how gases and fluids are both matter in different states. i generally see the left being erotically charged, while the right is charged by violence. the left want sex; the right want murder, and both are fulfilled this way. this the double-headed dragon which is part of the same body.
Anonymous 23-12-24 13:43:08 No. 23236
>>23234 >This. Unfortunately, most leftists nowadays are liberals at best. The right too. i would say that the left have just come into their self-consciousness as liberals. i see no real radical element remaining. the right are just the shadow of the left in this regard. years ago, obama said he was against gay marriage, now conservatives prop up "gays for trump". today there is literally no argument against gay marriage; not even by "tradcaths". the left progress history and the right meekly react against it. this is especially true of the post-ww2 regime, or the regime of american superimperialism, as michael hudson would have it. the irony of this of course is that this includes america hiring nazis to fight the cold war. nazi youth george soros also did his part to overthrow the USSR. its not just 5-d ebil communist chess; its just the fukuyamaist end of history, where politics is abolished by its own hand. dugin's lament is all about this too, yet he equally offers no real solutions.
>Adulthood used to be earned it used to be the rite of Citizenry, where you become a member of society rather than being granted birth right. the failure of zionist white nationalists is this uncritical approach where they have white advocacy but forget that many whites are just as scummy as the immigrants. this is why a proper understanding of race also includes class, as nietzsche knew well. whiteness must mean greatness, not just skin colour. one of the virtues of fascism was its international alliances which sought greatness in every land rather than just appointing natural right to the bottom feeders. as hoppe says, our enemies are both white collar and blue collar.
>People wanna talk about "freedom" and "rights" but nobody wants to work hard for it. yes, and then they want to complain when immigrants get ahead by working smarter or harder. the great line in my country is "benefits for us, not for them". it is a presumed right to be lazy, as long as youre white. it is part of the general issues of liberalism though, that "freedom" is an end in-itself. i believe in the rite of citizenship instead, where freedom must be earned, and so then it should also be able to be taken away. there are many more "honorary aryans" i would have in my ranks over natural born whites.
>Dead businessmen dont fix the problem either. this is more of a deontological issue for me however. i think it is good, regardless of the consequences, to kill these people. same way it is a good in-itself to torture child molesters.
>They dont have the most power. Theyre the biggest slaves i dont disagree. but they are just one facet of class enemy. politicians, bankers, landlords, journalists and so on also need beheading in a reign of terror. the "issue" is solved with every drop of blood spilt. but here again we run into the abstract/concrete paradigm. a leftist sees class as a "social/material relation", while i acknowledge personal class actors. the highest justice to me is only a sublime vengeance; it is those who live by the sword, dying by the sword. it is the pain they have inflicted returning back to them. this is good, regardless of consequence. the justice of God is not in his grace, but in his wrath. Hell is the purifying flame, where death itself dies. evil is purer than good then, for it completes the first and final task of creation, by abolishing itself.
Anonymous 23-12-24 16:18:18 No. 23237
>>23235 >its really annoying how even gen z are pretending that every gen alpha meme is le "brainrot" and that there is something wrong with "kids these days". its a clear structure of ideological reproduction. gen alpha memes are also smarter and funnier than fucking doge and other reddit novelties than gen z pathetically cling to. i remember when "post-irony" became a thing, and now all forms of satire and parody are pathologised as schizophrenia. in the deleuzian sense, yes, of recoding (or editing/splicing) culture, but this is good. it at least shows creativity. Remember that five to eight years ago, Gen Z was the scapegoat.
Before 2015, Millennials were accused of being the snowflakes.
And heres the thing: pop culture has reained roughly similar for almost four decades.
Most of our music, fashion, tech, and media graphics we have now can be traced back the mid-late 1980s.
DVDs came from LaserDiscs, Indie came from alternative rock which came from punk.
Rap music became braggadacio since 1985.
The first major gangster rap hit was in 1986, Soon after, NWA would popularise the scene.
Skinny jeans, buzzcuts, mohowaks, neon hair dye, neon painted finger/toe nails got popularised in the mid-80s.
As did drum machines and robotic voice effects.
All fhe snark and edginess that Millennials and Gen Z adapted for Internet culture?
Gen X.
Millennials didnt invent shit. Neither did Gen Z.
Also, iPads were an adaptation of GameBoys.
I remember growing up in the 2000s when kids played them alot on schoolbreaks. In the 2010s, we had smartphone gaming apps.
The whole "iPad baby" is projection.
Gen Z and millennials cannot handle aging and fading cultural relevancy. Theyre handling it even wrse tha boomers did.
See how they invented Disney Adults and other manchild types hijacking childrens media. See how they infantilise young adults
("Your brain is not developed until 25, therefore you cannot be a true adult.")
Youth is biological prime, not a state of mind. I dont like how peopoe associate youth in terms of "sociobiological maturity level".
"Extended youth" would mean looking and feeling prime at sixty as you did twenty.
What youre referring to is adolescence, which is artificially extended childhood.
The real problem is the parental philosoohy of "youth is innocence." Innocence is not a virtue. In fact, its a liability. Children are not vulnerable because theyre young.
There vulnerable because theyre innocent.
Studies even show that kids who grow up excessively sheltwred from worldly affairs are more likely to be victims of scams or sexual predators.
The grooming epidemic is sign of this.
Most grooming victims are usually over thirteen anyway.
Groomers are not even the sinister type that youd expect. Most are just as fucked up and vulnerake as the victim. Theyre mutual enablers.
Millennials are advocating to raise the age of majority and to further helicopter parenting.
Some news journals refer to Millennial parents as "drone parents".
Some LeftyPol folk suggested this. Idk though. I prefer kids be hiven more rights. And mae their education more hands on. Kids love building and playing with things, right?
Why not have official gardening classes where thy can learn how to grow fruits and veggies?
And teach them how to build gadgets?
And mot importantly, about ethnicity and gender.
There will be no whitewashing.
No "color-blind positivity."
People assume that childhood is a universal experience while adulthood is individualised.
Well, idk. Even in the animal kingdom, alot of species have males chasing after females.
But I do think human males chasing after human females is overdone.
Most men when they do get their female partners and offspring, they get bored and unappreciative.
Anonymous 25-12-24 01:39:26 No. 23240
>>23236 >this is more of a deontological issue for me however. i think it is good, regardless of the consequences, to kill these people. same way it is a good in-itself to torture child molesters. >i dont disagree. but they are just one facet of class enemy. politicians, bankers, landlords, journalists and so on also need beheading in a reign of terror. the "issue" is solved with every drop of blood spilt. but here again we run into the abstract/concrete paradigm. a leftist sees class as a "social/material relation", while i acknowledge personal class actors. the highest justice to me is only a sublime vengeance; it is those who live by the sword, dying by the sword. it is the pain they have inflicted returning back to them. this is good, regardless of consequence. the justice of God is not in his grace, but in his wrath. Hell is the purifying flame, where death itself dies. evil is purer than good then, for it completes the first and final task of creation, by abolishing itself. Interesting enough, it was said God created hell originally for Satan.
The Bible also says that Jesus will come back not as a humble carpenter but as a prince of vengeance.
He will come back to separate the "lambs" from the "goats".
In the Old Testament, God is portrayed more as a vindicator. Notice that God often strikes down people with plagues every other day for disobedience?
Twice He opened up the earth to swallow dissenters.
Anonymous 26-12-24 11:20:20 No. 23251
>>23240 in the book of john, it begins with the notion of an uncreated darkness which light approaches. this uncreated darkness is the prima materia out of which all things manifest, including God himself. this is the order of eternity, wherefrom God creates time. metaphysically, the essence of time is the timeless, like how one is "bored" when he experiences the length of time as an actuality. the passing of time is itself an experience of timelessness; this is why "eternity" means both the timeless, and a long duration.
Jesus calls the unsaved "children of the devil", showing how one is not born from God directly, but one must be "born again" in the Spirit to be saved. here then, darkness is our father, and God is only a guiding light. paul also speaks of satan being "the god of this world". this is proven by how the devil can claim to give Christ the kingdoms of the world for the price of his soul.
well immediately after Christ's ascension in the book of acts, the holy spirit starts smiting people, and as you say, Christ/Michael is the soldier who kills the devil. the last judgement also is the great trial of existence. there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth for the unrighteous.
my larger point about evil however is that evil must be destroyed by evil, which is a negation of negation. this is the legal right the state holds against criminals for example, "an eye for an eye" and so on. evil must come into mutual recognition for its Concept to be completed. satan must be thrown into the lake of fire.
Anonymous 26-12-24 17:10:36 No. 23265
>>23251 God created Lucifer originally as a court page.
He was the one who gathered all the hosts of Heaven whenever God had a discussion.
This. A lot of people say that time is slower when you're a kid. That's because your life is regulated to the point of where everything feels finalized without your consent.
Time speeds up when you get older because you have more freedom but more responsibilities.
But you know who also experiences slow time? Jailbirds.
Can you show me where it says that?
For the past several months, I come the theory that good and evil are fundamental forces not unlike electricity or gravity
The old scientific proverb: Matter and mass cannot be created nor destroyed, only concert forms.
Likewise, I think the same for good and evil.
Because if God created things be speaking them into existence, why did He not "poof" Satan out of existence?
Same for evil humans.
God could poof them out of existence.
Methinks God is more a mediator or "energy converter" rather than a personal being
He is bound by laws that even He cannot violate because it's impossible. Just like it's impossible for humans to jump up high into space.
Anything that's corrupted in the spirit cannot be destroyed. It remains permanently in existence like so but trapped in a special locale within the spirit realm far away from everything else.
Anonymous 27-12-24 23:13:05 No. 23282
>>23265 [1/2]
time moves faster when our consciousness is absorbed by objects of our affection. this is why for example, if we fast, we experience the day much slower. pain is the experience of eternity; Hell. the object of consciousness is typically to escape its singularity (I Am; YHWH), yet the common spiritual task is an attempt to return to this mystical reality. it is unbearable to most for them to sit silently in a room, emptying their thoughts, and focusing only on their breath. if you experience this meditative state however, you will experience it much slower than it actually occurs, just like the time-dilation of a dream. here then, time is not a mechanical property of reality, but a relative property of experience. freud is correct then when he describes the unconscious as a "timeless" space.
>God created lucifer as a court page <TL;DR - lucifer is a very mysterious symbol and cannot be conceived of as merely another actor in the biblical drama. his personage has to do with the quest of the soul itself and the identity of Christ the long version:
michael heiser says that the "serpent" in the garden of eden is actually a "seraphim", or angel who surrounds the throne of God. as we see, ha-satan (the accuser) has special privileges toward God. we also see this in the quran, where iblis (who later becomes shaitan) is not an angel, but is a djin with free will, which allows him to rebel in the first place. in comparative myths we also have loki, who is close to thor (jupiter; the indo-european sky-father). in ragnarok, the aesir (gods) fight the hoards of loki in a final battle, like the angels fight the devil's army. this relation of good and evil in close connection exists in the bible; in cain and abel, ham and noah, esau and jacob, joseph and his brothers, moses and aaron (who builds the golden calf - in the quran, aaron is not guilty, but instead it is "samiri", who is configured as the angel "samael" who in the "sixth and seventh books of moses" is said to guard hell. samael is described in the book of enoch as being a mountain full of eyes)… Jesus and judas (the tale of the prodigal son is also about adversarial brothers, which has its most dialectical relation, where the one who returns to faith is greater than he who does not move from faith; this is pure hegel - this is also why man is higher than the angels, and why Christ must go to Hell to become divine). the mormons also say that lucifer and Jesus are brothers. this makes some sense if we understand the words from revelation, where Christ calls himself "the bright morning star" (lucifer; venus). lucifer is said to have fallen, where Christ also says that he saw "satan fall like lightning".
the antagonist of the new testament is satan (adversary), but this is a general term. the specific being which Jesus opposes is "diabolos" (the devil). this is "the god of this world (age)" according to paul, which is why he is able to offer it to Christ for the price of his soul. now, Jesus says that the devil was in the garden and is "a murderer from the beginning". we also see how the devil tempts, like how he is sent out to test the faith of job. john dee says that it is "Coronzon" (333) who was the serpent, and crowley identifies this as the final stumbling block to enlightenment. the devil then only tempts those who wish to be tempted. here then, satan is an aspect of the deity, like how the works of satan and the holy spirit are given symbolic synonymity, between the miracles of Christ and the accusations of the pharisees (in how they say that Jesus commands demons by the king of demons. we see too how Legion is submissive to Jesus, and so Jesus has authority over evil. this is the curious case of Christ's entire work; if God can destroy evil then why does he permit it? God then is the lord of demons, like how in revelation, he gives permission to apollyon to open the pits of hell to unleash plagues).
in the book of job, God gives full permission to satan to test job by similarly unleashing plagues upon him, which then leads to job's hysterical plea, where God reveals himself. in this, God delivers his own apology, much like how he gives his authority to moses, "who made the sick and the blind?" here, God is the father of both good and evil, as it is written: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (isaiah 45:7)
esoterically, lucifer is venus (aphrodite), who is also ishtar and astarte (easter) in different traditions. these figures also rise and fall, like how ishtar is unclothed of her 7 garments and ends up in hell. she confronts the queen of hell and is then risen up again. these 7 garments are the 7 celestial spheres, or the "7 heavens". her falling down into hell is her descent into matter, like persephone being stolen by hades. hades (hell) is not merely the "underworld", but represents the material plane. ishtar falling into matter then describes the soul being encased in the body. in the baghavad gita we read that when one dies he is designated to a planet, from which he falls back into matter in rebirth. plato also describes this in "timaeus" where when one dies he goes to his chosen star until rebirth (this is also in the zohar where it describes 400,000 souls/stars existing. this is similar to the number of 432,000 described in the norse myths of those who reach valhalla, like those who go to heaven, which is 144,000 in revelation, the same number of men which enter the shores of troy in the iliad. 144,000 is 12,000 per tribe of israel, which means house of the zodiac, thus the 144,000 describes the number of fixed stars, or souls, in heaven. the iliad is also about the greeks [the intellect] reaching troy [the body] where both fight over helen [beauty/wisdom] - who will marry her? (she is returned to minalaeus in the end). only a few make it out alive, including odysseus, who returns to his wife penelope [his soul] and then goes to his father [God]. after this, athena brings peace among all strife and the great quest is finished (this entire quest began with eris/discord placing a golden apple in the midst of the gods also 👀 - the "forbidden fruit" initiates man into metaphysical conflict once again). plato in "republic" also describes odysseus as the wisest man existing in the afterlife. all this then is about reincarnation. is lucifer then the intellectual soul which falls into matter and must be united with love? is this why lucifer brings knowledge but also damnation? is this why he is the friend of God and must fight with his angels?)
this position of lucifer as the soul is certainly the masonic and theosophic position (which is a possible case as we see in revelation, of Christ calling himself lucifer), as we can read from blavatsky, steiner and pike (blavatsky's publisher "lucifer press" and later "lucius press" was actually the official publisher of the U.N.) steiner says that lucifer is the intellectual fire which is born of saturn, while jehovah (YHWH) is the watery passions born of the moon. this is why jehovah is wrathful, while lucifer brings knowledge (like the egregori in the book of enoch). the mountain of God (mount sin'ai) is actually the mountain of the moon (since "sin" was a semitic moon god, preserved in semitic tradition, like lunar calenders). to steiner, Christ is the mediating air born of the sun, who brings balance between the two. steiner here sees a 3-fold life-form of 21 modes (7,7,7), between intellect, soul and body. later in his thinking also, steiner drops YHWH from this partition and replaces him with "ahriman" or "angra manyu" (the zoroastrian devil). this is also basic gnostic thought; of equating YHWH and yaldabaoth (demiurge; "creator" - the demiurge however is a snake with a lion's head, clearly denoting the year, from capricorn to leo; the demiurge is otherwise called "abraxas" whose value is 365, making him equal to the cosmos - good and evil then are reconciled in the totality). here then, we have the classical split between lucifer and satan (apollo and dionysus; light and darkness). steiner regards the intellect as superior to the soul and the truest representation of the godhead. this is because the intellect grasps formal ideas and not embodied concepts, while the soul is only present in bodies, and thus limited to its incarnation. in the emanation of the world religions, steiner also sees lucifer incarnating in china to create paganism, Christ incarnating in rome to create christianity, and ahriman (anti-christ) will be incarnated to be defeated after his 9,000 year reign.
Anonymous 27-12-24 23:16:19 No. 23283
>>23265 [2/2]
in revelation, we see Christ as an androgynous figure with 7 lights emanating from him. here, Christ is the cosmos, as described in the hermetica, as the "first-born" of creation through which all things must be made (also spoken of in the book of john by equating Christ and Logos). the symbol of the cosmos is also the sun (which has 12 "disciples", "dies" each winter solstice for 3 days, is "born" on christmas, and is "resurrected" on easter - the spring equinox). Christ is also the "fisher of men"; the fisher king, or pisces (which stands in correspondence to virgo; mary). pisces comes after aries, which shows how the "lamb of God" must die to pass us on into the "new age". this is why Christ is also the bloody lamb, who is the sacrifice of the world; the scapegoat - like how mithra (sol invictus) slays the bull, or how YHWH kills baal (since the age of taurus had passed over into the aryan age). here, Christ takes on the new form of cosmic order (shown by the unstoppable spread of christianity). the antichrist is 666 (nero kaisar; caesar) who is also the roman state (in pontifix maximus); mystery babylon (the vatican). this is why Christ says you either serve God or mammon (symbolised by the roman coin; Christ also banishes all money changers from the temples - the ironic thing however is that after the reformation, financial power moved away from the catholics and towards WASPs and jews following the institution of the bank of england; people say the city of london corporation is at the head of all this, and london was founded by romans, so, either way…) Christ finally calls himself Lucifer; thus, is Christ really lucifer? he is certainly "the light of the world", but is he the "light of the morn"? perhaps. but is lucifer the same being as satan then? it can be interpreted that way. is satan then diabolos? only where his temptation serves a rightful end. in all this then we must be humble to the will of God, which is mysterious and often indecipherable. God can be a tempter just like he delivers us from evil. the soul must fall to rise back up again. such perfect order seems like madness to man.
some final notes: miguel serrano syncretises lucifer (venus) /christ (sol)/wotan (mercurius) as the same figure, who all create reality by dying on the world-tree. here the odinic runes are like the fruit of knowledge, which induct us into salvation. qabalistically this also accords with the 22 letters of the hebrew alphabet being the 10 fingers of abraham and covenent with his tongue, then his 10 toes, with the covenant of circumcision (described in the sepher yezirah). these are seen as the building-blocks of creation (since God "speaks" reality into being - john dee however sees that it is rather "enochian"/mercurian/odinic language which is the first, not hebrew - this dispute of languages also has its anthropological reality with proto-indo european ofc, where the tower of babel story is perhaps an analogy of aryan diaspora). eliphas levi also in "the history of magic" gives a fascinating story about how the tree of life was chopped down. it became moses' staff (dont forget the brazen serpent upon his staff), it became solomon's pillars (also said to have held the secrets of mercurius/hermes etched onto them like hieroglyphics) and was finally the cross on which Christ was crucified. this then references the "tree of life" as a map of the divine body (like abraham in sepher yezirah), which is originally adam-kadmon, or the first adam, androgynous; in the image of God. he then becomes separated into adam and eve. Jesus is reckoned to be an archetypal symbol of this "first-born" of creation, as we see in revelation. levi sees lucifer as the astral light, or magical fluid which mediates all things (aether). this to manly hall is the mediating mental waters, or the mythic neptune, as opposed to hades and zeus. manly hall also sees myths of "sea peoples" like the annunaki as simply being those who "descend" from the mental plane. finally, the masons see lucifer as the father of all craftsmen - this is the blood of royalty, which has natural right since they are all sons of cain. cain is the spawn of lucifer and eve, while the rest of humanity is sethite (this sexual usurpation is also in noah's vinyard after the flood where ham sleeps with noah's wife. here, ham can be seen as a luciferian figure, whose progeny is the canaanites, who occupy the land of the israelites - Jesus likewise says that he came for the israelites, but he redeems the gentiles; who become spiritual jews - is Jesus then perhaps an adulterer [like paris with helen], which is why believers are the "bride of Christ" and the worldly jews have been "cut off")? cain is intellectual (proud) while abel is faithful (humble). if you consider YHWH to be a foolish god then you can see his favour of abel as emblematic of ignorance then - but my final opinion is that intellect is good, when used for the purposes of faith. otherwise it is prideful. faithless intellect is as dirty rags to God.
<acts 5-1:11 basically, 2 liars are killed for not donating enough money to the church - some old testament stuff right there.
>Likewise, I think the same for good and evil. Because if God created things be speaking them into existence, why did He not "poof" Satan out of existence? >poof pinecreek fan?
>satan the simple answer is that all evil serves a greater good, like how all war leads to a greater peace, or how all criminals kill each other. evil is a self-regulating good (since all temptation is self-inflicted and all consequences are karmic), which is why we call evil in many cases a "necessary evil". evil can be necessary, but good is never necessary. this oncemore gives evil ontological primacy (as the uncreated darkness). evil in the end is the path of least resistance, like how at the end of democracies come dictatorships; anyone with a cursory knowledge of history understands how civil order must be forced from time-to-time. even plato saw this well in the republic by analysing the circular movement of political forms (freedom is trust; a trustless society is unstable, which is why rampant commercialism which is based on anti-trust mechanisms leads to ruin).
Goodness then is a form of evil (a negation of negation [such as azrael killing the angels, and then himself, in the quran - this is by far the most epic narrative in all of religion]; like how walter russell speaks on how light is an inverted darkness - the same as the hermetica's description of the visible emanating from the invisible, or how capricornus kills but also revives the sun - which is the acausal power of darkness in the unconscious - hegel's "night of the world", which thus renews the dying sun, like how sleep vivifies our bodies, and why darkness makes us tired, since it is astral light, which appears as darkness, like the nocturnal sun of sheol described in the book of job, or the black sun of devi and serrano. this to levi is baphomet, which to anton long is the "dark mother". this is one interpretation of the o9a's magic - the ToB for example make indirect reference to levi's history of magic when discussing vampires consuming "blood essence". acausality itself comes from jung though, and the "dark gods" are the 21 archetypes of the tarot arcanum - or what steiner identifies as the 21 modes of existence. this is transferable to the "tree of wyrd" as a composite qabalism, like the "tree of life" of the sephirot, or "tree of death" of qlipoth). all of this is why you need suffering to appreciate comfort (like how when we are sick we are grateful for when we were healthy). too, if we only had good things we would be eternally ungrateful. this is why the concept of heaven is tricky, since it must include its struggles to create a greatest good out of them (which is why i personally believe we live in the best of all possible worlds, ironically, since it is so horrible). i can believe in Hell, but heaven is more difficult, unless both are combined. any serious moral thinker thus sees contradiction in the artiface of the law, otherwise he denies the category of morality itself. morality is always the question between the ideal and necessary, or "hypothetical" and "universal" [kant].
that is a common and valid opinion. i think God is a person though since i believe God must have a soul, and thus a personality (even dogs have personality). his works are just so mysterious and brilliant that we cannot conceive of his personal genius however. if God has no personal soul or authority, then what is the cause of his existence? why should we pray to him? he might as well not exist since matter is self-regulating anyway (which is why engels calls himself a "deist" if i recall, since it accounts for creation, yet it does not impose on creation); order out of chaos 👁
>Anything that's corrupted in the spirit cannot be destroyed. It remains permanently in existence like so but trapped in a special locale within the spirit realm far away from everything else. can you elaborate on this please? i immediately think of Christ speaking of God's secret place.
Anonymous 28-12-24 01:41:24 No. 23285
>>23282 >time moves faster when our consciousness is absorbed by objects of our affection. this is why for example, if we fast, we experience the day much slower. pain is the experience of eternity; Hell. the object of consciousness is >typically to escape its singularity (I Am; YHWH), yet the common spiritual task is an attempt to return to this mystical reality. it is unbearable to most for them to sit >silently in a room, emptying their thoughts, and focusing only on their breath. if you experience this meditative state however, you will experience it much slower than it actually occurs, just like the time-dilation of a dream. here then, time is not a mechanical property of reality, but a relative property of experience. freud is correct then when he describes the unconscious as a "timeless" space. Interestingly, it's said that in high stakes situations, our brains slows down time so we can better react.
Time is also affected by gravity.
Astrophysical objects with high gravity often have slower timeflow.
That's why communication satellites need constant calibration because their clocks are often off by milliseconds due to gravitational differences of Earth orbit and sea level.
God refers to Himself as the Alpha and Omega. Also, notice how God created Lucifer but He allowed Lucifer into the Garden after kicking Him out of Heaven to tempt Adam and Eve.
Me thinks God wanted Lucifer to tempt Adam.and Eve as a test. People often say that God did this as a test of free will. He wants us to make the choice to pursue Good.
Also like you said, notice how evil often is attracted to evil and when they collides they do often go out in a big bang.
We see this in the sociogeographic hip hop war between NYC and Southern California back in the 1990s.
A lot of the victims were often people who weren't evil but were egotistical and careless.
Or how some serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer are killed in prison especially when they start to "convert"
Anonymous 28-12-24 01:57:46 No. 23287
>that is a common and valid opinion. i think God is a person though since i believe God must have a soul, and thus a personality (even dogs have personality). his works are just so mysterious and brilliant that we cannot conceive of his personal genius however. if God has no personal soul or authority, then what is the cause of his existence? why should we pray to him? he might as well not exist since matter is self-regulating anyway (which is why engels calls himself a "deist" if i recall, since it accounts for creation, yet it does not impose on creation); order out of chaos
Anonymous 28-12-24 04:25:20 No. 23288
>>23285 >Also like you said, notice how evil often is attracted to evil and when they collides they do often go out in a big bang. this is the will coming into cataclysm. violence is the most obtuse form of organic communication, and the ends of man is his own inversion into death by this openness. the final act of all men is to die. this is justice, as i say. without death there is no mercy, for evil cannot perish by its own hand. this is why today's medical culture is so disgusting, since it turns people into androids to extend their worthless lives. if you smoke and get cancer, dont feel sorry for yourself. if youre fat and have a heart attack, rot. youre either eugenic or dysgenic.
>Or how some serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer are killed in prison especially when they start to "convert" you'll notice that the religious tend to suffer very harshly in this life. look at all of the people in gaza who pray to God yet they still die. this is why faith is beyond reason. only the jews would dare to put "God on trial" after the holocaust though. says something of their character.
>>23287 >anthropomorphic impression of God if God is a person, then he is still "human" to an intelligible extent, especially if you believe in the many tales of his incarnation. the idea of the "alien" God is solomonic drivel.
>God is bound by laws he is not bound by anything - here again you are thinking of God as a mechanism, and not a self-determined being. we might appeal to necessity; "God must [x]", but this is to assume that logic is above God, or causality, for that fact - but we get stuck when we think "who/what created God?" this is more difficult for the godless who have no actual answers to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" which is one of the most profound questions you can ponder.
>It's also said that smells, taste, colors, and sounds don't exist. They're merely neurophysical filters made up by the brain. youre metaphysically confused here. if we experience the objectivity of an object, then it is "real". if i sense an object, then it exists in relation to me. what you mean by "existence" then is ambiguous; as clumsy as saying "reality isnt real" which is an unfortunately common turn of phrase. it is self-contradictory.
>That means if we were to experience matter and energy without the neurophysical filters, things would be totally different. i would suggest you read aristotle. a human soul/mind requires a human body. there is no "pure experience" of empiricist illusion. this is why we have the intellect for example, so we can apprehend the abstract, which exists beyond experience. a triangle for example is an abstract entity.
>Me thinks the physical world is merely "ash" or "shell material" of the metaphysical. no. i think this world is as "real" as any other.
>I think atomic physics is the beginning of metaphysics. science builds facts; but only wisdom unites facts into truth. quantity must turn to quality.
>>23286 define matter
Anonymous 28-12-24 14:25:44 No. 23290
>>13011 >In previous generations these men would have likely graduated (or even dropped out) of high school and gone into a unionized factory or other blue collar job, and made a high enough paycheck to pay for a house and support and spouse that likely didn't work. This was the case for maybe two consecutive human generations in all of history. It was an extremely irregular and rare situation.
The idea that working class women simply didn't have to work is absurd. Do you think peasant women tended flower gardens while their husbands did work commutes to the grain fields?
Anonymous 28-12-24 16:04:28 No. 23292
>this is the will coming into cataclysm. violence is the most obtuse form of organic communication, and the ends of man is his own inversion into death by this openness. the final act of all men is to die. this is justice, as i say. without death there is no mercy, for evil cannot perish by its own hand.
Anonymous 28-12-24 17:10:47 No. 23294
>>23292 >I thought you said that evil cancels out evil i do say that here, but perhaps clumsily. what i mean is that death is required for the sword to be slain by the sword. this is merciful because it kills the evil, and limits the personal will to the mortal body.
>I tire of junkies and criminals being allowed to breed and given worship for "reforming". absolutely. some "people" are just rotten. worthless.
>Objects exist but the sensory phenonemom they emit isnt really. this is just groundless skepticism though. if i see something and it appears to have objectivity, then its sensual representation is correct. this to me is a functional definition of "real". it certainly isnt "fake".
>If God isnt bound, then why does He have a Fivine Plan in the first place? because that was his choice. in life we learn from strife as i say; we cannot be grateful without first suffering. all things operate for the greak work then, which is furnished by the grand architect. i will tell you a secret. i have experienced de ja vu before to such an extreme level that i immediately understood that reality is predeterimed. our destiny is tied to our souls; whether you believe in reincarnation or the afterlife, or even nothing at all. we have a path which we are fated to follow. everything happens for a reason. why then does god create a plan? to bring us back to him. that is a succinct answer.
>He wouldnt bother with humans in the first place. why not?
>As for your contempt towards the "godless" asking about "why is there something rather than nothing" or "who/what created God", these are valid questions. Nobody else seems to want to ask.
you misinterpret me. my suggestion is to ponder upon this question and it will either be maddening or enlightening. blaspheme in every abominable godlessness at your disposal, for at the bottom of Hell is salvation, which is the inversion of darkness into light. i experience this all the time. i am an evil person, but i wish to be evil against evil. this is the devil's ultimate form, in self-destruction.
>Alot of people believe in God out of pure infantile instinct of FOMO i think it is purely out of death anxiety. here's a question. if religious texts never spoke of an afterlife, would people still have such faith? no. you can read in pagan texts the belief of souls going to hades, cursed to live in gloomy shades of silent death. the most you could be was a ghost - the material world was the gift of the gods. this is a vitalist belief, which contradicts with the nihilistic (life-denying) drive of the priestcraft, who seek "immortality" in something beyond themselves (nietzsche obviously discusses this). i personally have no investment in an afterlife, so i believe in God for different reasons. i am simply grateful for the gift of existence.
>How much is it all in your head vs your body? to me, our mind and body are inseparable, so i dont recognise an abstract soul like many others. even if the soul has an aetherial nature, it must then have an aetherial body, like many describe in the astral plane. the gods themselves also have spiritual bodies, so why not us? a healthy body is a healthy mind thus. there are no fatties in heaven.
>clarify for me please if you can imagine talking with God, you can imagine his personage, which is inherently "human" since it is intelligible. an inhuman personality could not "talk" with us, therefore either God is "human" or "alien". the idea of the alien god is solomonic drivel because it attempts to ensnare the properties of God into particular aspects rather than his universal being. notice for example how an occultist will always speak of "angels", "demons", "the universe", but never God. this is its wicked faithlessness, which seeks to "know" God without wanting to really know him.
>I mean to say that the earthly plane is merely tip of the iceberg. Interdimensional enitites (ghosts, UFOs, bogeymen, etc) leave physical residue behind. but notice how all of these disembodied creatures wish to interact with us and manifest on this plane. this is because "demons" are biblically the disembodied souls of the nephilim who wander the earth. they possess people to experience life again, since floating in the void is torturous. what is more "real" then? alice's wonderland or cold, hard matter?
i dont deny these other spaces, but they are not "closer" to truth to me; they seem like nightmares from which you could never wake up. imagine floating through this surreal landscape til a visiter enquired upon you. in fact, many people take drugs to "escape" worldly duties since they are too difficult. the "dmt realm" is just like cyberspace then. it is the "backrooms" of reality; the cache of reality. thats my pithy perspective anyway.
Anonymous 28-12-24 17:45:17 No. 23295
>>23294 >i think it is purely out of death anxiety. here's a question. if religious texts never spoke of an afterlife, would people still have such faith? no. Meh. People will have faith in anything regardless of an afterlife or not.
In fact, I bet most people interpret the existence of an afterlife as meaning prosperity and luxury in this life or reincarnation back into the earthy realm to be live like kings as entitlement for suffering.
Again, faith is mainly based on Fear Of Missing Out
Belief is only based on what one didn't have in this life.
This is such a bullshit cliche used by people to cope with loserdom. People who say this have never really suffered or they're secretly bitter about not getting what they wanted in life.
Also, if God is creating a Divine Plan purely out his own choice, not out of binding to Principality, it would mean that He sees humans as playthings.
All the suffering humans go through was for naught. It was merely a game to Him.
On the one hand, it sounds profound. But I also think this also another copiun used by humans when they find out "human will" is useless against mother nature.
I do believe in fatalism to an extent but only as far as natural selection.
The nephilim are manifesting into the earthly realm because they're doomed to hellfire in Judgement.
UFOs, ghosts, sirens, and other things that go bump in the night are the souls of the Nephilim wanting vengeance against God. The only way to achieve this is to corrupt or harm humans
Notice how ETs always kidnap humans to extract procreative cells from them?
Alot of UFO abductees talk about seeing hybrids or having sex with hybrids or pure blooded ETs.
It's so they can make an alternate anthropoid race to dominate the humans.
Extraterrestrials are not planetary beings from interstellar space. They're earthly beings from INTERDIMENSIONAL space.
The modern depictions of UFOs and their drivers are eerily similar to medieval depictions of goblins and ghouls.
They even stink like sulfur.
Unfortunately, the science community wants to think these beings are interplanetary beings wanting to impart "galactic wisdom". They dismiss interdimensional/metaphysical theory.
Again, this romantic personalisation of God that the Christians do helps no one. It doesn't stand up to scientific or historical reality
Anyone who studies history, science or even theology would find that the "personable" God is an anomaly.
Hell, even read the Old Testament.
Yea, alot of profundity from psychedelic drugs is just shallow escapism.
Boomers made everyone fall for DMT and similar shit as spiritual awakening while shitting on electronics as the enemy.
Also, alot of yogis back in the 1960s and 70s condemned the usage of psychedelic drugs as means of meditation.
Anonymous 28-12-24 17:48:55 No. 23296
>>23294 >you can read in pagan texts the belief of souls going to hades, cursed to live in gloomy shades of silent death. the most you could be was a ghost - the material world was the gift of the gods. this is a vitalist belief, which contradicts with the nihilistic (life-denying) drive of the priestcraft, who seek "immortality" in something beyond themselves (nietzsche obviously discusses this). i personally have no investment in an afterlife, so i believe in God for different reasons. i am simply grateful for the gift of existence. I notice that it's always the agnostics who cling the most to the positivity message of Christianity.
For me personally, as an autist, I guess I'm grateful for existence, but I think God could've done better.
He could've made me an astral being free to roam the cosmos and earthly realm without needing to interact with humans.
Anonymous 28-12-24 18:41:52 No. 23297
>>23295 >Meh. People will have faith in anything regardless of an afterlife or not. not at all. this is why today's popular christianity teaches that everyone goes to heaven, and that only Hitler is in Hell. of course, God's judgement is most often contrary to man's. and think of the term "after-life" as a form of self-projection. becker appropriates rank by seeing how art is a form of this investment in immortality. even atheists have a spiel about how we "return" to nothing, rather than are dissolved into emptiness. becker's thesis in "denial of death" is all about this instinct to preserve the ego. one literally cannot embrace death, that is his point. so the afterlife is a sublated fantasy; even of how "ancestors" live through the bloodline. freud brilliantly gives his own exposition in "totem and taboo" also where the children immortalise the father. death anxiety is at the root of the unconscious.
>This is such a bullshit cliche used by people to cope with loserdom. People who say this have never really suffered or they're secretly bitter about not getting what they wanted in life. well, all apply to me in different proportions. i am a loser; balding, 5'11, homeless, irish, etc. i have never suffered like i have wanted to. i have suffered in my own way though, but that is true for everyone. i am not "bitter" but more regretful at my own folly. but in the midst of all this i still perceive the wisdom of my fate, which is clearly not in my control. i want things, but i cant have them. it might sound cliche, but first consider this. me and you are just 2 individuals in a world of trillions of organisms. not only humans have souls. even plants do. we must fit somewhere in this great saga. when you abstract things in this way with a humble heart, you begin to approach a mystical state of awareness. think even of the cells in your body, and the atoms which make up your cells. we are not a mere "creation", but are constantly being *created*. if you ever experience synchronicities then you will perfectly understand what i mean
>Also, if God is creating a Divine Plan purely out his own choice, not out of binding to Principality, it would mean that He sees humans as playthings. All the suffering humans go through was for naught. It was merely a game to Him.
well that is the perspective of heraclitus, who saw children playing games as most wise since they were like the gods.this may be the case, but you are thinking of it wrong. a game is not one-sided; we play it too. all of society for example is role playing, revealed in rites like saturnalia. there is the typical mysticism that we are all "masks of God" also, and so pretend that we are particular persons, and not God, like how when we watch a film, we suspend disbelief. my opinion though is that God has designed this "game" as a quest for wisdom (an anaodos). God is not an idiot, and as i say, all things work for the greatest good, whether we know it or not.
>I do believe in fatalism to an extent but only as far as natural selection so youve never experienced divine intervention? the key is to see how all events are then "divine interventions"; this is the spindle of fate sewn by the morrigan, which is plato's "chain of necessity" which surrounds the planets.
>Extraterrestrials are not planetary beings from interstellar space. They're earthly beings from INTERDIMENSIONAL space. i agree, and basically everyone is waking up to this fact.
>Anyone who studies history, science or even theology would find that the "personable" God is an anomaly. how? God has always been symbolised as a person or persons. thats what makes him God; that he is the supreme personality of existence. if by "personable" you mean "nice", then you misunderstand my meaning.
>>23296 >For me personally, as an autist, I guess I'm grateful for existence, but I think God could've done better. but thats just your human hubris. this is like a toddler asking for ice cream after midnight and no bedtimes. dont ask for anything from God, just be grateful for what he gives you. this is why prayer is important; not as a bribe, but a gratitude.
>He could've made me an astral being free to roam the cosmos and earthly realm without needing to interact with humans. this is just spiritual sickness, as autism typically is. if you dont appreciate having a physical body then you dont appreciate existence. that's self-evident. this is also why i call material reality hyperreal, since it breaks all illusions we cling to. its even hard to look into the eyes of a stranger, yet in our mind we want to think we possess some natural right to command reality. we are tyrants within and cowards without; here, God reveals what we really are.
Anonymous 28-12-24 19:28:11 No. 23298
>>23297 >this is just spiritual sickness, as autism typically is. if you dont appreciate having a physical body then you dont appreciate existence. that's self-evident. this is also why i call material reality hyperreal, since it breaks all illusions we cling to. its even hard to look into the eyes of a stranger, yet in our mind we want to think we possess some natural right to command reality. we are tyrants within and cowards without; here, God reveals what we really are. The physical was made by the spiritual. And we use the spiritual as the indicator of overall character. Flesh is temporary.
What sense would it make to appreciate the physical existence as the means within itself?
Especially when youre limited to stay stuck in earth limited to only certain realms of the biogeosphere due to physical limitations?
Methinks this allegory is often overused too much and is semi intentionally used to dismiss suffering.
Often used to spare one of empathetic labor towards the poor and sick.
I'm sure if God made you a plaything for the Nephilin to be satiate their bloodlust would you say "You should be grateful"?
That metaphor is also overused and frankly a bit disturbing.
It sounds nice and tingly but do you really believe that? Or are you clinging to it out selfish relevancy?
Methinks most people who believe in fatalism or a divine plan don't sincerely follow it. They only believe it for themselves and see everyone else as mere NPCs to be tolerated.
Christians don't believe animals or plants have souls. They believe they have spirits but not souls.
You understand that Christianity under the Eurocentric rule is very impersonable.
Divine intervention is rare and even if not, often involves human effort. Also, your last sentence about "spindle of fate" and "chain of necessity" is what I'm talking about.
People want to believe in anything greater than themselves but they want to impose their selfish vicarious impressions onto this "greater thing".
This is why I believe fatalism is mostly natural selection.
And if I recall, you said that "the game of life is not one sided, humans are active as well".
Anonymous 28-12-24 20:11:45 No. 23299
>>23298 >the value of the physical the purpose of physical embodiment is partly the perfection of the physical form. this is mystical traditions have martial arts for example. the real greatness though is that we get to experience the fullness of reality. initiation requires the "ordeal" of incarnation in the mystery rites, like dante's inferno which leads up to purgatory, and finally paradise (hades, neptune, zeus). this is what you must also understand very deeply. you *are* your body. i know false teachers say the body is merely a vessel, but this is a lie. the body is the principle of will in the world. prana exists in the blood which gives life to the body. blood is said to be fiery like the sun, while seed is aetherial. remember, we are "made in the image of God", and what does Christ say? the body is a temple!
>would you say "You should be grateful"? you should always be grateful. any time God is blamed, you fail to understand. even the damned should be grateful that they may die a quick death. we receive so many gifts and never thank God, yet when bad things happen, we blame him. here is the perspective.
>That metaphor is also overused and frankly a bit disturbing. often the truth is very disturbing. many people in history have died for the sake of the truth, since people love simple lies
>Methinks most people who believe in fatalism or a divine plan don't sincerely follow it. They only believe it for themselves and see everyone else as mere NPCs to be tolerated. i am also part of other people's stories. the animals and plants i eat are part of my life story, and their life is put into my body. this isnt "my" story, its *the* story of reality, but we all still have our own personal destinies.
>Christians don't believe animals or plants have souls i dont care what christians "believe", i care about what is true. Christ is not a christian.
>Divine intervention is rare and even if not, often involves human effort my point is that you must shift your perspective. if we are constantly in the process of creation, then everything is divinely intervened upon. my point is rhetorical, that we sometimes see God's work and call it a miracle, yet dont see how existence itself is a miracle. once more, this is ungratefulness and pride.
all in all, you exude a degree of faithlessness which i find repellent to be honest. you can be curious about God, but never question God. get on your knees and pray instead. it is the only cure to a hard heart. ["why do bad things happen?"] - there are different ways to ask this question, and it all depends on your tone. like i say, the truth can be disturbing. are you ready to be disturbed? are you ready to pick up your cross? are you ready to go to hell and be resurrected afterwards? this is the task of the initiate.
Anonymous 28-12-24 20:12:29 No. 23300
>>23297 >i agree, and basically everyone is waking up to this fact. I wish. Most people think of aliens as the gods that the religions prophesied about.
They think of them as flesh and blood beings with advanced technology and "extremely self-trained empathy".
The average person dismisses aliens as outright demons. Even though evidence points to it.
Anonymous 28-12-24 20:17:23 No. 23301
>>23299 >my point is that you must shift your perspective. if we are constantly in the process of creation, then everything is divinely intervened upon. my point is rhetorical, that we sometimes see God's work and call it a miracle, yet dont see how existence itself is a miracle. once more, this is ungratefulness and pride. Fair point.
I'm just tired of the obnoxious preachiness of Christians with their willful lack of intellectual curiosity.
Their praise to God isn't really deep nor inquisitive.
all in all, you exude a degree of faithlessness which i find repellent to be honest. you can be curious about God, but never question God. get
Fair point again. And once again, it's because of my disillusionment with Christianity with its overbearing idealism and lack of worldly tolerance.
Anonymous 28-12-24 20:26:21 No. 23302
>>23301 that is understandable, and i apologise for any misgivings. i can be like a jihadi who leads with wrath and is ready to cut off the unbelievers. my ultimate fantasy for example is to barge into a satanist convention and torture all of these wannabes who think they are the real deal. they will see that God is most good by also being most evil. i am quite islamic also in that i love knifes and always want to slice people open. the dagger of the angel which drips with the blood of demons; this is my icon of faith - holy war.
yes, fuck the christians who are as lambs to the slaughter and who pray to the idols of their imagination. fuck the dirty mudslimes too who only know wrath, and despise wisdom. truly the name of their god is as the first name of allah; ahriman.
Anonymous 28-12-24 22:23:09 No. 23303
>>23302 There is a bigger question than where did God come from.
Where did evil come from?
According to Christian tradition, evil was created by the devil. But here's the thing: God created Satan.
God is Good. He doesnt possess Good, He Is Good.
So, therefore, evil is a primal transcendence, just like dark is to light.
I think evil was always within the hearts of Adam and Eve.
I think that without the devil, man would still commit evil.
Christianity asks man to submit to God, but never do they ask man to take responsibility for evil.
Anonymous 30-12-24 08:41:53 No. 23308
>>23303 yes i agree, thats why i call evil the purity of God, in his wrath, which is manifested as necessity. evil then is the prima materia from which all things are born, which is why our father is the devil. there can be necessary evil, but never a necessary good. what we pften call good is just a relief from evil, and so then there can be no good without evil, for goodness is the negation of negation. what is primary to good is evil, thus God is evil, but a self-overcoming evil. man's original sin thus is God's original sin, symbolised in the cosmic crucifixion in many myths. the universe begins by the death of God. in qabalah, the universe likewise begins by a negation of negation. ain becomes ain soph aur.
why is there something rather than nothing, then? the answer is that there is nothing, but a nothing which is always returning back to itself (where freud for example sees the death drive, or entropy, as the imperative of organisms to return to prima materia). existence then is an alienated nothingness, and death is its self-completion, as the object of justice.
categorically, what is evil? it is only the bottomless pit. it is infinity and groundlessness. this is what precedes creation as primordial chaos. as the lich says, "before everything, there was nothing, and before nothing, there were monsters…".
what created God? evil. what created evil? infinity. what created infinity? nothing. what created nothing? nothingness is uncreated.
Anonymous 31-12-24 17:01:38 No. 23319
>>23308 so you understand that Christianity, which has been bastardised by European colonialism, helped make the autocastrative dilemna we have today?
As mentioned in OP?
Anonymous 03-01-25 02:03:09 No. 23344
>>23319 christianity begins as the Logos coming to fruition in world-history ~4 B.C. which is the constitutive inversion of its spiritual principle, in rome (the universal church). this spreads along with european empire. the reformation and capitalism are the same Event, of continental europe becoming secondary to the north, and especially of british power, which becomes the global commonwealth. this obviously transmutes into USA, which is the "new world" of weltgeist. within USA we had the european (catholic) south fight the anglo (protestant) north. then we had new york (west) be the site of global revolution, until it is slowly but surely transferred over into the east coast. some say the tract of Logos has completed its movement in america, and therefore the west has become completed in its Concept (like how der fuhrer's sacrifice was a conceptual horizon that gives birth to the EU as a formal empire. europe lives in its death, like america).
the Logos in Christ is the piscean age itself however, which ends ~2160 A.D., where the "thousand year reich" of aquarius begins.
in terms of world-history, it can also be traced by financial power. first in the roman-babylonian tributes, and then into central banking following the english civil war, where cromwell allows jews back into england. this is also why anglos and jews share a common destiny (obviously with the establishment of israel, at the very least - lets not forget the royal relation of the rothschilds either). some imagine that israel will establish a third temple where we will have the battle of armageddon. possibly. in this case, it will be the eclipse of the abrahamic religion.
>autocastrative well the priestcraft accords to the logic of castration, literally and figuratively. what is most corrupting of men today is not their priestly initiation however, but what the roman imperium called "idle pleasure" experienced as the fatigue between wars. a noble man is either a priest or a warrior (while the ignoble are either merchants or servants). what we have then in today's liberal order is either a reserve class of soldiers; untranshumanisted and leaderless, or a reserve of slave, who seek a master. what is castrating thus is one's repression from vocation, or purpose. this is today's spiritual castration.
i speak specifically on the material history of sexual relations here:
>>23174 when we get rid of arranged marriage (courting) we enter into the anarchy of (re)production, which is also the domain of prostitution, or sexual speculation. this has existed since the beginning of history, but it must revert to a positive concept of monogamy over time. lust must turn to love. this however marks the consciousness of property. as Christ communicates, marriage is the relation of mutual ownership. this is also why i think the ideal family form is one of mutual recognition with all members.
Anonymous 03-01-25 04:56:35 No. 23345
>>23344 >well the priestcraft accords to the logic of castration, literally and figuratively. what is most corrupting of men today is not their priestly initiation however, but what the roman imperium called "idle pleasure" experienced as the fatigue between wars. a noble man is either a priest or a warrior (while the ignoble are either merchants or servants). what we have then in today's liberal order is either a reserve class of soldiers; untranshumanisted and leaderless, or a reserve of slave, who seek a master. what is castrating thus is one's repression from vocation, or purpose. this is today's spiritual castration. Why do "intellectuals" always call/refer anything bad as caused by recreation?
also, historically, most people were workers with no noble purpose
they lived, worked, amd hedonised.
This obsession with "changing the world/being a hero" as the main spirit-frame of adulthood was a result of The Age Of Exploration/Enlightment.
>>23174 when we get rid of arranged marriage (courting) we enter into the anarchy of (re)production, which is also the domain of prostitution, or sexual speculation. this has existed since the beginning of history, but it must revert to a positive concept of monogamy over time. lust must turn to love. this however marks the consciousness of property. as Christ communicates, marriage is the relation of mutual ownership. this is also why i think the ideal family form is one of mutual recognition with all members.
Romantic love is worse than lust.
Lust is appreciative of flaws.
Romantic love isnt.
Romantic love wants to trap people in an artframe.
Its about trying to recreate your favorite movies and books in the flesh.
It doesnt factor in others limitations. If it does, it sees them as "something to be fixed".
again this is all wrong. the original sin was knowing evil. Nothing to do with sex.
Why do philosophers always mystify sex?
Goddamn its like I feel Aristotle wouldve had a stash of Playboy while beating his students or kissing each other on the cheek.
Also, you mention a survey where school girlspicked to be Only Fans? Those kind of studies are faked or imbellised to warrant conservatuve reaction.
Most young women wanna be girlbosses. Either in STEM or business.
Anonymous 04-01-25 01:10:41 No. 23346
>>23345 >Why do "intellectuals" always call/refer anything bad as caused by recreation? read nietzsche. the purpose of the priestcraft is to experience their will-to-power in the moral instinct. this is why to nietzsche, morality begins by reversing the natural order of "war and leisure" into labour and scholastics. this is why when man falls he enters into "the curse of adam" whereby he must work to till the ground, like cain. here, reason and technical knowledge are the fathers of civilisation, and therefore labour (since cain multiplies his produce while abel sacrifices his). this in bataillean terms is the difference between economy and religion.
>also, historically, most people were workers with no noble purpose yes i agree. its no different today.
>This obsession with "changing the world/being a hero" as the main spirit-frame of adulthood was a result of The Age Of Exploration/Enlightment. its interesting since graeber shares the same opinion and says that the visage of the wandering knight is most likely a reflection of the travelling merchant, including columbus himself, who only set sail in order to pirate gold mines to pay off debts. i agree that the heroic archetype in history has its modern limits, but dont forget that hesiod and homer considered there to be a real "age of heroes" (heroes being demi-gods) which concludes with achilles. with Jesus, obviously the hero is turned inwardly and man must conquer himself. this is the "popular platonism" nietzsche accuses christianity of. even the islamic "jihad" has its esoteric meaning as the struggle with oneself. so the heroic is a multifaceted concept, but not a contrivance.
>Romantic love wants to trap people in an artframe thats what makes it "ideal".
>the original sin was knowing evil. Nothing to do with sex this is bad theology. the knowledge of evil begins with the knowledge of nakedness. this shame is man's confrontation with mortality. paul also regards the sexual act as sinful in itself. masonic myth also speaks of lucifer seducing eve, and this conception being the original sin. what is "evil" thus is the sexual act, which is then the message of genesis; from the flood, to ham sleeping with his mother, to sodom and gamorrah, to lot's daughters sleeping with him, to jacob being cheated out of his wife, and so on. this might also explain the typical cases of jewish perversion in the general consciousness of sexuality.
Anonymous 04-01-25 01:48:11 No. 23347
>>23345 >>23346 to speak more on original sin, after the flood, we get a regeneration of creation, where noah creates a vinyard, yet becomes drunk. the sin of ham is in perceiving his father's nakedness, where later in scripture, a father's nakedness is referent to his wife. noah's other sons must then cover up his father's nakedness. after this, noah curses ham's bloodline (the canaanites). later of course, the israelites kill the caananites to reclaim their promised land. in all this we can draw parallels with the iliad, where a trojan steals the wife of a spartan to then begin a war over this prideful object. this then relates back to the garden of eden, where adam's wife is tempted by the serpent, which leads to a curse. here, adultery initiates men into the contest of a woman. esoterically, this refers to matter and spirit competing for wisdom (sophia/soul). adam is made from clay (earth) while the serpent (seraphim) is made from fire. this all begins however since God himself falls into matter by his face being upon the abyss, which spawns adam-kadmon, or the adrogyne from genesis 1. after this, he is split further into man and woman, then further by cain and abel, and so on. sex is the original sin then since it signifies man's separation from himself. the external woman is originally the internal woman. this is why Christ reinstates monogamy; since each man only has one wife - his soul.
Anonymous 04-01-25 08:25:05 No. 23350
>>23349 it makes sense if you read hegel. Hitler's aryanism was bringing the Concept of europe into its totality, yet by this act, europe is brought into war. with Hitler's death comes the disbanding of formal empire, but also a transference of power toward american superimperialism. continental europe is "freed" by the eastern soviets and transatlantic anglosphere. europe thus finds determination in subjugation. later is the EU, which consolidates power around germany, and is erected as a bismarckian continental empire; "the 4th reich". however, this final and pathetic act of identity is one's defeated exclamation. owl of minerva flies at dusk and so on; identity turns to difference.
this is also why "white nationalism" defeats itself - firstly, since (contemporary) whiteness is an american concept which appropriates europeanness, and secondly, because whiteness is a universality constituted by its self-denial (and where one is affirmed in whiteness, he is not white). an example is how in the first instance, "whiteness" includes ashkenazi jews (which is why all wignat movements are zionist); secondly, all wignats are peasant scum, and thirdly, to be "white" properly is to complain about white people ("white guilt" is the concrete universality of whiteness, which is sublated, since it is preserved in its negation). the "whiter" you are, the more you "hate" white people, like the rich saying that "money wont make you happy".
to link it back - Hitler's germanic identity leads to its sublation (by nazis being imported into the american empire and by the EU controlling europe). germans become dominant, but informally (negatively; abstractly). this is also why all fascisms are particular, since they depend upon formal (particular) identity. a book burning ritual is more important than crafting government policy; a school shooting is cooler than reading books - thats why us fascists often lose. but also because identity escapes into its immanent negation. this is why racism is an unstable praxis (and why class must be equated with race). dare to hate the black and white trash equally.
Anonymous 04-01-25 08:46:14 No. 23351
>>23350 >hegelian stuff OK.
"Der fuhrer" didn't sacrifice shit. he was a coward who got a bunch of people who supposedly cared about killed and then shot himself in the head when it was time to face the consequences.
Anonymous 04-01-25 09:13:52 No. 23352
>>23351 soulless blather
the curse of cynicism is that it dulls the intellect while professing its elevation. lacan gives a name to this; "les non-dupes errent" (those who imagine themselves to be beyond, are most caught within). this is also why i say that in the matrix, the "red pill" is actually the blue pill, since you *think* you are free. the matrix revolutions obviously enters us upon this confrontation (with the "real world" just being another simulation), which then leads neo to enter back into the matrix to redeem it. the core of the red pill is dark blue, thus.
>hegelian stuff maybe you can learn something, especially since you are on a nominally "marxist" website. but i always forget that most marxists dont read, least of all, marx himself.
Anonymous 04-01-25 16:03:50 No. 23353
>>23347 Here's a handsome bishonen boy for your troubles.
Maybe the only way to solve the inceldon crisis is to give them a yaoi bf.
Man, if God reincarnated me into a BL/yaoi universe, Id never have to worry about "the no gf"
Anonymous 04-01-25 21:10:16 No. 23357
>>23353 the incel crisis resolves itself in any case. life has its darwinistic mechanisms, and if youre too much of a loser to not be able to reproduce, then only blame yourself. if you cope by sucking cock or cutting your balls off, then so be it. the world could only be better with more transsexual sluts draining the balls of all worthy men anyway; even roman citizens had their boy-slaves to exploit, after all. not everyone can start a family, since not all forms of social reproduction are genetic - thats why we have queerdom as a natural excess, which then regulates the social order, like how priestcraft regulate the marriage ceremony. queerness is the openness of life's closed system; this is why the gay man embodies the death drive for example, as a cumulative libidinal economy (and why the wealthy are more likely to be queer; since it is the dark vivicitude of bataille's solar anus). i am not a faggot however, so i dont want to settle for cartoon men oggling at me as i masturbate into the void forever. i believe in heroic heterosexuality (think of the film zardoz), which includes a sublime homoeroticism naturally. the issue is that heterosexuals are today's true sodomites, yet i see no gays picking up the slack in the meantime. all gays are doing is "normalising" themselves as nietzsche's last man par excellence. at least the incel has the romance of a worldly struggle to find love in a loveless society. the gay just fills his holes, but he doesnt even have to worry about AIDs anymore. the woman today is equally a gay man; a spiritual whore - but like i say, there is no seller without buyers. if i was a woman i would also sell my body. as a man i have already given it away for free, in previous omegle sexcapades and whatnot; virtual circlejerking. for women, they at least possess a labour men cannot compete for. having a female body is having inherent value, as i have previously said. every woman has a price.
Anonymous 05-01-25 04:44:59 No. 23361
>>23357 >i believe in heroic heterosexuality (think of the film zardoz), which includes a sublime homoeroticism naturally Define
Inceldom is self righteousness. As I said before, romantic love is selfish. They complain about sex being the motive for intimacy yet they're just as shallow with their focus on grandiose mannerisms.
Most gays don't have sex as often you think. Most gay sex is just cishet males looking to blow steam because women are inconvenient.
Women are only valued for their beauty and fertility.
Women are not automatically valued just because they have bob and vagene.
Value is only given never inherent.
Also, equating women to gay men in the way you did was very patronizing.
This sounds backhanded way to write off the existence of non-procreative sexuality.
Also the "incel to transhumanist pipeline" is an urban myth used to promote misandry or transphobia (depending if you're liberal or conservative)
Anonymous 06-01-25 10:01:36 No. 23365
>>23358 its not rambling, its making the point that when you disconsider historical significance, you can contrive any cynical generality. its as if i said that the french revolution was a bunch of people deposing a king. in its abstraction, it loses its content.
>Hitler was a bad commander i'd like to see you transform 1933's germany into a world power that conquered europe, and could only be defeated by western liberals and eastern communists joining forces. Hitler is the 20th century napoleon. this is uncontestable, and like napoleon, his folly was in the east. that was a mistake, but so what? will you also call napoleon a failure because he ultimately lost? that is ignorant, as i say.
>Hitler did not sacrifice he sacrificed his nation. this is clearly perceptible in the outline i give. Hitler conceptualised europe, and in this formal identity, europe entered into its internal negativity, only to end up in the EU as a concrete totality - what is this total state? a colony of the american empire.
>>23361 >Define heroic heterosexuality is the sexual subjectivity which liberates the feminine object from its recursivity. it is the imperative to marry rather than masturbate (gay sex is just a form of masturbation for example). today's heterosexuality however is masturbatory, making us sodomites, not the fathers of the race. this is why its even possible for gays to debase themselves to the level of "marrying" each other, since us hets are the homos.
>As I said before, romantic love is selfish. you act as if selfishness is wrong in itself. of course love is selfish; its ultimate symbol is the mutual ownership of a marriage. monogamy is selfish, but thats what makes it authentic. if i cheated on my wife, would that make me better or worse as a partner? grow up.
>Most gays don't have sex as often you think yes, today's gays, since being gay is now normal and thus lacks its death drive. this dampens its spirit.
>Women are not automatically valued just because they have bob and vagene yes they are. even if its a very low value. but only a man can be valueless.
>Also, equating women to gay men in the way you did was very patronizing. its accurate.
>This sounds backhanded way to write off the existence of non-procreative sexuality write it off? you clearly have never read hegel. my point is that non-procreative sex is the constitutive negativity or surplus which is integral of sexuality's formal identity. thats why i think homosexuality is precedent of heterosexuality for example. what it means to be straight is to be alienated from our essential homosexuality - but if you know hegel, you understand how alienation is progressive of the concept. thus, there would be no species if there were no heterosexuals, but dialectically, there would be no heterosexuality without homosexuality - represented in the marriage ceremony, where the gay priest arranges the heterosexual marriage. this is an archetype of social ontology, and why ritual matters. the excess of sexuality is also conserved on a class basis, like how its illegal to have sex with children, unless you are rich. this has always been the case, showing the nature of libidinal economy.
>Also the "incel to transhumanist pipeline" is an urban myth not at all. why do you think transhumanists have such high rates of autism which correlates with incels? most transsexuals are also sexless, but we only call cishet (white) men "incels". also, do you really think the average joe needs propaganda to be transphobic? let it be. the world is transphobic. be rebellious or be a square. up to you. the moment "punk" becomes mainstream, doesnt that indicate its death?
Anonymous 06-01-25 12:17:10 No. 23367
>>23361 >>23365 >>23366 curtis yarvin has an alternative theory of high culture which he lays out in a recent substack article:
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/the-origin-of-woke-a-george-mason in this, he sees that elitism is naturally exclusive, and so its (wokeness') support of queers is only contingent upon their general unpopularity. to be "cool" you must be weird, yet sophisticated (like how "high art" insists upon itself by its relative unintelligibility). this is embodied in the class relation. since classes are antagonistic, yarvin sees that the cultured are simply the unattainable. akin to marx's sentiment that the ruling ideas are the ideas of rulers, yarvin sees how popular culture is downstream of elitist affection, and trends only change when the elites are gravitated to a new polaris. if our elites suddenly became reactionaries tomorrow, then we would all be reactionaries - thats his basic thesis.
what he misses however is that the queerness of elites is not a mere contingency, but a constitituve aspect of elitism itself. the culture of the elite is drawing from this excessive subjectivity, primarily. this is why even gays in public schools will also naturally conduct fraternal orderliness and hierarchy, like women. what he also misses is political ontology in modernity. leftism is not merely enlightenment slop, but is the unconscious of capital's coming-to-be. the bourgeois revolution is always in progress. yarvin has a romantic view of aristocracy, without seeing how our tether is in the merchants. what largely determines culture is what is profitable.
Anonymous 06-01-25 20:40:45 No. 23371
>>23366 >heroic heterosexuality is the sexual subjectivity which liberates the feminine object from its recursivity. it is the imperative to marry rather than masturbate (gay sex is just a form of masturbation for example). today's heterosexuality however is masturbatory, making us sodomites, not the fathers of the race. this is why its even possible for gays to debase themselves to the level of "marrying" each other, since us hets are the homos. Can you clarify?
You mean "be fruitful and multiply"?
Punk is a farce. Any movement that obsessed over being "underground" is just insincere.
Also, not all MtFs are socially neglected cishet males.
Alot of of who transition do so because of personal identity, not because of "the no gf".
Also, not all MtFs are able to look like cishet females.
You also forget we have FtM trans
That's looked into less than the former
How? You assume honosexual makes are all girly acting submissive bottoms?
No. Even in the old days, very few gay men initiated sex. It was always the cishet males who did.
Selfishness vs self-sacrifice.
Selfish love is when you as a guy assume that your GF is trying to hit on any other guy.
Selfish live is when you compare your current partner to past ones.
Selfish love is pressuring you partner to try out new clothes or dialect for roleplay to "spice up the bedroom".
Romantic love is selfish because it's all about wanting to trap people into an art frame without any consideration towards their personal history.
>>23367 Merchants were responsible for the transoceanic slave trade. Merchants were the ones who made profit during gold rushes.
Merchants are the ones who lobby ridiculous legal codes for industrial security.
Also, what do you mean by "cishomo males adapt fraternal rank-and-file like women"?
Men are the ones who do that
Women don't create value, men do.
Women are merely disciples of the status quo.
You're assuming that men aren't used as sex toys as well. Or that all women are beautiful or untainted enough to fuck. There's women who are rejected for being ugly and infertile.
Women can be seen as valueless.
Anonymous 06-01-25 22:34:55 No. 23372
>>23371 >Can you clarify? it has to do with my dialectics of sexuality, which has its freudian inspiration. women and gays are affective of the mother and so perform their *objectivity* which is a femininity - this is castrating, since all masculinity is phallic; the general formula for this is [O-S-O], with homosexuals being a natural surplus to the concept. phallus, or sexual subjectivity [S-O-S] belongs to heterosexual men and lesbians, who perform sexual subjectivity, or alienation (from the mother; which is why both these groups desire women - the desire of the mother thus is one's alienation from her, which inducts one into subjectivity, which is why any ambitious woman is typically lesbian, or nominally "masculine"). transsexuals i situate in blanchards typology between AGP and HSTS (i take note of his category of the FtM being autohomophilic also, or of how in women is the immanence to find being a gay man an erotic affair; yaoi culture speaks well to this - here again, the cis woman and gay man collide). AGPs are phallic, while HSTS's are castrated, which is also why i qualify HSTS transsexuals as "real" (spiritual) transgender women, while AGPs are ungendered in a sense, like cis lesbians, who are *both* man and woman, and thus neither.
the lesbian then is the contradiction of gender identity, by fully representing the logic of phallus, as the artificial penis (which becomes the strap-on or dildo - this simulation is the actuality of the erect penis - think for example how a penis must be *made* hard; this contradiction of sexual function makes masculinity the original sexual contradiction, or alienation. all life spawns from the feminine; masculinity then is a strange but necessary excess in-itself. the penis attests to this - it is the externalising of an internal genital relation; we also see this in how developmentally, all foetuses are female before some are made male by testosterone in the womb).
in this then, heterosexuality is inherently romantic, chauvinistic and competitive, since it is a mutual contest for female attention (now, this is only constituted by a universal homoeroticism which begins in the autohomosexuality of masturbation; this then has its interpassive dimension, like in pornography, where one enjoys the orgasm of another man, which is also a natural cuckoldry, as the pleasuring of a woman for her own sake; lacan makes the proper point for example that one's desire is in the desire of the other - the drama of the sexual ritual is this mutual artiface to pleasing the other, not ourselves - its this psychic tension which can lead to impotence in the first place. even a rapist or pedophile for example must always imply that their victims "wanted it"; here, the extremes of sexual violence ultimately serve the other. this is the social contract). all this can also imply that all heterosexuals are neurotic (and why cishet human males are by far the most dangerous animal on the planet). homosexuals are masturbatory beings so lack this realm of codependent desire, which is also why they typically have many more partners, and thus find their love in abstracted objects, rather than concrete persons. ive never heard of a jealous gay boyfriend who murdered his partner for example, but it happens everyday for hets.
what is particular to homosexual fantasy though is the idea of "turning" a straight man gay. this has its immanence to the logic of masculinity as i say, which might explain your comments about straight men commissioning or initiating gay encounters. i will make an extremely hegelian point here though; something is only "gay" if it possesses this formal identity, otherwise, "no homo" (its negativity) is a fact of the situation. this is why a straight man can have sex with men and still be straight, yet you can be a flamingly gay virgin. the qualifying line is in the identity of the unconscious. in terms of activity, i think the gay kiss is what qualifies a homo-sexual act rather than merely homoerotic. i will give an example…
i remember hearing many stories of young boys who would circlejerk with each other (including myself) and also suck each other's dicks (which nearly happened), yet the idea of *kissing* another boy is what was most "gay". sucking dick then symbolically is less gay than kissing a boy (also, i think most men find gay romance more disturbing than gay sex in general). so then, the qualifying line is generally between the concrete act of kissing, as a symbol of *love* rather than *lust*. the tragedy of the gay man of course is that he ever rarely finds romantic love…
okay so in all this, women and gays have an affection for het men. gays dont *need* hets, but they want them. they are attracted to what they are simultaneously afraid of. this is common ofc, since most men are generally afraid of women too. the visage of heroic heterosexuality then is to create an orbit of desire around cishets which necessitate their constitution in the socius. this is rather abstract, so i apologise. the determinate (negative) logic of the cishet is to become a dildo, but this is not all he has to be. my faith is that in the lesbian future, a man will rise to reclaim feminine desire, which will then prove his necessity as an animal. MGTOW was an interesting movement around cishet male identity, but it was either too misogynist or petit-bourgeois to be properly political. a male movement thus must be something akin to the feminist birth strike, which regulates the free access to our means of reproduction. heroic heterosexuality arrives ipso facto however to come into mutual recognition with the feminine, including the transfeminine. but as i say, maleness is corruptive, so its our own fault if we ultimately become abolished.
no, but all homosexuals are "inverted sexual objects" as freud understands it, which has its naturally feminine affectivity, akin to nietzsche's materialism; "truth is a woman". this is why masculinity's determination is castration, and why only the castrated can be aligned to the death drive. all religions display this knowledge too. my kantian imperative to honesty is my own castration, akin to what deleuze sees as socrates' "idiotism", or the radicality of honest foolishness. buddhism in particular is the religion of divine idiocy. if you just tell the truth, you will be hated, but you will also be enlightened. the failure of the political right is that it is phallic by sublating a leftist superego, and so cannot admit to its crimes. politics is only transcended thus in a great societal confession. this is my own social teleology. the primitive orgy operates the same way; the repressed alwaya returns, even as vengeful ghosts or karma. this is also where i support scientology's method of dianetics, where you clear your thetans by a great and mournful confession of your life.
i dont believe in this dichotomy. altruism is also often just narcissism manifesting as surplus-enjoyment, like how one gives money to beggars to signal his virtue. here, one gains by his loss. if you read the gospels, these types are Christ's ultimate enemies; those who do good works yet have no faith in their heart.
i disagree. adam smith says labour is the first price. i say it is woman, and her body is the first commodity. the order of nature begins by birth.
Anonymous 06-01-25 23:09:32 No. 23373
>>23371 >>23372 [concerning the first part]: what i want is a return to a concept of male beauty then but one internalised as a heterosexual standard, which redeems the original homosexual spirit. this is found in masculinity's homoerotic reserve, which must bend into love for it be self-recognised. fascism is obviously a homoerotic ideology focused on male beauty, which is in this proportion, homophobic - this in caste terms reflects the usurpation of the priestcraft by the warriors, and thus a civic rebirth of solar order, like julian the apostare attempted to preserve before lunar catholicism (maryology) took hold. the reformation was a transition, but of merchant consciousness. this was solar, but a cthonic sun. we live in a saturnian age. mineral machines interface reality as an artificial skeleton of corpus mundi. one must then regenerate by blood and flesh, which begins in the heart, like in the resurrection of bacchus.
Anonymous 07-01-25 01:10:00 No. 23374
>>23372 >>23373 This sounds like you're philosophising cisheterosexuality too much
Women aren't the primary price.
And even if it was, it requires goods to motivate them to make their bodies commodities
Clarify. You mean the black cubes and whatnot?
Fair point. So you understand my frustration with chivalry?
Or how some parents force their kids to do extra on a homework assignment.
Or these bohemian-like drifters talking about how they gave up their material possessions.
If they're religious, they're extra preachy.
It's all obnoxious self-righteousness.
There was a study done where people think more lowly of humble bragging than classic bragging.
Remember the ads of the guy showing off his Lamborghini and his vast library?
Actually this isn't true. Babies aren't female default in the womb. Also life springs from sperm, not the womb.
People treat men as the expendable sex just because they don't give birth. But eggs don't self-fertilise.
Again, most gay men have masculine affectation.
Also, I thought truth was "masculine"?
Also this framing of masculinity as suicidal or "excess" is just chivalric bullshit.
That's just more machismo bullshit.
Maleness or femaleness within itself isn't corruptive.
Why do you keep referring to male sexuality as homosexual? Or that seeing male orgasm in porn is "cuckolding"?
Homosexuals are rarely allowed the gift of romance without persecution. They can only get hookups and even then it's not as convenient.
Boy's Love are the closest I can find.
Anonymous 08-01-25 23:30:15 No. 23381
>>23374 >cisheterosexuality no, just masculinity. reason is a masculine drama which seeks its wedding to sophia. this is why philosophy is a male domain, and the only female contenders are lesbianic in character. reason is alienation, which is why it mediates objects in abstraction. all art is irrational for the same purpose; that it draws people into the immediacy of being. this is why there can be many feminine artists and poets, but not philosophers. art does not think; the same way that a spider weaves by instinct. "genius" means "inspiration". plato says that when the artist is sublime, it is not he who acts, but he is acted upon by genius, which is as a golden chain to God. this is the same principle as lao tzu's wu-wei (doing not-doing), or heidegger's "authenticity" in dasein. as a hegelian, i raise concerns with this however, and in the freudian sense, we must also see how the unconscious "thinks", and most especially, when it is unthought of-itself. all art is murder, thus, and all thinking is orgasm (hence, "mental masturbation").
>black cubes saturn is the cthonic (earthly) sun (since this planet in conjunction with the moon, rules over time/matter). saturn (satan) is also the ruling planet of capricorn (the goat), which kills the sun in the winter solstice and initiates us into winter. macrobius reveals in the "saturnalia" that the classic dichotomy of the year was apollo ruling from the summer solstice onwards and dionysus ruling from the winter solstice (in myth, dionysus is born from the thigh of zeus, showing how he is born from sagittarius, and thus represents capricorn - like how thor/jupiter/sagittarius has a chariot led by goats). according to robert graves, the year also used to be represented by 3 women (which are the phases of the moon - symbolised by the norse norns, the greek fates and the celtic morrigan; jacob's/israel's 3 wives are also this symbol - this is why the 3 give birth to 12). this is the seasons. the godddess.
dionysus is often represented as castrated (since in antiquity, solar power was phallic - which is why monoliths are solar in nature, as giant penises - this is also the esoteric reason why africans have larger genitals than people in other continents). dionysus is a horned god also and is principally worshipped by women (like Christ at his crucifixion). in the book "baphomet: the temple mystery revealed" it also speaks on how the original "robin hood" was a composite of dionysus called "robin goodfellow" who served as the god of the witches (maenads). dionysus is often seen as a god of vegetation (and thus occupies the earthly realms of mineral and vegetable kingdoms in the chain of life - which in the human body is the skeleton). dionysus then (the horned god of matter) is the devil in popular consciousness (while lucifer is prometheus). the black cube is a platonic solid which represents the element of earth (the sphere is mind, the pyramid is fire, and so on). the black cube can be seen in distinction with the masonic white ashlar stone, which represents the perfection of the craftsman. one is the cornerstone, the other is the capstone (the qabalistic tree of life can be represented as 2 cubes on top of each other as well). some say that the muslims worship round the kabba because allah is saturn, same as YHWH for the jews, since the jewish shabbat is saturday (saturn's day) while it is sunday (sun's day) for the gentiles. santos bonacci says that in the nativity, joseph represents saturn, and he is usurped by jupiter (je-zeus), which contributes to the hellenism of Christ.
miguel serrano and savitri devi confuse things in all this however, since they situate the black sun of himmler's wewelsburg castle as the cthonic sun of agartha, which radiates its green rays, that condense into aryan blood (which conducts vril energy). the sun of the underworld is described in the book of job as a light which shines as darkness in sheol, so serrano could also playing into a jewish anti-myth. the "midnight sun" is described by manly hall in his book "secret teachings of all ages" as the invisible, or spiritual sun which reaches its noon at midnight (and so signifies the real start of the day). there is also the solar eclipse as a symbol. saturn is the most common "black sun" archetype however, since it also represents lead in alchemy. this lead must be turned into gold, or the black sun must become a golden sun. saturn mythically is kronos (time; krono-logical), who is deposed of and sent to tartarus. steiner says this is a prophecy of the upending of time by the soul, like how an eagle (jupiter; the aryan god) sits atop yggdrasil, which has a serpent (saturn) snapping at its roots.
my original analogy was to say how metal (mineral) machines dominate our reality, and thus we conform to this kingdom's laws (which is a law of quantity, such as how insects have large families, which, as life qualitatively develops, lessens and lessens, since nature invests her work into more fantastic attributes (singular organisms become ecosystems) - prey always outbreed predators for the same reason. prey are "cute" but predators are beautiful. someone like herbert spencer might claim that the bourgeoisie are beautiful in the same sense, but this is patently false. the bourgeoisie are mineral men, not men of flesh and blood, which is why they create insectoid conditions, like slums. their breeding habits are contingent upon reproducing their capital, not upon their being as animals. they are not "porkies", they are maggots). the alchemical process of converting lead into gold then must be in qualitatively developing machines to express a higher order of life. the skeleton may have marrow, but it needs muscle to move.
yes, but think about the process of reproduction. there are millions of sperm but one egg. the expendability of men is in the very act of sex. millions compete for one female, like in the battle of troy.
it is self-limited since homosexuality's unconscious identity is in the mother. this is why gay men are not attracted to women and why they have a gay voice, a gay face; gay everything. a gay man is not just a guy who coincidentally likes men - i hope youre not so much of a rube to believe liberal bullshit like this. or worse, maybe you believe in the "gay gene". there are contemporary theorists of "traumatophilia" who claim that queerness is a sort of trauma-bonding. this might be true in some cases, but it misses the point of eroticism being tied to one's subjectivity.
truth (wisdom/being) is feminine. reason (alienation) is masculine. the body (objectivity) is feminine. the mind (subjectivity) is masculine. what we call femininity thus is often just a body-oriented consciousness (etymologically, the word "matter" comes from "mother"); which is why gay men focus so much on appearance, while hets can easily let themselves go, yet expect women to stay beautiful. this detachment from the body's immediacy is masculinity. this is why "being a man" often includes masochistic exercises which train this detachment. this element of detachment is phallic, since phallus is a substitutory object, like how a gun or cigar acts as an extended penis. the penis is external; masculinity is alienated. this is why the ends of man is in the dildo.
the phallus is an unstable fiction which leads to all wars. this is masculinity's primal corruption, as an aspiration toward the psychoanalytic "primal father", sublimed as "the name of the father". what it means to be a man is in always be trying to "be a man"; thus, no one has the phallus, yet all men seek it.
male sexuality is homoerotic, which is the opposite of homosexual. the erotic is sex-without-sex, while the orgasm annihilates the sexual instinct. the more homoerotic an institution (like sports or the military) the more homophobic they are, for example. prison rapes also demonstrate this masculine dimension. all men are homophobic since all men are homoerotic.
>cuckolding cumming to another man have sex is cuckolding, very clearly. this is implicit in the oedipus complex since we must endure the spectre of our fathers having sex with our mothers. thus, all men are cuckolds to their fathers. this unconscious fact is unlocked by boyish insults; "i fucked your mum last night", or "motherfucker". the typical male response is defensive over our mother's sexuality. we must fight boys because we cannot fight our father. this has its obvious social truth. boys are also homophobic to one another before they are even heterosexual; we see precedence then, that heterosexuality is simply a homophobic phallus. one is either gay, or non-gay (per hegel's A and non-A).
they have a whole fucking month of the year to themselves. the reason they dont find love is because its impossible. all of their "marriages" are open; they cheat on each other all the time. its their nature. why not accept it? only heterosexuals can love most deeply because hets surrogate their partners as their parents, and so can sustain monogamy much more efficiently. love is the calling of attention. when a baby cries, it says "love me". the gay in his masturbations can only try to love himself. this is why "pride" is a gay slogan. its all about self-love, not the love of another. the gay however finds affection in an abstract notion of love; he likes the idea of romance, but can never create it in his own life. this is his tragedy, as i rightly say. every gay is a sad gay. thats just empirical.
Anonymous 08-01-25 23:32:23 No. 23382
>>23374 [1/2]
>boys love plato in symposium wrote that eros (erotic love) was the first god. this extends all the way down to friendship, where he explains in synonynity with homer, that a teenage boy is most pleasing to a man - yet, he also says that if a man should have sex with a prepubescent boy he should be put to death. in this same dialogue, a disgruntled acquaintance of socrates shows up and gives detail as to his unrequited love, where he says that socrates refused to have sex with him. socrates here is not a gay man, but is still a boy lover. we see this further on in critias, where a boy arrives and is seductive over all of the philosophers. in seeming contradistinction to his dialogue "nomoi", plato prohibits homosexual union and sees it as unrighteous. what is the meaning of all this? how can one love boys, but not men? how can one love teens, but not children?
in symposium is also a popular discourse of achilles being the lover of patrocles. in this, the philosophers say that the message of the iliad is in giving notion to the greatest loss; of a lover. will durant in "the story of civilisation" also says that male beauty in ancient greece was more highly considered than that of females; for this reason, the offering of one's hair was of the greatest sentiment. this is also the gesture of achilles to patrocles on his funeral pyre. he cuts off his hair and throws it on the fire. some situate this affair as a homosexual venture, but this not the case. popular depictions of patrocles is as a youth, which thus legitimises the romance as man-boy love.
the famous "warren cup" of antiquity also shows continuity between the greco-roman worlds, but one transfigured by the stasis of pederasty. in these masculine cultures is the celebration of the beautiful boy (camille paglia speaks of this in sexual personae, where the beautiful boy was a boy expressing feminine qualities - critias in plato's dialogue is clearly a beautiful boy). in ancient greece there was also the spartans and the theban "golden band" of male soldiers with their boy lovers. again, people portray this relation as homosexuality, when it is pederasty. roman soldiers would sometimes rape conquered soldiers (like prison rapes; its not gay, yet is homoerotic. i myself sometimes have fantasies of submitting gays to my sexual wrath as a type of homophobic excess. the most homophobic thing you can do is have sex with men lol 😅🙂).
the most famous case of roman pederasty has to be nero and sporus however. nero took a teen boy and married him by calling him his wife. the theme of "boy wife" is contemporary with femboy discourse also. the femboy is clearly a resurrection of the beautiful boy archetype, which is directly opposite from transgender fascination. this is the same reason why transsexualism is a leftist identity, while most femboys are nominally right-wing, and many are even fascists. here, the femboy embodies a mystic character of sublimed homoeroticism, which is affirmative of contradictory masculinity (the same way the tomboy attracts men as a contradiction in gender; this reflects the alienation of masculine subjectivity, or phallus). this holy character of the beautiful boy (what we may loosely call the "patroclean") is explored in some of thomas mann's work; in particular, "death in venice" whereby a civilised man is slowly transfigured by the mere visage of a beautiful boy. he enters into pagan rapture and finally submits to this most intense eros. another short story by him (i forget the name) explores the alienation of a certain man, who is confronted by the union of his 2 childhood loves (a boy and girl). in his youth, he is attracted to a male friend of his, but outgrows this as he gets older - here we see a natural derivation of boy love in the life of a man, which terminates at the horizon of homosexual signification; boy love then is opposite from homosexuality (like how the tomboy's eros is constituted by her own heterosexuality). this breaks the minds of liberals who pathologise homosexuality, but just in reverse; "everything is gay.. but thats good". no, not everything is gay. everything is homoerotic. big difference!
the book "call me by your name" also has this common theme as to the special place of pederasty in culture. it is not gay at all, for it appeals to a fundamental masculine fascination. this is the same reason why het men are fabulously attracted to femboys while gays are not. there is a gay porn star called austin young who i used to watch a lot of, because he looks looks like a boy. this fuelled my pederastic fantasies. here then, heterosexuality is not merely homoeroticism, but pederasty. as plato says, a beautiful boy is most pleasing to a man. if a boy could stay forever young and become pregnant, man would have no need of woman - yet necessity hinges upon the boy's maturity and the woman's oedipal appeal. this is actually imagined by the famously pederastic author of peter pan, who fantasises about a boy he knew in real life staying young forever. once more we return to the deep fantasy of the boy-wife; the most aristocratic of expressions, since it is most eternal.
achilles in myth was actually a femboy of sorts who lived as a woman for a time to not go to troy. he was brought out by being attracted to a sword and shield however. thor in norse myth also dressed as a woman and odin manifested as a woman on the earth. again, obtuse philistines attribute this activity as transsexualism, when its clear that the gender identity of the gods is not in peril. no one "transitioned"; they only changed forms freely (this is different from the hysterical subjectivity of transsexualism, which seeks to close the contradiction of gender - transsexuals are gender conservatives, which is why they have naturally come into conflict with feminists, of whom also seek to end gender's contradiction by abolishing it. this is like the mirror of marxism with austrian economics, which both seek to end contradiction, by different means). Christ in revelation is also androgynous (since he is an archetype of adam kadmon, or the androgynous adam of genesis 1, before being alienated in genesis 2). the chemical wedding of alchemy is also a form of androgyny, but internally, as the realisation of mercury (where the term "hermaphrodite" comes from the myth of mercury/hermes and venus/aphoridite creating an androgynous child; hence herm-aphrodite). mercury also has archetypal representation in ganymede, or the boy-lover of zeus (who later becomes aquarius, or the angel; with "angel" meaning "messenger" like hermes. this is why the angel gabriel is mercurial, and is a messenger of jupiter). the beautiful boy is indeed an angel; a messenger from God.
this angelic character of the femboy is interesting however, since one's desire of them is like a woman. one has erotic interest, yet one also has a paternal fantasy of preserving innocence. here, the object is obscenely sexual, yet simultaneously sexless. this is the very formal idea of beauty thus, which is like the oedipal virgin mary. one is a mother, yet untainted. one is a woman, yet formally undesired. the femboy is the same, whose holiness prefigures sexuality, yet cannot command its explicit nature. this is also why the contradiction of the femboy is that he is forever young, but still must grow old. in this we perceive the most grandiose tragedy (my eyes even water now thinking about it). his temporal beauty thus is eternal. sporus equally died when he was young, but this was a divine mercy, like how achilles died early. an early death is a beautiful death (which is why to me, teen suicide is so romantic and beautiful in its pagan flair, like nero killing himself declaring "what an artist dies with me!". too, someone like kurt cobain is only glorified because of his fatal youth. youth then is the symbol of immortality and glory. to die as an old man is to die most shamefully; "cowards live the longest").
Anonymous 08-01-25 23:34:37 No. 23383
>>23374 [2/2]
an angelic medium is both lolicon and shotacon. a recent book came out about shota appropriately called "impossibly cute boys". this gives it its formal dimension of desire. one is physically pained by beauty; this is at least my feeling, for it gives notion of my separation from it, but also spiritual remembrance of heaven. a popular shota porn series is called "buko no pico" (iirc) which enters upon this angelic scene of pico, who serves as a christlike mystery of incarnation; he is equally boy and girl, like Christ is both man and God (yet the girl-boy and boy-girl are still cisgender; this is what constitutes their essential attraction - when a femboy annunciates transness he is no longer desired; what is least desired of a man thus is a woman in her formality; a man desires woman only in her contradiction, which is why a chick with a dick will always be more attractive than a pure woman with bottom surgery). the boys in this series have sex with men, but are also not gay. they are simply pure objects (like how griffith in the anime series "berserk" is a mystical femboy who allures men, yet is not homosexual). the series of buko no pico ends with a pseudo-lesbianic orgy of hyperborean delight (hyperborean in the nietzschean sense of endless joy). it is like watching angels in heaven have their fraternity. it is the revelry of free spirits; twain-gendered and so supra-gendered entities. here, contradiction serves as self-overcoming. it is debauchery, but innocent, for it is in the instinct of beauty coming into recognition.
i share an equal fantasy with der fuhrer, who writes in mein kampf that youth possesses a genius, whose creativity is spontaneous. the reich's "hitler youth" program is clearly a derivation of spartan militarism, where the boy is given his vocational apprenticeship (like how greek youth would enter expeditions with soldiers to witness war up close; some americans thankfully still teach their sons to hunt or go camping with them). i remember watching a video of a young boy (about 9 years old) slice the neck of an infidel in an ISIS video, and i felt a surge of inspiration. this is a better world, i thought (muslims also preserve a tradition of erotic boy dancers. the homoeroticism of arabs cause many to accuse them of homosexuality, but this is profane philistinism as i have made clear. this is a failure of homophobia to round off its total concept. today's historical confrontation with femboys thus allow us to enter into a more timeless, or essential discourse which resolves these contradictions in mutual antagonism. zeus loves women and boys, but not men - this is important). national service programs at the very least preserve this ancient memory of a man's military service in founding his civil concept (even akin to plato's guardianship). as i say, the playground fight is the memory of nobility in the blood of boys. it is a formal contest, unlike the uyghurs who sucker-punch unsuspecting innocents. civilisation is built on fairness, or mutual recognition, which is sublimed in war, with playground fights being the small battle, and afterwards is a greater peace (as kant affirms). we incur a negation of negation; such is the genius of youth.
to conclude, the concept of male beauty then is universal, but unconscious. it has its contemporary expression in the femboy, which is a homophobic character, and is equally a fascist archetype, of a timarchical (spartan) remembrance, or of a military ethic. a femboy must be adjoined to the beautiful man also, which must be the citizen. revolution must then mean an abolition of blights like obesity. obesity is the aesthetic of consumerist excess which stains the possibility of love (by making love a contingency of codependent uglinesses, rather than the sublime judgement of beauty). to me, fascism in its civic code is about an imperative to male beauty thus (and of beauty in general, which is why all fascisms are eco-fascisms; as per savitri devi. the current civil order is between priests and merchants, while fascism is between warriors and peasants), which is the homoerotic impulse that usurps the formal identity of the homosexual, who only beautifies abstractions (this is the typical leftist who denies worldly beauty and so exalts ugliness; a typical jewish subjectivity also - alain de benoist sees this in how the jewish god has no artistic form in his iconoclasm and thus his being is abstracted from aesthetic judgement. this links to protestantism's twin destiny with judaism in modernity, and especially where financial power is concerned. this priestly attitude extends into all leftism, which calls moral evil "disgusting" but sees physical ugliness as virtuous. Christ is aryan, not semitic, because he has a physical form. jews and muslims literally cannot conceive of this vital theology). there are many beautiful gay men i must admit, but it is a vanity without spiritual purpose. what warriors must do is put gays back into churches and shut them up into closets. gays have a place, but it isnt in the public space.
i remember hearing an account of gay men saying that they found sex most exciting when it was most persecuted. here, surplus-enjoyment is conserved by its civil abolition nonetheless. someone like milo yiannopalous also said that he found homosexuality more exciting before gay marriage. milo was a beautiful boy who was initiated by a priest. milo holds precious to this memory of his purpose in the natural order but was shamed into renouncing it by the philistines of popular culture who decried his virtuous treatment of pederasty as his exploitation; but the heart is always true. the order of society has always been the priest and warrior sleeping with boys, and this is a wonderful system if approached correctly. some of my fondest memories are from my boyish experiments in homoeroticism, and even of homosexual excesses; crossdressing, circlejerking, fucking myself with dildos, public exhibitions and so on, but thats a lifetime ago. if i had a great teacher, i would be a great man today. alas. as nietzsche says, a man must release woman into herself, but he must release a man into himself as well.
a greek scholar called ammon hill recently accused Jesus of being a pederast and this has caused outcry. if we are historically sound and properly cultured however, we understand the aristocratic virtues of pederasty, which is in the soul of every man, as a sacralised paternal instinct which brings holiness to the boy. the beautiful boy is Horus, Christ, Dionysus, Krishna… the saviour of the world. the angel; messenger of God. Christ first comes as a priest, then a warrior. valkyrie rides upon a pale horse and delivers heroes unto valhalla. zeus takes ganymede up to his olympian throne.
Anonymous 09-01-25 02:37:16 No. 23384
>>23381 >yes, but think about the process of reproduction. there are millions of sperm but one egg. the expendability of men is in the very act of sex. millions compete for one female, like in the battle of troy. Eggs are lost through menstruation and miscarriage.
So women are expendable as well.
Can you provide proof of this?.that the etymology for the word "matter" is the same for "mother"?
Or about how masculinity is about self-denial of objectivity?
It seems to me your under the typical assumption that homosexuality means "femininity".
Most actual gays I meet are more masculine.
Methinks you're really reaching with this.
Not everything is motivated by psychosexuality.
Id rather bust a nut to a bishonen phat booty than simp for a woman.
Also, why do people like to differentiate "boys" and "men" but not "girls" and "women"?
Also, you're romanticising military service is a bit questionable. People who embrace militarism are often not familiar with war. They only experience it from movies and news stories.
That's not a genius of youth.
Genius of youth would be more putting on an awesome music show.
Kinda like the Jackson Five or the Bee Gees or the Beach Boys.
This is fair. And I bet that a lot of yaoi fangirls would not like actual homosexual couples in their anime unless they were "straight" acting.
But then girls love is also homoerotic rather than homosexual. In fact. Me thinks boys love and girls love aren't really about sexual orientation as much as it's about platonic love.
Anonymous 09-01-25 02:44:30 No. 23385
>>23383 Also, you look down on homosexuality as defective love, yet you gush at the idea of doing homosexual things, wanting to be desired as an object of beauty, ready to live out your fantasy of hebeandrophilia.
While I understand that distinction of homoeroticism vs homosexuality I will not tolerate such contempt coming from you against gay dudes
I also don't like your glorification of youth suicide to save face from aging. Age numbers aren't personality traits within themselves
You're falling into the trap of idealising youth as innocence.
In fact, I bet that this pederastic drive was responsible for the infantilisation of young people for the past three centuries.
Also, why is sexual attraction to male youth referred to as pederasty but sexual attraction to female youth is called pedophilia (or rare cases, the correct term, hebephilia)?
Also, do you agree that there's a difference between sexual desire and romantic desire?
The two can be related but they're often wrongfully assumed to be the same thing.
You can find someone sexually attractive but be disgusted by them romantically.
You can also find someone romantically attractive and be disgustes by them sexually.
They don't even have to be ugly.
Anonymous 09-01-25 02:57:19 No. 23386
>>23385 >>23383 Speaking of "ugly"…
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that the typical backlash against beauty standards which has lead to "fat acceptance" and "alternative beauty" is because people don't want the responsibility of beauty but want to be seen as beautiful nonetheless?
Also, why are you blaming leftists for this?
And why are you arguing to shut up the homosexual males? You cannot do that while advocating hebeandrophilia.
Anonymous 10-01-25 02:08:52 No. 23390
>>23384 >>23385 >>23386 >menstruation and miscarriage this only proves that women are murderers of children. we see this with abortion in history and so on. a witch is a feminine archetype for a reason.
>matter/mother <According to de Vaan and Watkins, this is from mater "origin, source, mother" https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter >masculinity is about self-denial of objectivity? male trauma is in our being-as-objects, since we are pure subjects. a woman however submits to this objectivity which she expresses as her identity; hence her body-consciousness. this is expressed in the genital relation of inward and outward being, with the homosexual naturally using his anus as an artificial vagina. men often express a horror at the idea of being penetrated yet enjoy penetrating others; this is the nature of reason, which mediates objects but is never entered into its own criticism, until kant. masculinity then is uncritical of its conditions, or self-denying of its objectivity.
>Also, why do people like to differentiate "boys" and "men" but not "girls" and "women"? prepubescent boys and girls are androgynous, until puberty, when the girl becomes fertile, yet the boy is still intermediated in his development. girls also mentally develop earlier than men, showing nature's investment in the male sex (which in nature is typically more beautiful). the distinctions are unequal then, as we see historically and even today. young girls are taken as wives, yet boys are not taken as husbands - a period of development is socially arranged then, which ought to be his training. so the boy then has his particular stage of development, contrary to girls, who are already partial women.
>Genius of youth would be more putting on an awesome music show. achilles played the lyre, like apollo. music and war are not contrary notions, but are quite commensurable, as we see with the war film. there have always been drummer boys and the like also. war is a sort of dance. we can easily see this with martial arts. the firing line is a troupe of dramatists.
>Me thinks boys love and girls love aren't really about sexual orientation as much as it's about platonic love. platonic love, or deep friendship is still erotic in nature however; the same way the family operates as a sort of romance.
>you gush at the idea of doing homosexual things what is homosexual? to me, homosexuality is a formal identity, which is why gays must come out, even if it is dangerous. a "closeted" gay man wears it on his sleeve for example. being gay then is in the affirmation, not its activity. this is why homosexuality is an hysterical subjectivity, like femininity. it seeks to be known.
>You're falling into the trap of idealising youth as innocence. we must consider the meaning of innocence. there is moral innocence but also natural innocence; or moral irresponsibility. a child or animal for example is considered innocent, precisely because they are not attributed moral content. a lion which kills tourists is innocent; its the tourists who are guilty. i see art as innocent in the same way; it is born from its own idea, yet can also be dangerous, like a lion. being innocent then has its negative characteristic, where it is neither good or evil, yet simply is. this i consider of some youths who express an authentic existence, especially in suicide. are they guilty, otherwise? in any case, thry are free, and the living envy them.
>Also, why is sexual attraction to male youth referred to as pederasty but sexual attraction to female youth is called pedophilia good question. there was also a documentary made called "are all men pedophiles" which indicated that they are - but as you say, all men are hebephiles, not necessarily pedophiles.
>Also, do you agree that there's a difference between sexual desire and romantic desire? yes, but romance is still erotic (meaning, it is the presexual). sex can be traumatic by being the negation of negation, of eros. for example, i am romantically compatible with women yet i am somewhat traumatised by their sexuality. i heard max stirner was similar, who became disgusted by his partner after she presented herself naked. i find women with their clothes on more attractive also, since in this i glea their objet petit a. zizek is most succinct here too, where he says that his perfect date is to put a dildo in a fleshlight and then to commence conversation with the woman as the dutiful act is performed interpassively (like how a laugh track laughs for us). i would rather talk to a woman and cuddle with her than to have sex with her.
>you're saying that the typical backlash against beauty standards which has lead to "fat acceptance" and "alternative beauty" is because people don't want the responsibility of beauty but want to be seen as beautiful nonetheless? yes. if there is no standard of beauty then there can be no measure of beauty. but lets say its all subjective; what then makes something ugly? that is, the opposite of beautiful? you can posit a quality of being, but if it has its contrary attribute, then it must be qualified by something in particular. when does the ugly become beautiful, for example?
>Also, why are you blaming leftists for this? leftists only consider abstractions and never things in concreto; they will comprehend the concept of beauty, but will never assign anything in particular with this quality - this then leads to the abandonment of aesthetic judgement and so the unintelligibility of beauty. same thing happens with morality. the leftist in his heart cannot conceive of an objective (categorical) good and evil. he is not a moralist thus, but an anti-moralist. he is not an aesthetician, but an anti-aesthetician (this is why he calls ugliness beautiful and evil, good). this is the consequence of materialist brainworms, which is just a mirror of idealism, ironically enough. ultimately though, his problems begin by an unconscious denial - he knows well what is true, but cannot accept it. what is political correctness for example, besides denying what is self-evident? this is why all deception is self-deception.
>And why are you arguing to shut up the homosexual males? You cannot do that while advocating hebeandrophilia. you have clearly not comprehended my posts. pederasty and homosexuality are opposite notions, like how femboys and trans women are opposites. and i already told you that gays have a place, just not in the public space. go back into the closet. and like i say, this will also be enjoyable to the gays themselves. in the end, we have the best of all possible worlds.
Anonymous 10-01-25 06:41:13 No. 23395
>>23390 >prepubescent boys and girls are androgynous, until puberty, when the girl becomes fertile, yet the boy is still intermediated in his development. girls also mentally develop earlier than men, showing nature's investment in the male sex (which in nature is typically more beautiful). the distinctions are unequal then, as we see historically and even today. young girls are taken as wives, yet boys are not taken as husbands - a period of development is socially arranged then, which ought to be his training. so the boy then has his particular stage of development, contrary to girls, who are already partial women. Boys would be considered partial men then because they're expected to do physical tasks. We had preteen males be active warriors or black smiths.
You cannot dismiss their maturational status while fawning over female youth.
Hebegynophilia is a cishet male cognitive disorder.
Also girls don't mentally develop earlier than boys. Physically maybe but mentally?
Again that's because society fawns over female youth more. Boys are treated as dumb comic relief.
Also, boys start making seed by age eleven to fourteen.
Around the same age girls start to ovulate
This whole "girls mature earlier" is exaggerated.
Also, boys are taken as husbands around the same age girls are taken for wives. But they're both trained in their respective roles and given arranged dates.
Men often pressure women into abortion. Men will kill babies that he feels aren't his.
Also we had hermits and wizards.
I could say the same about the right. But in reverse. Rightists pride themselves in "calling as they see it" but are ignorant of the fact that nature isn't static. Things change and customs aren't universal.
You acting sussy baka
Methinks you are gay but not sexually.
You say homosexuality is a disease that needs to be shut up yet you romanticise about being an adolescent male-wife for a chiseled Aryan warrior.
Me thinks you're envious of women's status.
But you forgot that women are only valued for their youth. Once a woman leaves her mid-thirties, her time is running out.
To quote Denholm Reynholm from The IT Crowd:
ARE YOU SURE??
ARE YOU SURE??
ARE YOU SURE??
ARE YOU SURE??
Also, can we stop referring to sexual attraction to male youth as pederasty when we refer to female counterpart as hebephilia?
It's hebeandrophilia or hebegynophilia
Anonymous 11-01-25 04:40:50 No. 23403
>>23395 >boys are partial men it is of a different order. girls as young as 6 are made brides, yet no 6 year old boy is made a husband. male adolescence is naturally extended then, which bears its genital relation as i say. for example, the female vagina never grows in her life, only her vulva does, while the boys' penis stays small until puberty. like i say, nature invests into the sexes differently.
>Hebegynophilia is a cishet male cognitive disorder and?
>Also girls don't mentally develop earlier than boys. Physically maybe but mentally? read schopenhauer's "on women".
>Men often pressure women into abortion. Men will kill babies that he feels aren't his. in the animal kingdom it is common for mothers to kill their children. also, if abortion is equally a male issue, then why does it only politically represent women? its only men who have the capacity to be truly pro-life (since it sustains a positive mode of re-production). this is also why abortion has its formal politics in capitalist society, since women make workers. the female body is made into a factory. this is different from antique societies for example, which treated infantile life differently. for example, it was the christians who created the first orphanages.
>I could say the same about the right. But in reverse. Rightists pride themselves in "calling as they see it" but are ignorant of the fact that nature isn't static. Things change and customs aren't universal. i completely agree. the right are even more clueless than the left (since the right is just a negation of the left; "reactionary").
>You acting sussy baka you can be fabulous without being gay 💅🏻
>Methinks you are gay but not sexually. what does that mean?
>Me thinks you're envious of women's status. not really. being a woman is terrible.
>Also, can we stop referring to sexual attraction to male youth as pederasty when we refer to female counterpart as hebephilia? its the same difference.
Anonymous 11-01-25 06:55:11 No. 23404
>>23403 >its the same difference. Well yes and no. The way they impress on it is different.
They make male youth love seem more comical while female youth love is given more glamor. It's maddening.
This. In fact most of our fabulous snazzy fashion was made by heterosexual men.
It's just that homosexual men have adapted it.
Usually the males kill non-cosanguine babies. Females do too.
Because it's female bodies that bear the burnt of pregnancy.
So you admit mens pro-choice stance is based purely from industrial potential. Not on value of human life
George Carlin was right about Republicans.
"They're pro life because they want more soldiers".
Whaddya think it means? 😏
Boys are trained to work at age five.
Also. boys are made into grooms via family clan arrangements.
Also, female fertility has a short window.
Women are ripe until thirty-five about.
And the reason girls are made brides at so young is because for training. If those societies decided to start wiving females in their mid-twenties. those girls wouldn't be as ladylike.
The same way they don't wait until males are mid-twenties to start work.
Again it goes back to what I said about adulthood being the end result of childhood conditioning.
Humans don't train their young for adulthood anymore.
So when they come of age, theyre like infants.
Only because men make it difficult
I always said God made a mistake making women have breasts. It difficult to have two lumps of flesh hanging off your chest. It hurts your back.
There's only thing they both have in common: they hate liberalism.
They do have serious fear of capitalism.
They also hate the Jews.
In fact, I bet that had things been a little different, Stalin and Hitler would've been golf buddies.
They would discuss about each other's dreams of establishing nation-states free from Anglo capitalist imperialism.
Wasn't he a misogynist?
Also when people talk about girls development, they tend to use more sanctimonious language while they use more vulgar comical language for boys development even if the opposite sexes are doing the same thing.
Boys are never allowed to be seen as beautiful or profound. Only as soldiers and jesters.
It sucks.
Anonymous 13-01-25 02:04:19 No. 23409
>>23404 >most of our fabulous snazzy fashion was made by heterosexual men. It's just that homosexual men have adapted it. in nature we see various forms of "peacocking" which is heterosexual in nature. the fabulous male is sexually selected by the relatively dull female (think of women without make up). war is an extension of this attitude, which is why conquest is equally a rape and pillaging. the beautification of women in human society comes from an initial male invention of beauty and gender (like how dramas would only be conducted by male actors who would cross-dress and apply make up). once again, it is men who are endowed with the romantic imagination, which is the archetypal masculine identity (knight in shining armour, et al). women's romantic novels are stained with their essential modernity, where love is entered into class relations (even in ayn rand's terminal femininity, which espouses a pagan admiration of male heroism, yet only within a capitalist context). jane austen and the bronte sisters also exemplify a romantic transition, borne from aristocratic servility to a master (think too of how little girls are called "princesses"; in this, class is a determined factor of natural value. today we have a troublesome counter-reaction with men being called "kings", but this is condenscending drivel - think of "short kings"). it is a man's instinct to love; it is a woman's instinct to speculate.
>So you admit mens pro-choice stance is based purely from industrial potential. Not on value of human life of course. i remember one conservative black woman who was very pro-life claiming that "God is a capitalist" because he told nature to "go forth and multiply". not all pro-life stances are so cynical though. even christopher hitchens saw abortion as unethical based in his "human-ism". pro-choicers also like to censor abortion footage, showing unconscious guilt. its not an either/or problem, which is why it will always be contentious. the difference today is that it simply has its modern context, which differs from the antique perspective, where child sacrifice was quite common, and figuratively too, with slavery, prostitution, et al. but as we see in the industrial revolution, these conditions returned, except with a new patriarchal morality, like your carlin quote exemplifies (also, a footnote in "critique of the gotha program" showed marx's positive view of child labour, despite his social disagreements in capital vol. 1, where child labour creates illiteracy and reproduces parents as capitalists).
>Humans don't train their young for adulthood anymore. blame public school and its constitutive conditions.
>Only because men make it difficult no, women are cursed by nature. you even agree to this in what you write next.
>In fact, I bet that had things been a little different, Stalin and Hitler would've been golf buddies. well that is today's nazbol revisionism. it seems like a utopian dream.
>Wasn't he a misogynist? yes, but he was mostly a misanthrope.
>Boys are never allowed to be seen as beautiful or profound. Only as soldiers and jesters. It sucks.
it is the planetary order of history, as i say. male beauty was reserved as an aristocratic taste of royalty before the bourgeoisie upended material relations to create workers of the world. the issue in bourgeois society in general is that beauty is seen as wasteful; as leisure, and so unproductive. this culminates in the bourgeois anti-aesthetic of urbanism, slumlording, pollution and anonymity. the city today is the no-place, as it is said. beauty in architecture is seen as reactionary and distracting. this also has its protestant logic too, of combatting catholic vanity. a strange thing happens with the keynesian moment however, where mass production inverts into mass consumption; sites of commerce are no longer churches of labour, but temples of sacrifice (think of how people spend money for its own sake). it is the pagan excess returning. this in terms of labour is then the slavery of machines, in which we become their masters. in these contemporary conditions then is consciousness of male beauty able to return, which begins by homosexuality, but can be sublated into a heterosexual concept, which, as i say, has its inkling in the femboy - or the warrior (and it has its failure in the transsexual, who represents priestcraft). in these are concrete and abstract notions of beauty respectively.
Unique IPs: 50