Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - trystero

1 ... 34 [35]
Interzone / Re: What's in it for me???
« on: April 26, 2013, 06:25:00 AM »
I see the point, but I dont entirely agree with it. The reason is because of the fake altruists that you mention. The people who think they live for others but live for themselves. Perhaps for some of them, they need to realize that wanting something for yourself is not only normal, it is natural, a primal urge of life. Just not the source of happiness.

This is the same as realizing that its not all about you because these people are essentially solipsists who see the world in terms of themselves no matter what beliefs they state. Religion is a way of looking past this in fact, but not `personal` religion. The cult of love is the church of the ego and is a gross perversion of the revealed. Once you at least have the perspective of something greater than yourself, the rest has a chance to follow. Research supports the religious being genuinely altruistic.

Interzone / Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
« on: April 26, 2013, 06:07:44 AM »
Maybe the message can be stated as: Dont see things as a combination of superficialities, see the thing in itself.

crow even the ancient masters did not bring wisdom to the masses, rather those among them who awakened to it would seek them. These are not things you can transmit with words, perhaps you know this better than me. First an awakening must happen. If you look at the neoreactionary space (of which Amerika would probably be a part), you see a lot of people who have awakened to the truth of their world, but many still process it in the same way that they used to when they were still happy liberals. Similar... patterns of behaviour, inability to see the big picture, inability even to acknowledge the existence of a big picture. At the same time, some do change so maybe I am wrong!

But I am sure you could count the number of people who you have awakened to wisdom with words alone on one fist.

Interzone / Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
« on: April 25, 2013, 02:45:33 PM »
Perhaps there is too much of a semantic complaint, "actively" reading a religious text would imply for me reading it with an open heart and you are right, this means turning off some things in your head. Nitpicks are forgotten and the message is absorbed. You let it convince you totally, and not just as a logical process. But some things are meant to be processed, and its foolish to attempt to colour those with anything else; a treatise on mechanics perhaps. Processing is a much more valuable ability in our times from the point of view of both individuals and groups, so expect to see more of it! Parts of the coalescing neoreactionary space can perhaps be considered a response to extreme processors (internet autistic social justice types).

I've found "heart" a very convenient word to use for stuff that isn't cause-effect logic (but naturally is in the brain). There is something to traditional wisdom that considered a person's consciousness to emerge from the heart. For a nitpicker it is just biological inaccuracy,

Interzone / Re: ForeBears, a film starring Varg Vikernes
« on: April 25, 2013, 01:57:17 PM »
I don't think it is worth paying too much attention to a short clip of what is supposed to be pure soundtrack music.

You can never kill the racism that results from alien proximity. I don't agree that this is a smokescreen, this is the agenda. US elites definitely believe in liberalism, and everything else you mentioned follows logically from liberalism. This may be for ulterior motives, but I don't care about that, the stated motive is bad enough! It is possible that in their individual lives these people hold different opinions, but as long as their actions do not reveal them they are meaningless to anyone but themselves.

Interzone / Re: Terrorism causes liberalism.
« on: April 25, 2013, 01:23:53 AM »
So he had a tantrum, disrupted a service, but then came back and remained silent like the obedient dog that he is.  This all gives me an idea.

The congregational prayer is a transcendental obligation, Friday especially. To have left the congregation entirely would be meaningless.

Give them twitter accounts, give them youtube accounts, give them B-grade American chicks and A-grade cannabis; tell them MLK Jr. is on par with Mohammed.  They’ll be so annoyed, distracted and pacified that they’ll forget all about glory and destiny.  It will break the will of even the most rugged Chechen alpha males.  It’s worse than water boarding.  If it wasn’t for Islam this guy would be on Jersey Shore.  We deserve better villains than this.

Globalization means this already happens. Islamic terrorism is at least to a small degree because of this! For "lone wolf" islamic terrorists bred in the west, it is probably an even bigger reason. My whole argument is that people do not lightly forget about glory and destiny. Also, do not consider people like these to be representative of organized terrorists. That makes about as much sense as a bum holding up a liquor store being compared to a mafioso. If you want to see the "real" terrorists, look at the Syrian Jahbat-un-Nusra: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21061018

Interzone / Re: Philosophy vs. Wisdom.
« on: April 25, 2013, 12:39:27 AM »
I don't think wisdom emerges from the intellect at all, nor is it purely rational. Wisdom is, to an extent, felt. A lot of our cognition is intuitive, unconscious and emotional (dulling emotional affect makes people crippled when it comes to simple decisions). There is a purely biological, non-rational element to it, though overall this is balanced with reason. Inbuilt (also traditional, hence "traditional wisdom") responses to problems are acausal solutions which may break down in the face of rational inquiry but gets you to the right place more often than not (especially when combined with rational inquiry). This is why, to me, a lot of philosophy becomes very airy-fairy and disconnected from real experience. It elevates rational thought to a pedestal it does not deserve to be on, though not all are guilty of this and there are philosophers with powerful insights on human nature.

The comparison between philosophy and wisdom is not completely warranted, as one does not preclude the other. You can be a wise philosopher. However, wisdom and rhetoric are I think in some opposition; wisdom being (partially) inbuilt truth and rhetoric being controlling others by appeals to the inbuilt. I don't believe there is any such thing as rhetoric which does not rely on pathos. The contrasts a powerful speaker uses in debate or discourse touch something primal in us I think. The enjoyment gained out of music is probably related, I can't imagine music being anything worth bothering with if approached by an intelligent robot; we feel the connections in it due to the release of reward hormones. It's kind of ironic that the first post is mostly rhetoric.

Ethnocommunist makes loud noises while slowly destroying own country.

Interzone / Re: Terrorism causes liberalism.
« on: April 24, 2013, 12:40:32 AM »
The one guy said he “couldn’t relate to Americans.”  Thanks for the cliché you emo.  Terrorism is a gesture of impotence and it goes hand in hand with the equally impotent emo-therapy multi-culture.  They're two sides of the same dull coin - rage and submission.  Neither can think beyond their own immediate needs, discontent and "feelings."

I agree with your characterization of the terrorist attack, but the statement seemed to be pretty matter-of-fact (I have no American friends because they have nothing in common with me and that's great). The elder was nearly a prototypical alpha male, and they were both probably quite social and materialistic. Material hungers are not paramount for human beings though, they need a spiritual sustenance as well. Terror attacks when wrought by muslims who are either born or spend a lot of their formative years in the west seems to be an almost nihilistic response: Everything here is meaningless and I am pretty much a part of it (addicted to the material) so might as well make a loud bang as I go. Plus strict suicide is expressedly forbidden.

"Then in January, he challenged a preacher who praised the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.: Tsarnaev "stood up, shouted and called him a 'non-believer'; said that he was 'contaminating people’s minds' and began calling him a hypocrite," according to the statement."

Interzone / Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
« on: April 24, 2013, 12:17:42 AM »
There are undoubtedly appealing aspects to leftism.
But knowing the damage it does, and where it must ultimately lead, integrity demands saying no to it.

And i'm trying to say that merely saying 'no' to it might not do anything if liberalism is the mere superstructure to a more fundamental economic base. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

I don't agree that purely material concerns (this is essentially Marxist thought) are the prime moving force of societal development, even though they are important. A lot of our political systems exist simply as a response to unmanageable systemic complexity exacerbated by technology that leaves our biological nature far behind. This is not a technophobic argument, but liberal democracy is essentially just the managerialism that you could expect to occur with an increasing scale of society (whether real or theoretical), with the ideological post-Enlightenment element of people getting a voice.

Human relationships are even more complex than this and cannot be handled by the same means; even the managers are human with human failings. Although I am not making a traditionalist argument, traditional systems, though they may be non-rational, at least have passed the test of history in this regard. I don't doubt that they would curtail the material growth of a community as they are much more inefficient, however.

Singapore is an example of a "democracy" that attempts to deal with the human part of it as well, but fails spectacularly. From an economic perspective they are quite successful. The argument against liberalism etc. is not only that it is bad now, but that it is ultimately unsustainable and will collapse.

Edit: I have not read the book linked... but the pronouncement seems to smack of utopian idealism. We did it guys! End of history! In this era we have transformed! It just sounds like a liberal fantasy, I may be wrong.

Hey if I start to post mystical gems of rhetoric in the middle of intellectual arguments, does that mean I get to ban people when they inevitably insult me?

Interzone / Re: Suggestions
« on: April 23, 2013, 12:37:18 PM »
The interviews are great, even with stuff like Ara, but it would be good to question the ultimate meaning and purpose of this music from the musicians; the motivations behind the music. What is it for? Perhaps some threads or trends could be teased out of that. Is it just to fill empty space? Something more?

Interzone / Re: Senses
« on: April 23, 2013, 10:33:51 AM »
The forest is the forest, you cant transpose a forest mentality into the city because it isnt a mentality, its an experience.

Interzone / Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
« on: April 23, 2013, 07:32:20 AM »
Every 'modern' i know (i.e. someone who is not, essentially, a common variety religious-conservative) has plenty of values. Maybe they're not the values you like, but they are values, i.e. a differentiation of the 'good' and the 'bad'.

Absolutely, and this is a partial statement of the problem. What you are referring to is what I called atomization. Every individual has their values, but they are not shared, so the societal consensus position must be close to no-values for different people to exist together. Any negative effects will affect outliers first, people who already have trouble relating to people, but that does not mean the effect isnt there or isnt harmful.

No doubt modern liberalism is extremely efficient at providing material wealth in the relative short term.

Interzone / Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
« on: April 23, 2013, 12:34:23 AM »
The fact that the whole Western world is completely screwed-up is a whole other issue.

I am surprised to be reading that, how can it be a different issue? It seems likely to me that the impetus for these bombings, while definitely related to the Islam the attackers professed, is more related to the phenomenon of anomie and atomization. The elder brother, despite a decade in the US, could by his own admission not relate to Americans. Now is this a reflection of essential incompatibility with an alien culture? Absolutely, yes, but this is secondary to the slow breakdown of mores and values which the modern world is afflicted of (and many US cities are perhaps the leading examples). The elder brother at least probably has more in common with a mass shooter than he does with a member of Al-Qaeda.

The analysis does not take away from the event. Those able to analyze in this fashion are already disconnected from the event (it would be different if my kin died because of the attack). Beyond that, the faculty of reason has this very function, analysis. It is bad to make these analyses the be-all end-all, which you state frequently and is an agreeable position, but it is worse to not do them at all! It is one thing to realize reason is a tool in an arsenal meant to cope with reality and assign it its proper position, and another entirely to denigrate and ignore it.

As far as murdering innocent bystanders is concerned, it matters not to the analysis. Living things die.

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 13, 2013, 04:05:37 AM »
Within the current system (not questioning democracy itself i.e.), since we no longer have the vote restricted to the landed, I always thought it would be a good idea to have one vote per household. I do think women voting is a poor idea, gender does matter here. Averaging it out, women are more materialistic and prone to being swayed towards political positions with emotional fervour (Thank you Obama!!!). They are also more prone to rationalize; something both sexes are guilty of true, but not equally so. Informed choices dont really matter that much on large scales considering humans are fundamentally irrational and can list what they believe to be informed reasons after the fact whether or not that was the actual case. Do the members here believe that it is good for women to have political power independent of men?

Then again, I consider the pursuit of a career to be an exceptionally poor idea for women as well (in general). No better way for a nation to die by its own hands. Lots of short term material reward though; especially for things like the advertising industry.

There is a womanly aspect to liberalism. Unfortunately, modern smart male types have big hearts and modern women resemble men more than ever. Additionally, men are just hard-wired to have a patron/protective instinct towards women and this contributes here. Therefore the traditional wisdom about the feminine nature, I have found, does not sit well even with some supposedly anti-feminist types. At some level, they seem to wish for some kind of equality. I think that is grossly unfair on femininity, which is beautiful independent of its relationship to masculinity and male pursuits. Testosterone is the magical difference; the go-getter hormone, foetal exposure to which results in subtle changes in addition to obvious ones.

1 ... 34 [35]