Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

The Real Consequence Of Pentti-Linkola Like Thought

First, the facts: This site supports pentti linkola, a guy who says he would push a button if it meant millions of people would die (I'm assuming it's random people). The world has billions of people and this action would not change anything, by the way

In my interview with prozak he says he think socialism has done well to the chinese. I don't know much history, but I'm pretty sure Mao Tse Tung killed a whole bunch of the chinese population in that revolution. I'm pretty sure linkola enjoys him too. The chinese, from what I gather from photos, like to hang pictures of him to honor him. I remember prozak cheering the death of a little girl killed by her parents too in his blog. Now I'm sure everyone has seen the video below now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKR0_4lqg_A

How is that different from the mentality of this website? There are billion chinese people, why should they bother if that little girl gets run over? I don't agree with that mentality, but I don't see much difference between the consequences of the type of mentality exposed in this website and the video. I don't think the contributors and creator of site would not help a girl run over, but I do believe the consequences of their thought can  lead to that mentality.

Can anyone give me any reason why any of those people who did not stop for the girl should have helped her? There is excessive population there, the people were probably busy working. Plus if you hail mass murderes I think that can impact on the way people value human life. They see each other exactly as ANUS: As whole, part of an organism, anti-individualism, etc...

I've said this some times here, I don't agree with this extreme anti-humanism.

The boundaries between satire, irony and shock value and true intentions and opinion here are not always clear to me, but the consequence is always the death of innocents, as David Myatt (another who probably was responsible, even if indirectly, for death of innocent people) pointed in his article "An Allegory Of Pride and Presumption", which I translated for the Brazilian ANUS. I used to ignore some things in my teenhood, like the fact that the unabomber is a murderer. And no, saying "it could have been me or a loved one" is not lame, it's real and no one wants that. The only people who adore Theodore are the ones whose loved ones were not severely injured or killed, or have been themselves, by his bombs. OR, people like those chinese, who do not view human life the way, I can only speak for myself, I do. I agree and admire the text industrial society and its future and can relate with the author, not with his extreme intelligence, but with his neurosis. But he was a killer, as was charles manson was a criminal, as were columbine and the native american-white mixed shooter, william pierce promoted the death of innocents in his novel Hunter, etc...

Once you get in that mentality it's hard to find your way back, check this out, and the "warriors" listed:

Quote
When the spirit awakens and starts to liberate itself, it's fundamental that all the process is fit and guided by the true Gnosis or Primordial Gnosis. If not the aggression proper of the spirit would be directed at any point of the demiurge's universe, at all the created, false and ephemeral. When the spirit starts to awaken, it's normal to see the demiurge in every piece of matter, in every atom, and in every human being see a zombie at the service of the demiurge. Then, the ire of the spirit is difficult to control, as are the unstopable desire to go out in the street and kill the first one passing by. Every action without strategy would result fatally harmful to the initiate still not transmuted nor liberated completely.

As a way of example, the young men that carried out the massacre of Columbine passed months watching movies of national-socialist acts full of swastikas and other symbols. Their minds have altered in such way that produced the facts known by all.

Results in those cases: wasted warriors, lost possibilites.

http://www.gnosisprimordial.com/?p=803


James lee is the only one I agree with in that list.

That's why I'll joy the Integralists, a CHRISTIAN honorable brazilian group that fights for justice and Jesus.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

There are billion chinese people, why should they bother if that little girl gets run over?

Your causality is reversed. The reason Linkola writes as he does is that in an overpopulated world, no one cares about a dead child. In a world with fewer people, we can pay more attention to each one and care about each life. When overpopulation happens, the competition is too great to care.

We also need to be aware of natural selection. Parents who stupidly produce children who wander unsupervised into traffic are probably people we want out of the gene pool. When we are too tolerant, that leads to overpopulation by morons; when we are not tolerant, it leads to people who can figure out life without instructions.


You may be horrified by the callousness of chinese with regards to a child, but such an emotional response to an event, should never be what you base a worldview on.It is not a valid argument against the idea that the world is overpopulated and the need to drastically reduce the number of people living on it before the disastrous consequences are upon us.

If you want me to give you a reason why, despite overpopulation, this child should have been helped, you should re-read your nihilism: there is no absolute reason. Personally, I would have helped because I dislike seeing children suffer without reason, and a single death solves nothing with regards to overpopulatin.

Quote
The reason Linkola writes as he does is that in an overpopulated world, no one cares about a dead child.

Well not only does he writes as he does, I think he would act as he writes if given a chance. Eliminate a whole bunch of lives so we can go back to caring about individual lives, thus preventing more deaths? Caring about individual lives is not the sole purpose of reducing population, it's about nature, resources, it's more practical, etc... But a live remains the same wether there is overpopulation or not!

Quote
In a world with fewer people, we can pay more attention to each one and care about each life. When overpopulation happens, the competition is too great to care.

I agree and I also agree with population reduction. What I do not agree with is extreme anti-humanism and letting go of caring for other people's lives just because of over population. Do not fool yourself into thinking I'm deluded or having an emotional response. Of course, it's emotional to think that girl should have been helped quickly and we all should feel this, but I'm not weeping or devoting my time to thinking about it: this was used purely as an example. I also know that a lot more children are dying this minute, and that I could be helping them. But I won't. I wrote some more stuff, but erased it, what's the point: My points have already been made in the topic and I think everyone can understand what I'm up against.

Quote
We also need to be aware of natural selection. Parents who stupidly produce children who wander unsupervised into traffic are probably people we want out of the gene pool. When we are too tolerant, that leads to overpopulation by morons; when we are not tolerant, it leads to people who can figure out life without instructions.

You know that's not exactly true: Mistakes happen, every parent can accidentally let their child out, or he/she can escape.

Quote
If you want me to give you a reason why, despite overpopulation, this child should have been helped, you should re-read your nihilism: there is no absolute reason. Personally, I would have helped because I dislike seeing children suffer without reason, and a single death solves nothing with regards to overpopulatin.

I do not want I reason why, I just asked it for effect: Why, from the point of view exposed on this site, should she be helped? I would help for the same reason I don't want children mutilated, tortured, etc., or anyone. Overpopulation does not change that for me. I don't blame those chinese: As you said, they're different. They see themselves like cells in an organism, that's my point exactly: For that reason they did not help the girl as quickly as she would have been helped in my country our yours. There is a healthy way to be holistic but I don't agree with extreme ways. No one wants a society where bombers of innocent people are seen as heroes, I think.

I'm not the most fit person to talk about stuff, I'm more of a translator. I just wanted to get this message across.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

I would have helped because I dislike seeing children suffer without reason, and a single death solves nothing with regards to overpopulatin.

Only if you're trying to solve overpopulation with a single act, like IQ testing everyone and shooting all the under-120s.

IQ can be improved. I'd rather see society set up to strictly favor the strongest. You don't have to take a rifle to all the chaff if they are left to their own inevitable demise. That is, unless they band together in which case no mercy must be shown.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

The style of this death isn't effective and has nothing to do with wiping out an entire segment of the overpopulation for the regrowth of wilderness. Millions would share the fate together or none. If one person dies millions will cry and possibly seek vengeance, if millions die at once, first they are not alone -- secondly, not many will cry over an unfathomable digit.

I agree and I also agree with population reduction. What I do not agree with is extreme anti-humanism and letting go of caring for other people's lives just because of over population. Do not fool yourself into thinking I'm deluded or having an emotional response. Of course, it's emotional to think that girl should have been helped quickly and we all should feel this, but I'm not weeping or devoting my time to thinking about it: this was used purely as an example. I also know that a lot more children are dying this minute, and that I could be helping them. But I won't. I wrote some more stuff, but erased it, what's the point: My points have already been made in the topic and I think everyone can understand what I'm up against.

Then I'm confused as to what your point is. What do you mean by anti-humanism, if you have no problem with the acknowledgement that the whole is more important than the individual and population reduction is necessary towards this end? Is it that you disagree with not having an emotional response to seeing a little girl die? Emotions are emotions, they are not rational, we do not go about deciding how to feel about such a thing.


I would have helped because I dislike seeing children suffer without reason, and a single death solves nothing with regards to overpopulatin.

Only if you're trying to solve overpopulation with a single act, like IQ testing everyone and shooting all the under-120s.

As long as you don't convince anyone that this is an important topic, you could cancel all the hospitals in the world and it wouldn't make a dent. I understand that there will not be single act solution, but taking a bucket of seawater home next time you go to the beach really does not contribute in any way to preventing the sea level from rising.

The little girl was used as an example of the consequences of this kind of thinking. I'm saying that when the kind of extreme anti-humanistic thinking that ANUS spreads dominates, that is what happens (exemplified by the fact that people did not care).

What I'm saying is while I agree the individual is not the most important thing, I don't see why go to the way of cruelty and hailing of murderes, for example, posting a quote by Richard Ramirez in an interview in some band of DLA. That can be seen both ways: First, trying to show the consequences of our society in making people go crazy and serial killer. Or, the site really admires Richard Ramirez and thinks he's cool and should be taken seriously. Why? Because he was satanic and could say some nice words about his killing? I can find 100 more criminal killers that can also philosophize about their acts, talking about the hypocrisy of society. But maybe they would be regarded as "degenerate" because they were not satanic or cool. Even if emotion is not involved it is not good to behave this way, because the people that is trying to make the change in the world towards holism could be a victim of senseless death by a killer that he himself hailed before. Then what? The whole nihilistic logic about not having an emotional response or caring goes down.

What I perceive here is a step in the direction of cruelty and not caring for individual lives and suffering, what I agree with is understanding that individualism is not everything while still maintaning the normal person's behavior: against murder, against cruelty, against the death of innocents, etc...  What I still do not understand is how much the incentive to indulge in appreciation of cruelty (see ildjarn talking about how he would delight himself taking down a plane) is for shock value and making people think, or is real. I'm beggining to know it's real.

When this kind of thinking dominates, the only thing that matters is power. See the text Might is Right by david myatt.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

The little girl was used as an example of the consequences of this kind of thinking. I'm saying that when the kind of extreme anti-humanistic thinking that ANUS spreads dominates, that is what happens (exemplified by the fact that people did not care).

False dichotomy.

If Linkolan thought predominated, the situation that killed that girl would never have happened.

Humanism kills more people by creating a society with no rules that grows recklessly. Out of that, only mass misery and death can result.

Linkolan thought produces fewer humans of better quality.

What more can you ask for?

A real worry is that China is going to be the next world power, and they don't give a fuck about you.

Quote
The fundamental problem, in my view, lies in one word that describes a state of mind: shaoguanxianshi, meaning don't get involved if it's not your business. In our culture, there's a lack of willingness to show compassion to strangers. We are brought up to show kindness to people in our network of guanxi, family and friends and business associates, but not particularly to strangers, especially if such kindness may potentially damage your interest.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/how-can-i-be-proud-of-my-china-if-we-are-a-nation-of-14bn-cold-hearts-20111025-1mgso.html#ixzz1bkacYRJD (chinese sociologist responding to international response to the video)

Dunbar is strong among these Chinese.

That modern individualism wouldn't happen in a high IQ country with ties to its traditional past and racial homogeneity. Video is trustable sample.

The little girl was used as an example of the consequences of this kind of thinking. I'm saying that when the kind of extreme anti-humanistic thinking that ANUS spreads dominates, that is what happens (exemplified by the fact that people did not care).

False dichotomy.

If Linkolan thought predominated, the situation that killed that girl would never have happened.

Humanism kills more people by creating a society with no rules that grows recklessly. Out of that, only mass misery and death can result.

Linkolan thought produces fewer humans of better quality.

What more can you ask for?

The Chinese weren't drive to overpopulation by humanism, actually, it's a modern bureaucratic organization the one that tackled it with the single child policy. Also, population density (rather than overpopulation of an entire country) is not a good explanation for such egoism, because this is not what normally happens in high-density cities. I think this obeys to Culture and its specifics, even perhaps to the people involved in this situation, but I can't find such long-range demographic or anti-modernist explanation to be satisfactory.

The Chinese weren't drive to overpopulation by humanism, actually, it's a modern bureaucratic organization the one that tackled it with the single child policy.

Exactly. It's humanist in nature: everyone is equal, everyone must limit their child-output.

Should have found a way to do it on the inherited traits of the parents!


Exactly. It's humanist in nature: everyone is equal, everyone must limit their child-output.

Should have found a way to do it on the inherited traits of the parents!

That's the problem with the anti-modernity here, modernity is not all pure humanism (even less the specific egalitarian humanism used here). Modernity is also about bureacratic organizations as the Chinese State, which planified its demographics, giving less of a fuck about human rights.

With an average IQ of 105, higher than any European country, China could be regarded as a social mess of individualists. I think rather about a cultural problem, which may be the lack of extended families... who knows. Blaming such tight conception of modernity as humanism, blaming the lack of racial homogeinity, or blaming IQ are not enough to understand events like this.

With an average IQ of 105, higher than any European country,

I've never believed this number. I've seen other sources that claim 100, but people always throw around 105. Do you really think the Chinese are smarter than the Japanese, Koreans, and Germans?