Ascension (7.2 IMDB rating) is a science fiction series which aired on CBC in Canada and SyFy in the US. In addition to being an interesting and thought-provoking sci-fi series, there are some traditional values presented in the series, since it takes place in a society isolated from the rest of the world in the early 1960s.
The series consists of three episodes, sort of an extended pilot or shortened mini-series that has the potential to be extended. Note: The series originally aired December, 2014; if you have not seen it yet I will reveal one spoiler (with warning label) that is also revealed in the first episode.
The story begins in 1963 when President John Kennedy launches a secret manned space mission. The USS Ascension is constructed and launched on a 100-year multi-generational mission to colonize a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri. The idea is based on the real Project Orion, which was cancelled by JFK when it became obvious the military was more interested in using space advancement for destructive and warfare purposes than scientific exploration. The Ascension left earth with 600 volunteers–men, women, and children, all from 1960s America.
Crew of the Ascension (ie The Patriarchy)
The series begins in 2014 as the USS Ascension enters its 51st year of the 100 year journey–passing the point of no return. At this point, there is insufficient fuel or resources on board to abandon the mission and return to Earth. The Ascension is a fascinating exercise in sociology, as there is an entire generation who have been born on the ship, never lived on earth, never experienced the civil rights movement, feminism, terrorism, the internet, smart phones, the mini-skirt, birth control, inter-racial marriage, Angry Birds, etc.
All the technology they have is pre-1964, and they have access to entertainment from that era, mostly black and white television. Fashion has not changed. Old telephones, tube televisions, and games from the 1960s entertain the modern crew. There is a livestock and produce area that sustains the population with food.
Where can you find a 1960s soda fountain in 2014? The USS Ascension.
In the first episode, a homicide is discovered—a young girl is shot and killed on an artificial beach—the first killing since the ship left earth. The death starts a chain of events including questioning the true reason behind the mission. The series alternates between sequences aboard the ship and the communications staff back home on earth.
However, on earth, the existence of the Ascension is still secret, outside of those who communicate with and support the ship. A conspiracy theorist believes that the missing 600 people did leave Earth on a vessel, and tracks down the son of the original project director.
Staying true to the 1960s theme, the series is produced with little CGI and a real set, with tangible 60s era buttons and knobs. The ship is planned to have three captains—the initial captain who launches the mission, the interim and current captain, who is frustrated that he will receive no glory, and the final captain who will pilot the ship to its destination 100 years after launch.
Femininity is valued and fat-shaming enforced
There is a league of women on board who comprise the Sexual Stewardess Corps, who are managed by the captain’s wife, Viondra, played by the alluring Tricia Helfer, and the women must compete for a position on this team, which is charged with entertaining and pleasing the men. Girls must weigh in, demonstrate proper etiquette, dress well, and basically compete as if they were entering a beauty pageant. Here are some other themes I noted:
Patriarchal, Monarch Style Of Leadership
I think watching Ronald Moore’s Battlestar Galactica was the series that really made me question my belief in democracy. Captain Adama is a strong, authoritarian leader, and that is exactly what the crew of Galactica needed. It is no different on board the USS Ascension, and there are strict prescribed roles and duties for everyone.
There is a working class on the lower decks who have blue collar duties that maintain the ship operations, and an officer class that oversees and manages. There is no putting things to a vote or deciding things by what is popular. There is no distraction over a pending election, as the US is going to experience for the next 12 months. Business is taken care of, the rules and duties are pre-existant.
Absolute authority lies with the monarch, who rules benevolently in the best interests of the society. There is little room for individualism or “being different.”
Arranged Marriage
Space is no place to ponder one’s career
I have had a couple of friends who recently entered arranged marriages, and they are both quite pleased with their wives. Throughout history, marriage was always about the families of the husband and wife, much more than the actual couple. Over many years, Western culture has trended away from outright arranged marriage towards the ultimate end result of two couples choosing to marry for love.
With only 600 people on board the ship, and no birth control, marriages are selected, supposedly by a computer algorithm, but the exact details or criteria is unclear. However, what is perfectly clear is your path and role in life–women are to become mothers, and they will have an appropriate husband matched to them, whom they must nurture and please.
Men have important duties on board the ship, and must also raise a family to ensure that the mission is completed by their children.
The Noble Lie (SPOILER ALERT)
There is a plot twist revealed early in the series at the end of the first episode related to Plato’s Noble Lie. Plato believed that a myth knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or advance an agenda, is a good and necessary thing. In Ascension, it is revealed that the ship never left Earth, but instead the vessel and all its inhabitants are sitting on Earth after all these years, and remain nothing but a social experiment.
From the noble lie perspective, their outcome is not changed by this lie–what they perceive as truth is the life they have been presented with inside a vessel on a 100 year mission, whether that is actually true or not. Religion is often described as an example of the noble lie–what is more important is not whether the One True God actually exists, what his name is, or what he calls his kingdom, but the fact that people believe in this story, with all its tales of morality and messages for living is of utmost importance. Basically, Voltaire’s “If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.”
Traditional Femininity Is Valued
Strict gender roles are enforced
The crew have been exposed to the media and culture of the 1950s and 60s for the past 50 years, and the result has been a peaceful, stable, healthy, and productive society with traditional femininity highly valued. As Viondra is inspecting one of the girls competing for membership in the sexual stewardess corps, she weighs in one hopeful girl, accepting her with the words, “120, the acceptable weight for a girl 5’5.”
Reality Vs. Illusion
Much as the Matrix questioned the notion of how real the world is around us, there is a stark contrast between the modern society we are living in on earth in 2014 versus the world the 600 members of the Ascension live in. What is real? What is the illusion? Is life on Ascension merely a facsimile of the way things used to be?
Is life on Earth, with all its rape culture, war, intolerance, gay marriage, transgender, microaggressions, and immorality the “real” world, or is it a mere approximation of what humanity once was?
Classism And Patriarchy
On the Ascension, there are clear, distinct lines between the upper deck and lower deck. They may not love each other (but can we really say the entitled class loves the ghettho today?) but they do manage to get along, and each have their duties which they feel responsibility for in order to keep the world running.
There was a black officer, which I questioned based on the viewpoints of the time; however, keep in mind that they were in communication with earth, and at least heard about things like the civil rights movement, or the fact that America elected a black president, so it’s not unbelievable to have a black crew member.
Similarly, there are also clear lines between men and women. Women left the important jobs (especially all the lower level work) to the men, and chose supporting roles, with the big picture and the community in mind. This is in no way minimizing their importance; in fact, good, nurturing women who would raise the future generations of inhabitants who would dutifully fulfill the mission goal in 2063 was absolutely essential.
The role of the woman as supporting and nurturing was vital. Indeed, the sexual stewardess corps served as a sexual outlet for the well deserving men.
Tricia Helfer + Sci Fi Plot = Win
As of November, 2015, the series has not been adopted for further development, which is a shame. I was captivated by the idea, and looked forward to exploring the reasons behind the mission, the social experimentation being done by Mission Control on Earth to the inhabitants, and seeing how a completely different society running parallel to the one on earth would turn out.
Sci-Fi is a predominantly male domain, and series such as these are one of the few “safe spaces” where women can be fat-shamed, the patriarchy portrayed in a positive light, and traditional femininity is valued and praised. We should support such endeavors in order to encourage more entertainment counter to the anything-goes Hollywood mainstream releases.
The idea of Ascension is very appealing. As they say in the trailer, Ascension is a lifeboat for humanity. Will we have to resort to such drastic efforts soon in order to preserve our own humanity? Ascension seemed much more “alternate history” than “science fiction” to me.
If given the choice, would you rather be trapped on a ship in space stuck in 1963 or on Earth today?
Read More: The Philosophical Messages of The Watchmen
What a shockingly counter-revolutionary piece of work!
I am quite interested in watching this mini-series. Does anyone know if it’s on Netflix?
And from Canada no less! Why is it good shows like this one and Flashpoint get canceled but garbage like Lost Girl doesn’t? Or did I answer my own question…
There is still some room for competing ideas in other nations. Sometimes the BBC lets loose on a good series now and again as well. Not often, but far more regularly, from a counter revolutionary standpoint, than the dreck we have from Hollywood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUNHMoWBy2A
I guess people got a taste of how glamorous patriarchy can be with Mad Men. But even with the setting, they usually find ways to inject a bit of progressive messages here and there.
That said, I prefer real life to watching some patriarchy porn on TV. Life is too short.
Media and culture from the 50s and 60s? You mean prudish censorship, pre-method acting theatricalism and caricatured characters?
They were glamorous and show what a stable and decent life can look like after the war.
I think 70s and 80s had some good masculine representation in the media. Have you ever seen Steve McQueen’s ‘The Getaway’?
I think that is a bullshit distortion of reality. What we see and remember today is the best of that time. 99% of what was around back then is long forgotten. Besides, Hollywood had some strict rules back then as to how a plot may be structured, what you can show et cetera. I admit that I am not sure when exactly that was, but I figure it would have still been around in the 50s.
Also, movies are hardly a representation of real life. Maybe of a condensed version of the best moments of life.
That movie ‘Getaway’ sounds intriguing, I will have a look at it. Thanks.
Dude, you haven’t seen the Getaway???
Maybe I have. But it is interesting to note that when I watch movies these days that I have seen even a year ago, it is like watching a new movie, because it rubs itself with so many new ideas in my head and personality.
My costar in that film, Ali MacGraw, exudes femininity and sex appeal. I even married her after the movie.
Really?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/07/a4/74/07a474a0349398043d38d20c56c4b082.jpg
Hot.
That guy is you?
Steve Mcqueen is my avatar. hah..
I’ve never been married.
Ah.
A noble lie may keep people in place, but it also stunts them intellectually. If there is no way to unashamedly explore the world around yourself with vigor, scientific progress is a difficult thing, as evidenced by struggles of people like Galileo.
Most people are already stunted intellectually.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, btw. You can be religious and be a top notch scientist.
Fair enough.
I guess it depends on what you want to study. Think about the first man who proposed autopsy under organized religion. And what about those thinkers that dare to question absolute morality?
With these shackles on, you can only go so far. Now, you may say that there is still some validity in the shackles nonetheless and I may have to agree. You would have to make that point, though.
Those shackles gave us the modern world. There is history that occurred before your birth, Tom, and all of it in the West had a strong religious component. The trendy anti-religion hatred being taught to youth is a very, very new thing and has ratcheted up only in the last few decades.
Meanwhile, men who bent their knee to God put men on the moon.
Anti-dialectic people seem to be a constant, regardless of prevailing religious views.
Think about the first man who proposed to study junk DNA under neoDarwinism.
Maybe. On the other hand, did they reach the moon because or despite of religion? I remember Carl Sagan was not a believer, and yet seemed like a coll dude.
Junk DNA? Who proposed that? Let hear.
The thing is, there is no magical bearded man in the sky watching your every move.
Religion exists to control how people behave and think. That is not good or bad in itself, what matters is what is preached. Christianity preaches weakness. Turn the other cheek, that it may be slapped as well!
In contrast, consider the major nordic gods. Odin, the highest of them all, was the god of death and wisdom. Thor, one of his sons, was the strongest of them all. Tyr, another of Odins sons, offered his hand to Fenris in order to chain it.
Courage, intelligence and physical strength as opposed to weakness. It is no contest to me.
I agree, but I wonder whether that weakness stuff is really Christianity or just the modern version.
Beginning of this year, I was feeling pretty down and went to church to be uplifted. Instead, the pastor starts whining towards heaven: Free us from this miserable life, oh lord, we are miserable.
Blah, blah.
Doesn’t matter. We live in modern times, the modern version is what we have.
You have no way of knowing that one way or the other, whether there is any “magical bearded man in the sky”. Can’t be proven or disproven.
The Crusaders didn’t seem particularly weak. Nor the men who fought WW1 while marching away singing the Battle Hymn.
Then, prove it. The burden of proof rests on the accuser.
For example, you can not prove that the world is not controlled by invisible pink unicorns. Or the teapot that orbits Mars. (it is a British teapot, just for the sake of completeness)
Not “because of”, they were scientists, who more likely than not where Christians. Science and religion are not like oil and water, they are not meant to fulfill the same purpose.
I’m not accusing you of anything. And if I say “Cannot be proven nor disproven” then countering “Prove it!” seems a bit silly.
As to proof or no proof, get back to me when you have an answer for what happened 0.0001 seconds before the big bang. Welcome to faith.
The big bang is just another form of religion. It aligns too closely with the creation myth.
Pick your creation myth then, it really doesn’t matter, it all comes down to something that is not measurable by definition, ergo, it can’t be proven. No creation myth, even scientific ones, rests on pure science. They all come back to a statement of faith.
Then how about this: The universe has always existed.
Infinity, which is not measurable. No measurement, no proof can be posited. Ergo, faith.
Not quite. So far as science has been able to prove, matter can not be created or destroyed, only change form. Ergo, everything that is has always existed.
That was posited by and is the basis for the Hindu religion, a long time ago.
Actually matter can be destroyed, you’re using 1930’s science with your statement. If two antiparticles (electron, proton) collide their matter is changed fully to energy. The matter itself is destroyed.
Infinity cannot be measured by definition, so that claiming it as a positive statement is impossible. You can only assume infinity, not prove it.
That is pure speculation. How do you explain that all the major technological progress has happened in the past century, along with the decline of religion?
Not saying that science is the most important thing on earth, but there is a correlation here.
Pardon. Energy and matter can be converted to one another. Amounts to the same difference. What I should have said is, matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, only change form.
Research into whether junk DNA has critical function.
If matter always exists, that too is a statement of infinity, which cannot be proven. You can only assume it existed prior to humankind entering the scene. Key words to avoid are “always” and “never”. Both rest on unprovable assertions.
Whose burden of proof are we talking about here? Science sets its own guidelines for what “proof” is which differ from religion (faith is the proof, I thought), so then shouldn’t the side arguing for scientific proof have to provide the proof to their claim? Or am I doing it wrong?
I like this:
Yes, pure speculation that a bunch of men born in the 1920’s were religious. Because religion was so not a factor in that time period.
“All of the major technological progress that has happened in the past century” are all almost exclusively based on theories and experiments from men prior to the last century. Very little “new” has been added to humanity with regards to “brand new never before known” discoveries. Those things that have been posited as new are generally not in the public sphere technology wise right now.
Is it actually science that wants this proof? Or are those just ‘science’ zealots who read about science in the newspapers? Every scientists learns the 101s of science, which include: Asking a question that is clearly answerable.
What about quantum theory and microprocessors that we use in our smart phones?
Faith is belief without proof. The most clinching argument a religious person, specifically a Christian, has against the “Prove it!” crowd is “I cannot, my belief relies on faith. Searching for proof denies faith”.
Those who generally pose on the side of science, these days, are usually scientifically illiterate and try to make a package deal equating science and religion as serving the same purpose. That’s silly on its face, if you ask me.
Which is why people like Roosh seek purpose in stuff like the evolutionary theory.
Sorry, you lost me here, what does that have to do with our discussion?
And yet, you can not prove that existence had an origin.
I assumed that you had read his articles about evolution and lack of purpose in life. I wanted to bring it up as an example. Religion is what gives you purpose by giving you something to abide by and something to strive for. Science just observes. But some people use these observations to derive ‘should be’s. I think this is called the naturalistic fallacy.
Microprocessors = 80886 based technology (1970’s) = based on computers from the 1950’s = abacus.
Nothing new theory wise, just faster ways of accomplishing it. Electronic pathways, relays etc. all existed in the 1800’s.
As to quantum theory, first posited in the year 1900, based off of the ideas of Heinrich Hertz in the 19th century.
The more you know! ™
Alright, you win. For now.
I’ve never made a claim that necessitates proof. I’m saying that all creation ideas, scientific, philosophical or scientific rest on un provable assertions, which is faith.
Ah, I see, thank you for clarifying.
Do you have faith?
No problem.
I do.
I also work with complex math on a daily basis and am fully immersed in high technology that would scare the living hell out of most laymen.
So, your worldview is based on nothing in reality?
Thank you for the discussion. It’s rare to find somebody who cedes a point, on the internet. Very commendable.
I think you are misreading him.
Reality is based on nothing in reality, if the measure is faith, which it appears you’re trying to make it. If something cannot be proven, how does that mean that it’s nothing? It only means that you don’t have the ability to grasp it intellectually since it cannot by definition be qualified and quantified. The mind, being finite and based on natural laws, cannot comprehend the infinite. End of the day, all creation of the universe theories or ideas, or infinity statements, are un provable. Like I said, welcome to faith.
I used to be the smartest in class and the best in university and irreplacable at work. Let me say that it is quite a novelty for me having to admit that I know shit. I kind of coming to enjoy it, though. It is a fucking burden to always have to be so very approvable.
My measure is not faith, but the actual reality we live in. As such, prove that your god exists. Or that invisible pink unicorns do, either will do just fine.
Drop some LSD.
By the way, how can they be pink and invisible at the same time?
You’re being silly. I said I have faith. Faith means that I don’t search for proof, I simply believe. And besides, you’re averting the very real plank in your eye in this discussion. I’ve already ceded that all creation/infinity cannot be proven. My statement thus is perfectly in accords with this observation. Asking me to “prove” is saying that the infinite can be measured, which is illogical and not bound to reality.
So basically, you’re not comfortable with your world view also being based on faith, where no evidence of your ultimate assertion of the universe’s origin or existence can be proven scientifically.
So you have nothing in the real world to back up your faith. Good enough for me.
Ah, that is where faith comes in.
It is interesting that when i was an atheist, I also felt threatened by people who said that they have faith. They never claimed that they had proof, yet they bugged me. It is weird.
Today, I just see your statement and think: That is perfectly fair. Nobody has to believe you.
I figure that there is a component in us that wants to believe. When we suppress it, we project it on others and perceive it as oppressive.
Right, agree. And neither do you. The difference is that I’m comfortable with that, my mind can accept that it is not all powerful and god like.
Actually, no. Pink describes a color in our known color spectrum. If it is invisible, it has no color.
I get where they’re coming from, and it really always seems to me to be from a place of insecurity. A confident atheist doesn’t need to troll Christians, only those who are unsure of their own belief system.
The difference is that I have no faith. I merely accept reality as it is.
You posited infinity as the starting point for all reality. That is a statement of faith. We’ve already covered this ground Blindlo.
Dude, it’s ok to have a bit of humility when pondering the universe. Ultimately the human mind, being finite, will fail. Accept it and move on with it, it’s nothing to be frightened about.
On the other hand, there is also a number of Christians who troll you when you do not believe in Jesus Christ. Even WHEN you believe in god.
I agree completely. There are a high number of Christians who deny faith when they try to argue Christianity from the frame of the scientists. They fail as well.
And why not? If matter and energy can not be created or destroyted, then what could they be except eternal?
Show me the measuring point you’ll start from, or the end point you’ll reach, to arrive at “always”. Always = infinity = not measurable = not able to be used as proof = statement of faith.
Get comfortable with it man, it’s not that big of a deal to admit not being all powerful.
You are assuming here that the mechanics of today’s universe are identical to the mechanics of a much earlier universe. That is not necessarily a given.
Exactly. It is human arrogance, which I’m not being mean to Blindlo about, most people fall into this trap. All now is how it’s always been, which seems rather myopic given as humans themselves have only been around for a few million years.
A fair point. Prove it.
I am fine assuming it as a possibility. But a possibility is not automatically truth.
I am to prove to you that your theory is not necessarily right? That is easy. My proof that your theory is not necessarily right is that you have not proven your theory.
Check and mate.
Thread win.
Show the other myriad of possible universes, or multiverses as you please. Explain their rules and how you arrived at them.
I’ve made no claims of other universes. I’m stating simply that you assume conditions now are conditions then. There’s no way to know it, you simply make the assumption. They may have been, they may not have been, who can tell?
Science as we currently know it claim that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, only change form. I am not claiming anything revolutionary here. Check and fuck you.
Not so much.
Which is based on observations that are valid today.
Check and fuck you.
You’ve thus ceded the argument to Tom and myself. Once you get to ad hominem you’ve admitted to running out of valid counter arguments.
I accept your surrender. Hope your day goes well Blindlo, remember, end of the day we’re all on the same team here. You don’t need to make things personal, brother.
Yes. Your point?
Oh, come on. What is this discussion really about?
No, it merely means that I do not respect him. Science as we currently know it does, in fact, claim that matter can not be created or destroyed, only change form.
And again, infinity is your argument. Infinity is faith.
It’s ok Blindlo. It’s hard to admit not being in control of everything, most human beings have a huge problem with that. Learn to be at ease with it.
What is science but a few curious kids like you and me, man? We all try to understand the world.
I am not saying that these observations are invalid. I am saying that the laws of physics may have undergone changes in the past billion billion years. It is not that impossible an assumption.
No, it means agumentum ad hominem. All you’re doing is reasserting a statement of faith as if it were fact, which in fact you cannot prove, and then get mad at others who do not accept your statement of faith at face value. Highly unscientific and when you make it personal you destroy your own authority in the discussion.
Then what is your point again?
I am always up for a little ad hominem fight. But it naturally proves nothing. Apart from wit, perhaps.
It is mere fantasy until you can prove it.
Well yeah, it is theory. Such as your idea is. And that is cool.
That ultimately your world view is as faith based as a Christian’s world view. I am a follower of Christ and cede to science every single thing that belongs to the field of science. I’m comfortable with it, in fact I advocate it. Because science and religion are not tools used to solve the same problems in reality. I work heavily in math, logic and science, I’m good with science. I’m also good with the very real reality that all ideas of the universe’s creation or infinite existence or religious tales of its creation are faith based.
It is fascinating how fascinating the universe becomes once you actually abandon faith-like belief in science.
Weeks ago, I thought that gravity is gravity because Newton.
But Newton was just an observer of the same things we observe today. His formulae did not create gravity. They are just an imperfect way of dealing with it.
The world is truly a magic place.
I knew this one critter living under a bridge. One day he accidentally set fire to it when he was playing around with some matches.
At first, he was in denial and couldn’t believe such a thing could happen or that he could make a mistake and set his own bridge on fire like that. Then he started looking around to see who might be watching that he could blame.
Finally, rather than calling for the fire brigade to come and douse the flames or bailing water from the stream, he doubled down and threw kerosene on the burning bridge.
From that day on, rather than learn not to play with matches, he went around hiding under bridges then burning them down. It was a very sad thing to watch, honestly, and I nearly felt bad for the little guy. But he did it all to himself and wound up not mattering much no matter the temporary attention and thrills he received from lighting up those bridges.
Eventually, no one would greet him when he came around and they would chase him away from all the bridges. He was very lonely.
I cried a little.
Very well said, Tom.
http://jsbmorse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/82f84.jpg
I wonder if the creators of the work mistakenly thought of this as dystopia.
Its interesting getting a reminder of what both genders can value biologically and what feminism seeks to destroy. It seems there are no safe spaces in space.
Or even more subversively, they wanted people to think they were indicating a dystopia when in fact they were slipping in very counter culture messages, such as “Patriarchy is pretty cool”.
AMERICAN WOMEN FOR YOU:
I say we allow that kind of trickery. But along with that, we allow murder. It is a fair deal.
Been watching a lot of his videos since you posted one of his videos in another article. This man is on point 99.9% of the time. Definitely recommend other ROK readers to listen to this guy.
I believe he has written for RoK on numerous occasions.
http://www.returnofkings.com/author/cpt-capitalism
Wendy Williams, RuPauls son
The white guy in a bowtie thinks she sould trick him.
When did white women start to act like fat black women, or have black women come to act like fat white women?
RE: The Noble Lie….I am wondering if it is the lie or the decision to believe it that is important. Over the summer, as I have mentioned numerous times, I read all the Fleming Bond novels. One line that struck me from Dr. No that pertains to this is when he and Honeychile Rider are first taken into Doctor No’s fortress. They are, ostensibly, prisoners. However, they are given every possible luxury. Posh room, great food, tailored clothing, etc. etc. is all made available to them along with a very polite and courteous invitation to dinner.
Bond asks Honeychile if she would like to eat the breakfast or take her bath first. The innocent and beautiful girl, trusting in Bond’s masculine presence, has her worries nonetheless. She asks Bond, “aren’t you worried that this is some kind of trap.”
Bond’s classic response is “If it is a trap we are already in it. The only question left is whether to eat the cheese hot or cold.” Then he takes her hand and says “Isn’t this better? Now, come on and decide the really important things. Bath or breakfast?”
Also, in the Casino Royale novel, Bond questions whether there really is a good and bad side. The conclusion, if I remember correctly, is that in the end, you do not fight for your country, but for those you love.
Casino Royale is correct. The books really are litered with excellent ideas. I do admit reading all of them back to back did get me a little bored by the end, but each book had some really wonderful things and many of them had a ton of them
Indeed; I believe we talked about this a while back. Just read the first two. Still a bit oversaturated, but I actually kinda look forward to reading the rest.
yup. they really are all great. By the time I was finished with the first volume of 6 or 7 novels I think the only thing that kept me going was my decision to read them and not wanting to quit (much like when, over the winter, I read Moby Dick). However, I was rewarded in each book when something would just pop out of the pages and make perfect sense.
Yeah, I used to have these obsessive phases, too, but I remember that I usually just grew bored and disexcited with it. So I rather take it slow a bit now.
I wrote a little article about the new James Bond movie, by the way, with some references to Casino Royale. It is on my page. Check it out if you like.
Unrelated to the article or even your discussion with Tom, but if you want a really interesting read that touches on both your soul and reality, I highly recommend Anton Chekhov’s collection of short stores. My favorite is The Witch which perfectly captures the soul of a woman.
I am seeing the new one this weekend so I will def check it out after.
Short stores? Must be fashion stores if they capture the soul of a woman.
Yes, he pioneered the short story format actually. I highly recommend his works, starting very specifically with the story I mentioned.
My admiration for the flawless way you ignored my mockery.
An excellent suggestion GoJ and one I already —–wait for it—–checked off my list. I was a nut for Russian Literature in college. I meet your “witch” and raise you Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons for an interesting look at some seriously strong masculine dynamic.
I’m well trained in the art of Internet Zen. Heh.
Brilliant suggestions!
maybe it literally captured the soul of women and that’s why current women are without a soul.
Classic Russian lit is one of those things everyone should read. Dostoyevsky, Checkov, Turgenev, Gogol, blah blah blah. Even more modern ones, like the incredibly important Master and Margarita from Bugalkov….all of them are valuable. The creation of double voiced discourse in literature was one of the few times when something in art totally changed the way that humans enter and think about the world.
I somehow doubt this theory. Good try, though.
I don’t know. I saw something like it on Thundercats once…
Need to pull out my notebook and start adding to my list of books to purchase.
Books to purchase? Cool man, a time machine!
Seriously though, you can buy a 2 TB external hard drive for like 80 bucks and then bit torrent every single book on to it. Then download the Calibre ebook management software which, I believe, is free. Seriously, I grabbed one torrent called “all books written in English from 1960-2012 That was just one file.
I would be downright shocked if someone ever suggested a book to me I didn’t already have at this point and if they did I could more than likely grab it from kickass or piratebay in like 2 minutes.
It is great. You can just load 5 books on your phone or tablet and when you are done switch out for another 5.
I would ditch it.
All books written in English from 1960-2012 torrent
Mind blown.
seriously, go to a torrent site and just hit search with nothing in search box and then list in order of size. I would have to look at my laptop at home to see how many books I have, but it is easily over a million….all catalogued and searchable and able to be pushed to my tablet by drag and drop.
This is the calibre software that I use for organization. It is droolworthy
http://calibre-ebook.com/demo
Thanks for the resource. I’ll have to definitely look into it. However, I DO love paperback books. Can take one anywhere to read, scribble notes and highlight, and give it to someone else if I think it’ll help them. Like many other things in life, it’s about the experience and I like to have the paper in my hands. Call me old-fashioned.
I felt that way for a long time. I did eventually embrace the technology of the e-reader once I realized just how powerful it can be. The note feature through evernote and dictionary and Wikipedia links….I am an old fashioned guy in a lot of ways, but also — if the experience can be made better I think you should be open to it. I currently have 5 books on my phone/tablet. I am reading 2 at a time. One on the morning commute and one on the evening. Not only is the page number remembered between devices so if I forget my tablet it just picks up from my phone where I left off, not only can I dictionary, google translate or save a quote to evernote (which is shared through all of my devices) with basically one touch, it turns out that it is easier on my eyes, switches lighting settings to accommodate the light source around me and if I want to read without distraction I just have to airplane mode my device. Add to that that I literally picked up every single book ever written in a weekend for free AND (and this may only be relevant in New York) have gained valuable square footage in my apartment by giving away or putting in storage all my books, I can’t see a reason to possibly go physical book anymore. It took a while to get used to, but it was so worth it and now I can’t imagine going back.
There is being old fashioned as in “I refuse to give up my clutch for an automatic” or “I am a neat scotch drinker and don’t go in for these fruity new cocktails” and then there is old fashion like “I only like to take photographers with film because I am keeping it real” and there is old fashioned like “they make icecream in strawberry now…this isn’t what I am used to…rage, rage, rage.” While it might not seem so at first, clinging to a book in the hand (which I did for years) once you really understand and make second nature the power of the reader seems almost barbaric.
I’m not anti-technology, but like I said, it’s a personal preference. Some people enjoy the experience of driving a stick shift while others find it cumbersome. I enjoy reading from a paperback as opposed to reading on a Kindle or an equivalent item. Doesn’t mean I WON’T, but if I had to choose I’d usually choose the book. Also, I use Evernote and love it. When I said notebook, in reality, that’s what I meant. I take a more hybrid approach to old-fashioned vs tech.
fair enough.
Stick shifts are the absolute best. I can’t imagine ceding so much control over to an idiot “computer”. Never drove an automatic that made me feel so as in control of the car as a stick does.
Aren’t we all trapped in some sort of lie or contrived world in some way? Marriage is a trap, work is a trap, life is a trap. I’d say the important thing is accepting your situation, and working within those bounds. On that note, I’m gonna grab breakfast.
The greatest lie may be to convince people that death is not a valid escape.
I think Albert Camus said (wisely I think) that the question of whether or not to commit suicide is the only serious philosophical problem.
bingo.
If we can’t get off the titanic we might as well have a drink and enjoy a few creature comforts before we hit that ice water.
Mmm…breakfast….Think I might go get me something from the deli by my office.
Oh, spot on with all the other stuff you said too! Prisons are only in your mind. I am reminded of a Jew in a concentration camp who trained his mind to where he was free even though he was on the verge of death every day. I forget the details (name, etc).
You’re thinking of Franz Bardon.
Hah, you can tell where my brain is because my initial response was going to be “No, I was thinking of a sausage, egg, and cheese croissant-wich.”
Thanks.
Yeah, after spending some time in third world nations where the people are legitimately happy, and after talking to poor feminine girls from Latin America that have zero wish to ever come to the USA, I truly believe one can be pretty darn happy no matter your circumstance. Even in North Korea, I’m sure there are happy people telling jokes and having fun with their family. Granted, not many, but some. It’s all about how you decorate your prison walls.
I like the c-camp story. It’s all a matter of perspective. Being a camp guard with a shitty attitude could be worse than being a prisoner with thoughts of freedom. Reminds me of my wilderness survival training in Boy Scouts–the most important tool for survival? Positive Mental Attitude!
Oh you were a boy scout too? I made it to Eagle before I hit 18. Good program if you can find a troop serious about improving their kids. Wish I had taken it more seriously when I was starting out.
What rank did you make it to?
Once an Eagle, always an Eagle… It’s one of the things I’m most proud of.
Right on. I’ve been thinking of buying a lot of the old BSA merit badge books; the important ones, not the bullshit community service crap. Rather, the ones like Pioneering, Wilderness Survival, etc.
I think you are talking about the Diaries of Viktor Klemperer. One interesting thing about him is that by the time the American GI’s freed the camp he was so twisted into his delusion that all he could do was complain about how, compared to the neat tidy dress of the German SS, these American’s looked like real slobs.
I think that people in the third world are happy because they are in bizzaro sports world. See, when a championship happens, both teams have the tshirts and caps and everything printed up and in the club house. The losing team can’t let them go to waste so they give them to people in poor countries. I imagine people in bangledesh think that the Bills had one hell of a dynasty, Bulls were an absurdly lucky team to make the finals so many times but obviously got out played and that the Yankees are real losers. This, I believe, accounts for 92% of their happiness.
One of my drill sergeants in boot camp told us troops that the reason American uniforms are so frumpy is simple. In every war of importance, the side with the nicest uniforms always loses. It made sense.
I mean c’mon, those Krauts were snazzy dressers. So were Santa Ana’s troops. And the British. And the Vietnamese had uglier uniforms than us, so we lost. It kind of clicked for me, at the time, heh.
Now I am thinking of sausage, egg and cheese too. It’s a vicious cycle. Bardon is also a good guess…..they should name a breakfast sandwich after him….It could be like Eggwhites, Turkey Sausage and Low fat cheese on a whole wheat pita. It totally seems great but, in reality, is sucks.
Never heard that before, but I like it.
It’s true, if WW II was a fashion contest then the NAZI’s win hands down. Hugo Boss himself designed all the officer uniforms.
Not so sure about the first world war. Those spikey hats seemed like a fashion faux pas and, I imagine, at your training commencement they were down right deadly when you throw them in the air.
Sure, but it’s all relative. In WW1, yeah, spiky hats, but little known fact is that the Marine Corps here in the States had the same spiky hats. Plus we wore those idiotic British pie pan helmets which no doubt provided huge amounts of armored protection against head sunburns.
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/ca/5d/78/ca5d785afe868b0631cb7dbb6fbabc98.jpg
Unfortunately they recently voted to let in gay boys (wtf? No such thing, but I digree) and are now eyeing letting in gay scout masters. They were destroyed internally, just a couple of years ago, by clear subversive progressive infiltration.
just trying to make a commencement throwing the hat in the air joke on the spikey hat….but still…cool info
There are several children in Kenya who surprised me with their support of Romney/Ryan.
Obama Sr. finally admitted his mistake, did he?
I thought they had already passed all that shit through. If I ever have a boy, I’m doing a homeschool BSA program…basically, being a proper father.
The gay boys, yes. I’m not sure on the gay scoutmasters. It wouldn’t surprise me.
I remember getting into a Yahoo argument with someone who was really trying to argue that allowing gay scoutmasters in wouldn’t increase the rate of sexual abuse in the scouts since there were straight scoutmasters already doing so. I was a bit dumbfounded at the apparent lack of intellect. All I could say was, “If they diddling little boys pee-pees, then BY DEFINITION they are not straight! Bisexual or gay are their only options at that point.”
On a side note, am I the only one who thinks that Monica Belluci does notooze sex appeal?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/bond-girl-monica-bellucci-proves-6711476
Looks like Christiane Amanpour with long hair.
Have you seen the new Bond? Yuck.
Agree.
And I wouldn’t like to think too heavily on what I imagine she does ooze.
Me neither!
Oozing of menopause?
I was a little torn about whether to upvote that comment.
While she might be more attractive than many other women her age, let’s not kid ourselves and say that she’s attractive. The media’s infatuation with trying to push back the expiration date on old women is pathetic.
You mean to tell me you didnt find it sexy?
Sexy? I was not even thinking in spheres of sexy. More in terms of: Is this still funny?
I remember when M was replaced, hearing an interview with one of the co-stars saying “Judy Dench is dripping with sexy!”
She’s actually not a bad M, if one can suspend disbelief and imagine a woman in charge of MI6. But she hasn’t seen sexy in many a decade.
The truly pathetic thing is when you make an actor like Craig kiss her passionately and … uaaa.
That’s when I’d look around and be like “stunt double?!”
He disagrees:
http://mit.zenfs.com/895/2013/10/mummy_1472607i.jpg
Couldnt they have found a young monica belluci type.
http://40.media.tumblr.com/d05ce1c5b411c97dd7ab5d5a262b7141/tumblr_mlyu1l2EEX1qmkgojo1_500.jpg
My first guess was that he was doing it just as a clever Machiavellian to get something from her. But then I shuddered and realized that that would be too politically incorrect a concept to show in cinema. And likely too politically incorrect to demand of poor Monica to act.
How cruel are thou, nature? To transform that into that other thing.
Yowza!
Quite a looker in those days.
I’d probably let her buy me a drink.
Jaded +1
Hot!
You know your value.
You know who would have made a great bond girl…the girl who played Michael’s Italian Wife in the Godfather.
That’s it, I am going to get to work on my time machine.
When I first saw the 2nd matrix with her in it, my dick was rock hard. Of course I was like 15 and I thought she was the finest bitch I’d ever seen.
Yeah, but how long ago is that? Sometimes I wonder where all those years have gone.
They haven’t gone anywhere. They’re still there.
Right. I just missed them underneath the Taco box.
She was old even then. Still hot though.
I wonder if when it comes to pass that Bond is made into a woman, and it WILL in fact happen one day, the Bond Men will ever be older than Jane Bond.
Why not? They’re already planning to make Thor a girl…where does it end?
In the Comics, Thor is already a girl.
http://marvel.com/news/comics/22875/marvel_proudly_presents_thor
She used to but those days are over. This is more social conditioning to make us believe women over 50 are still hot. Is she attractive for 50? Absolutely but she can’t complete with 20 somethings as far as sexy goes.
I can not imagine having sex with her – I am 26. I mean, I could probably do it, but I would hardly enjoy it.
If I was 70 I’d be pleased she was my wife.
No you wouldn’t. You would settle for it and be pleased in comparison to other 70 year olds, but you would trade her ass in before you can spell ovaltine for a 22 year old Victoria secret model.
As a married man comitted to full honesty red pill style, I second lolknee’s post. My wife is beautiful, but she’s as old as I am and when women get to be as old as I am they are not the same as when they were, say, 22. Some few, sparse women age wonderfully, the vast overwhelming majority do not.
I know very few men who wouldn’t trade up for a younger model, especially if their current old woman is a nagging bitch.
Yeah, but being 26, I would be pleased if she was my mother.
Hence you are in orbit around something that is extremely important yet lost to (what’s left of) western femininity.
That being: a woman must have value beyond her looks and beyond her reproductive shelf life.
if she does not, and all she brings to a relationship is a vagina – or worse as we observe in the post modern collapse, not even a vagina or one with so much blubber covering it you need a team of miners to reach it – then it’s time to dump the fat shrew.
“Aging well” does not really mean a woman over 40 looking like she was 20. It means the extra lines not mattering. But hey, you know, it’s “naaaaatural” (NPR programming voice) for women to double their weight as their age doubles. It’s nooorrrrrrmallll for them to pants it up (literally wearing pantsuits from the Hilary Clinton fashion line at Walmart) and boss men around all square-britched and short-haired.
The irony is in that in bringing little more than a vagina to the mix, they look and act like men with vaginas.
Yes, quite so. The pretty 32 year old that dropped her number on my lap recently (I did not ask for it) went on about how she couldn’t cook, etc. I was left wondering how she planned on snagging a man, any man, without any talents to offer outside of having (soon to be rapidly fading) looks and a vagina. And somehow, in her pretty little head, she thought this was some kind of thing she needed to bring up to the man she was trying to impress.
It was, as they say, to laugh.
When a woman says she can’t cook, she’s telling you she likes to eat out.
NEXT
You’d have to deal with all your friends telling you how much they’d like to bang your mom lol
Dip your pecker in a can of sardines if you want a general idea of what it’s like to bang your average 50+ year old.
What kind of friends would that be.
I once kissed a thing like that. It was a horrible foul taste. I kinda wanted to go through with it, but I had the idea she may taste the same down there. She was a smoker, though.
These days, I just find it hard to be so desperate at all.
When it comes to a MILF, the pre pubescent pecker knows no friendship
Haha, I get it. But my point was: How can I be friends with somebody who wants to f uck that old hag?
I was about to go down on a girl once when i caught whiff of a rank vaginal breeze so strong it made me question the meaning of life.
She was young, 18 i believe and i don’t think she understood how to be properly hygienic.
At any rate, i declined the offer and had her swallow my hot salsa instead.
Ah, that was when you started to read the bible.
Oh no, this only applies if your mom is actually MILF quality and not a fat nasty landwhale.
I suppose the ever rare GILF terminology can apply with Bellucci since she still looks bangable (thanks to all the cosmetic surgeries) but that would be crossing into uncharted dark territory for a Man like me. I tend not to stray beyond 40 year olds.
Wuaah. You must be like 80 years old.
LOL No but it definitely made me say “oh my God.”
Jesus fucking Christ. If that is possible.
No, but i am approaching 40.
Watch the blasphemy dude.
God damn, sorry.
The first girl I ever fucked (she was also a virgin) was like that. I was scared shitless they were all going to be like that. It was like a combination of rancid peanut butter and an old moldy rope left out in the rain too long. Was greatly relieved to discover that not only are they not all like that, I’ve never come across anything remotely like it since.
But yeah, I started to go down and immediately came back up for air.
You really start to realize how much better looking young women are in your thirties. I’m thirty five now and the youngest in the past two years was nineteen, with a twenty year old FWB (had a fat beta fiance) for ten months.
Objectively if we try to define attraction by tight hot body. My ex wife, 34, was an a top level female athlete. Her body is tight. Still now? She just looks so fucking old. And it’s easy as shit to date girls ten years younger than me.
Sometimes I wonder if it’s just bitterness. But really? Nah youth = beauty in a woman. I can still remember the young girls, still with some innocence and warmth.
I can’t even remember the names of the other bitches. The girls ravaged by ten to fifteen additional years in this horrible degenerate culture.
They just get crazier and, really, ruthless with age.
Just bitterness? Who knows. After several people have asked me stuff like ‘are you out of your mind?’, I have kind of embraced madness. Even if I am mad, I prefer that to sucking up to somebody’s idiotic idea of sanity. If sanity is to live an unsatisfying life without even telling a butch she is ugly, fuck sanity. It has then become something of no value to me. And when I decide to love my madness, it stops being a threat hanging over my head. It becomes a weapon, to strike into my foes’ gut and ravage them from the inside. Hello, madness, my old friend.
I have done my best things simply through madness.
When you have no goals, but you have no limits, you can accomplish amazing things.
Really why do I complain? All my friends think I’ve done amazing shit. They look up to me.
Sometimes I feel like I need new friends.
Sometimes I think simply pairing up with a girl is simply madness. It is madness.
Hell do I enjoy it though.
No wonder I’m always with a borderline chick. Addicted to them like crack.
I hear they like it when you go rough on them. Appeals to me.
Isn’t it a strange world we live in? Embracing reality is seen as madness yet believing in a delusional narrative is now considered sanity.
Question the meaning of life? Must have been an existential kind of stank.
I don’t understand why a woman would air out the fact she can’t cook. It’s like she’s telling you she’s useless.
Just out of curiosity are you purposely trying to offend?
Indeed.
I did not think it would seriously offend you, so I will go with: Trying to annoy.
I find it amusing that people can get so upset about words about historical figures.
If she was the mother of my girlfriend that would be even better.
No mate I’d be fine with it. I wouldn’t trade her in. I’d keep her and bang 22 year olds on the side. Thanks for telling me my mind though.
But if I was 70 and she was 50 she wouldn’t be as old as I am.
Yeah not attractive.
Let me guess. Spit roast.
Pardon, not spit roast. The correct term is angel threesome, I think.
Ha!
I’m not offended. I would have to care about you beyond what’s required of me to be offended. Blasphemy is no stranger to me but I thought we has a mutual respect here. My mistake.
He is more than a “historical figure” but since youre not aware of this its obvious your quest for Christian understanding is only a few feet underway instead of a few kilometers.
Good luck on your journey.
I respect you, but I do not respect Christianity. Not sure why you assumed that my intent was to dig deeply into Christianity. I just wanted to have a chat about ideas.
Why do you assume disrespect towards your person if I disrespect Christianity? But if these two are inseparable, you are of course right to end your kindness and support at this point.
Thanks and likewise.
22 years olds girls don’t happen to 70 year old unless there is a lot of money, alpha, charisma, social status.
There is a chance the 50 year old might just like you for who you are. Depends on what you are after.
One of my friends growing had a fine momma. She was about 13 when she had him and when I knew him he was about 15. I was about 18 and old enough to try my luck…
He used to chase guys out of his house for saying they wanted to bang his mom….
I have to say though, a lot of girls who say they can’t cook really can and usually quite well. I think that they are trying reduce expectations because they are afraid of disappointing you.
I learned this in my Female Psych 101 class.
Funny shit.
A cousin of mine also had a kid when she was 13. Father long gone. Fucked-up-ness runs in my genes. I am so proud!
In order to properly show respect to me you would have to show respect to the faith i value and respect greatly. The two are not mutually exclusive.
We were having a chat about ideas, but the whole “F Christ” thing even if it was meant as a joke wasn’t going to sit over well with me. Then your additional “god damn” was unnecessary. That’s not respect, that’s you making fun of something which i take seriously.
My kindness has not ended, I’ve still been civil to you and do wish you well. I just wish you hadn’t “gone there” such as it was.
Thank you for clarifying. I am not quite sure how to react here. On one hand, I do feel sorry for stepping on your toes by offending something you value. On the other hand, you say that you were not offended, so I wonder what the problem is. Are you being dishonest?
Had you presented Christianity as something you value and therefore want me to respect, I may have reacted differently in my second reply. Instead, you posited it as absolute truth by crying ‘blasphemy’ – a concept I have an allergic reaction to intellectually. You see, I find myself torn between two unpleasant alternatives:
– Offend the proposed absolute truth that you value and thus offend you.
– Respect you, thereby accepting the proposed absolute truth.
Although I can – more or less – understand where you are coming from, I do not think I could have reacted any differently. So maybe that kind of break is simply what had to happen and that conversation was meant to end there. I can not really understand why I should not use phrases like ‘Jesus Fucking Christ’, therefore I can not concede and say I will not do it again. Maybe some day I will understand, maybe not.
I wasn’t being dishonest when i said i wasn’t offended. I tend to operate on logic more than emotion so that’s why i asked you for a proper response before i chose to indulge any feeling with regard to your response before and after. I was curious… that’s where you could say i was. I’ve been exposed to too much on this world to take offense so easily and because i consider you smarter than the blasphemous scum i tend to come across i give you more consideration in that regard. Trust me when i say. I’ve heard worse than that.
“Had you presented Christianity as something you value and therefore want me to respect,”
Dude, it’s quite obvious from my remarks to you past and present that i value the faith.
“I can not really understand why I should not use phrases like…”
That’s the point i made earlier, you don’t understand…yet. Not to belittle you but you’re not on the level that i am with regard to pious interpretation. We all follow our own road of understanding to whatever interpretation destination it leads us to, so it stands to reason your road won’t look exactly the same as mine and your position on that road might be further back (or ahead) when compared to mine.
Take this as another positive lesson in the nuances of incongruous conversation. The more unique an identity Men have, the less likely they will agree on everything. Even the Founders didn’t always agree, but they agreed where it mattered most.
Now you know more about me than you did, and our future conversations will only benefit…hopefully.
Yes, I understand that you value it. But if you valuing Christianity requires me to value it as well, I would rather abstain from future conversations. I am all too tired of political correctness and this strikes me as an example of just that. If I have to be watching my mouth in your presence about – in my eyes – innocuous statements like the ones I did say, I just do not feel comfortable conversing with you. I can respect that you have different values, but that does not automatically make me share them. Even if my preconceptions about Christianity are possibly to be changed, they are still part of my self and I will not enslave myself to hide them. Since I neither want to force my views or mannerisms down your throat, I think it is best if we limit our future conversations.
It is a good lesson and I actually kind of enjoy the conflict. Nevertheless, I find myself unable to comply with your wish for me to show respect for Christianity. I find your reaction overly sensitive and I do not want to be dealing with that.
If all this means that I lack understanding, so be it. I do not feel ashamed of my real or imagined shortcomings.
Well you called/considered yourself a Christian before unless i misunderstood you, so a respect for Christ would naturally be a given.
This isn’t PC because i’m not insulting you, not demanding you be punished, just asking that you not engage in such blasphemy with me in future conversations. I don’t think it’s too much to ask if indeed you do respect me. People who go in the opposite direction to PC want to be excused for every asshole tendency they have, as if that was better. Both extremes are wrong; reasonable people know how to express their views responsibly and without coming across as intentional assholes.
If however you feel that it’s me “controlling” you or that i’m too “sensitive” because i am simply asking you to show some respect for my faith, then you are telling me that you don’t respect me nearly as much as you claimed before because i’m not actually asking for much. If the shoe was on the other foot i would do the same for you.
Then you must have confused me with someone else. I did show an openness to learn about Christianity, but I generally consider myself quite opposed to it.
Well, it is an interesting question how much I can respect you. I respect you generally for being civil and not forcing your views on me and being a good partner for debate. Other than that, I know nothing about you.
As for PC, I see quite a parallel. Where is the difference of you asking me not to say these things and a woman asking me not to say that women are the weaker sex ‘if I respect her’?
I wonder what to think about your request not to use these words. Who says that – hypothetically – tomorrow, you will not become even stricter and demand me to be even more restrained about other things? Who says that I will not end up letting you dictate my language?
If I told you that I believe socialism is a great idea, would you not call it bullshit? And then if I asked you to show a little respect for it, would you?
It is a really interesting problem and I admit that I have no clear answer. Maybe you have a good idea.
“Then you must have confused me with someone else. I did show an openness to learn about Christianity, but I generally consider myself quite opposed to it.”
Duly noted for future reference.
“As for PC, I see quite a parallel. Where is the difference of you asking me not to say these things and a woman asking me not to say that women are the weaker sex ‘if I respect her’?”
Well it speak to solidarity. We are supposed to be bond brothers on here so there’s more of a connection than simply asking some stranger to abide by a belief. We don’t know enough about each other to care but we do know enough about each other to know we are here for similar reasons, hence we deserve respect for that alone, right?
What we know of each other is direction proportional to what we share on here and how honest we are in sharing it. You have been pretty honest in your views (that’s my impression) and so have i. But hey, since i mistook you for a Christian i suppose the error was on my part, even though we were speaking on Christian related religious matters.
“I wonder what to think about your request not to use these words. Who says that – hypothetically – tomorrow, you will not become even stricter and demand me to be even more restrained about other things? Who says that I will not end up letting you dictate my language?”
You are more than welcome to use any words you like, i just asked you not to use those with me out of solidarity and because i believed you were trying to grow as a Christian. The language you used before confused me, but the confusion is over.
Now that you’ve made it clear you’re not a Christian i withdraw my earlier remark. Use whatever words you like; i will simply choose not to engage you over religious related matters so as not to give you the excuse of using the verbiage i prefer not to have expressed to me. Notice i said “religious related matters” to let you know that i’m putting the burden on myself not to engage in religious conversations with you so as to allow you to say something which i might object to, and not on all conversations period. Now if you chose to bring up a religious related matter and STILL said something i object to (like what you said before) then you would be making it clear that your purpose was to offend me. Can we agree on that?
“If I told you that I believe socialism is a great idea, would you not call it bullshit? And then if I asked you to show a little respect for it, would you?”
Yes and no. I actually engaged another fellow on here who defended some aspects of socialism and tried to show him why he was wrong which is more important than simply saying it was “bullshit.”
Look at it this way…you and i both know socialism is bullshit, but how do you expect to win over the guy who doesn’t? Do you think calling it “bullshit” is going to win him over? Of course not.
This fellow wasn’t some moronic troll, he is one of the regular commentators to ROK and so i gave him the respect he was due out of that solidarity. Just because he had a different opinion over something you and i consider to be ridiculous doesn’t mean i was going to treat him like the ignorant idiots who come here to troll, the ones we have nothing in common with.
In the end we walked away from the conversation in civility, and we were both the wiser for it. My argument was stronger and i know he understood this, he just didn’t understand why exactly. That can come in time.
I don’t think you treat everyone who disagrees with you the same way otherwise you would have resorted to the typical sort of unpleasantries the trolls do, so maybe you understand what i’m saying here.
But now i want to ask you…how do you think it’s best to convince people you are right, over something you strongly believe others are wrong in?
The blunt, emotional “that’s bullshit” approach or the logical reasonable “this is why it’s wrong” approach?
I do not value solidarity in the least. The only context in which I know it is by politicians who use the word to put me in a bin with a lot of people who are not my friends and who I then feel obliged to harmonize with. I enjoy disharmony where it is due. Our common cause does not make us friends, although I do – on an intuitive level – understand what you are saying.
Thing is, I personally come here to grow as an individual and engage with other men and learn. I do not give a fuck about organized religion, fighting SJWs or all that other stuff. Whenever I do it, I do it for fun. I do not give a fuck about society or civilization, for that matter. All civilization has for me are the comforts of consumerism and I am growing tired of them.
My old boss used those loyalty and solidarity arguments with me to shame me for wanting to quit a job I despised. Maybe I have simply never seen a positive example of solidarity in my life. But on the other hand, I would be dishonest to dismiss the idea that it may just be a bullshit argument to override dissimilarities and force some kind of ‘together against the common foe’ epic.
If I care for you, I care for you as an individual. And when I say ‘Jesus Fucking Christ’, it does not mean I hate you. It is not a personal attack. Hell, I am coming to be grateful for almost anything in life, even for my enemies. Know how the quote went in the Godfather? ‘Do not hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.’ Not only does it affect your judgment, but it blinds you to the fact that you can in fact be grateful for even the most disgusting people you meet – because of the experience they gift you in your life.
You are right, of course. ‘Bullshit’ convinces nobody. But I do not want to be walking on eggshells. In other words, I may say bullshit as a rather emotional expression, but then – if my intent is so – become compassionate and civil to explain and discuss my points. I think both has a place and a bit of male aggression is what I come here for. If I can not exclaim such things, I may as well go talk to my grandmother. Seriously, I mean I did not say anything about your family or kids or dead relatives or whatever. I just said ‘Jesus fucking Christ’.
And since Christianity is a belief – an idea – it must be allowed to be attacked. A part of my thought here is: You can not choose your family or the struggles you face, thus it may be unfair to make fun of that shit. But you do choose your ideas about faith and other matters.
But I do think you would be open to me discussing religious matters counter to Christianity as long as I am polite. So it is about politeness. Let me tell you, I hate politeness. At least when it is forced. I do not want to be watching my mouth. In my eyes, it is just stupid bullying to restrain innocent and honest expression of the self.
Since you brought up socialism, I too have some sympathies for it, but I am leaning very far to the side of capitalism. I still like to be open to both sides. If someone says my ideas are bullshit, I will ask why. It adds spice to the language. Without it, it is kind of bland and becomes all about super-seriously figuring out the ‘right way’. I find the idea disgusting. It does not feel alive.
My gut here tells me to simply avoid talking to you, because ‘Jesus fucking Christ’ is actually not a religious-related statement. It is just an exclamation of normal sorts. Like ‘What the fuck’. Indeed, if I were engaging you on purpose, saying these things, it would mean that I am out to offend you. A part of me actually wants that, to break through the bullshit and sensitivities. I realize, though, that in real life, you are likely stronger and fitter than me and I would abstain from doing it – and I do not want to be acting on the internet any other way than in real life. But – in real life, I would then simply avoid you, because I would see you as a bully.
Maybe I am making some thought mistake here in general. Feel free to point it out, if it is so. But my gut is pretty clear on this.
Paragraph 1: I understand. You’ve got the “lone wolf” mentality. I have that myself to a degree but only because there are no red pill Men where i live (to my knowledge.) The ones I’ve found live online and far away from me. Well, good luck with that. It has positives and of course, negatives.
P2: “Thing is, I personally come here to grow as an individual and engage with other men and learn.”
Indeed. If you come here to learn it means you believe there are things Men here can teach you that you might not know right? That goes hand in hand with believing that what you believe right now or how exactly you believe it may not be right at all or no longer right, if indeed it ever was. Be prepared to look back at yourself 10, 5 or even one year from now and say “who the fuck was that guy?” Change takes place over time, we only tend to notice it after a lot of time has passed. It happened to me.
” I do not give a fuck about organized religion, fighting SJWs or all that other stuff. Whenever I do it, I do it for fun. I do not give a fuck about society or civilization, for that matter. ”
Sounds pretty nihilist to me. It also sounds MGTOW to a degree. Do you just have an IDGAF philosophy or is it more than that…do you want to “watch the world burn” and possibly burn with it?
P3: “Maybe I have simply never seen a positive example of solidarity in my life.”
What about this site? Wouldn’t you consider it a positive of solidarity? After all, look how many of us rally around each other for defense when the occasional troll stops by, or help defend Ghost Of Jefferson when he comes under attack even if he doesn’t need it.
P4: “it does not mean I hate you. It is not a personal attack.”
I never said it was. When you said it wasn’t meant as an attack i believed you, i was just confused because i thought you had identified as a Christian before. We’ve had theological conversations before and it led me to that conclusion but, you just corrected it. I’m not sure what to categorize you as, so i won’t bother. You fall into the categorization of non categorization, or someone who blurs labels to such a degree it’s a waste of time and effort to label them as anything other than “different.”
P5: There’s a time and place for everything. I don’t think it will cause you pain if you had to abide by my earlier request, but since it seems to cause you umbrage and since i was mistaken to consider you a Christian, the request was withdrawn.
For the record I reserve my male aggression and wrath for the moronic trolls that come here but, to each his own.
P6: “You can not choose your family or the struggles you face, thus it may be unfair to make fun of that shit.”
But don’t you see…i choose Christ as my family…can you maybe see now why i would object to your remarks?
Christianity is allowed to get attacked, here and elsewhere. Those who attack it understand they themselves will be attacked for it if appropriate. It goes with the territory.
However there’s no reason why it MUST be attacked, just as there’s no reason why those attacking it MUST be attacked themselves. That’s all about choice, about what we allow ourselves to be offended by just as others allow themselves an excuse in order to offend.
You chose to react to my curiosity and objection to your remark with defiance and a defense of the remark. My choice is to accept that since i can’t control you, i can only control how i react to you, and i do that by limiting the means by which you choose to keep saying what i would object to in the manner i expressed before. This is the only reasonable recourse i have, unless of course you would prefer that i simply accept your choice of wording…which would mean that i would let you have control over me. That as you may know, is not happening.
P7: “But I do think you would be open to me discussing religious matters counter to Christianity as long as I am polite. S”
No, you can be salty if you want, i don’t mind. I have been known to be salty myself when the situation inspires. I just asked that you refrain from the blasphemy, since that is what it is when you profane the Lord’s name, the Lord that i follow as family. When you say “Jesus F Christ” even if it’s not meant to offend, has the same potential for offending, since it’s not something that people who consider Christ as family would do. Therein lies my confusion, since i thought i was talking to another Christian. I would never ask an atheist or antitheist to do the same, since they would laugh at me out loud. Intentional blasphemy is what i expect from them, not fellow Christians.
P8: “It adds spice to the language. Without it, it is kind of bland and becomes all about super-seriously figuring out the ‘right way’. I find the idea disgusting. It does not feel alive.”
The problem is, when you’ve got two people who feel very strongly about what they believe in disagreeing, it tends to turn ugly. When it turns ugly it also turns into a waste of time, unless you go into it knowing you just want to flex your IQ muscle and totally destroy their ignorance.
That last part is how i deal with trolls, but not with fellow ROK members on here. With those i tend to give a lot more room and consideration and yes, respect and politeness, until it becomes pointless or until the other purpose intentionally disrespects me. You have not intentionally disrespected me, so here we are still talking, and talking about how two people disagree on things, religious or otherwise, and why we disagreed on the religious thing from before.
P9: ” …because ‘Jesus fucking Christ’ is actually not a religious-related statement. It is just an exclamation of normal sorts.”
That’s a semantic argument born from a tunnel vision perspective on this. I think you are the type that wants to say whatever he wants to say online, because he resents having to refrain from saying what he wants to say in person. (We all have to refrain from saying everything that’s on our minds.)
Whenever you see something as PC or a “sacred cow” it makes you double down on what you say because you react to it as “sensitivity” or “trying to control you” when in reality it’s simply an appeal to your reason at least from me. Maybe you grew up around emotional manipulators or opinion suppressors but i assure you, i am not one of them.
I’m the type of person who pretty much operates the same way in person as i do here. I say no more and no less than what needs to be said in the moment. Online i might be more rude in what i say because some people have it coming, but i’m not rude just because i can be.
From what I’ve noticed, too many people have been indoctrinated into refraining from saying too much in person out of political correctness, which has resulted in too many people saying too much online because of pent up frustration and anger at the world and those others in it.
I’m just the guy in the middle dealing with all those other people 🙂
You did not finish your last paragraph after ‘manipulators or’, so I will wait with my answer.
Refresh
It is a bit long, so I will respond tomorrow or the day after.
Take your time. Enjoy the sun if it’s out or the company of some warm female if it’s available 🙂
Haha, I wish I had that kind of pleasure in my life. The warm female that is – the sun is awesome.
Yes, naturally.
Yes, I have a bit of all those parts in me, but they are balanced with a wish to be connected to the light. I consider myself a Grey Jedi. I despise the gospel of the light and I despise the gospel of the dark. Both are incomplete without each other. I think god’s greatest joy is to see something great built and then ravaged. After all, that is the cycle of life. Why would he have designed it if not to see greatness rise and demise?
Indeed, that is something to think about. I do enjoy the camaraderie here. I wonder if it would still exist if SJWs did not. If the common enemy does not bind us together more than we would be bound otherwise.
Indeed, I think the same about myself. Has its good and its bad sides. One of the good is certainly the IDGAF attitude that comes with it.
Indeed, but why not let oneself feel the sweet pain of being offended here and there? Likewise, why not enjoy the benign sadism that comes with what you call salty language?
Interesting. This situation is, thus, a proof of the fact of life that not everything can be solved through consensus. That conflict is necessary. Thank you for this experience.
See, I thought about this and I came to a conclusion. What bugs me here is the authoritarian style with which you demanded me to stop talking that way when you said ‘stop the blasphemy’. I let no one tell me what to say or not, especially not under the guise of an illusionary absolute standard of truth. That said, I can understand your explanation of Jesus Christ as your family. If you were to ask me with humility to respect that as your individual choice, I may just want to give that as a gift exclusively to you, out of my own respect for you. It would be something I do not give to Christianity, but to you, because you asked for it. This would be quite a significant gift, because it would involve treating you differently than others – which is why I am hesitant to give it even if you ask for it in a way I can accept. I apologize if this sounds arrogant, but that is how my gut feels about it.
Is that not simply a false belief? Harmony and absolute destruction as the only possible ways? Splitting? A self-fulfilling prophecy? How about two friends who do not tread lightly on each others sentiments?
It is less a distinction between internet and real life than it is a distinction between past and present. I used to be quite dishonest and I am becoming more bold. I also told a cop that I do not give a fuck about his stupid law recently. Another cop, I challenged to fight me for taking my stuff. I put an old lady in her place when she bitched at me; I did it publically in front of 20 bystanding people and did not flinch. That is who I want to be. Not taking shit.
Of course, I am likely not as bold in person as on the internet, but I am working towards it. In the sense that I carry it as a conscious and subconscious wish.
Indeed, I grew up with a – likely – Borderline disordered mother. I dare say it quite literally drove me into madness. Of course, I kind of managed to go through life and most people today do not even notice madness. But now that I have regained my intuition and trust in my perceptions, I defend them with all I have, because I know what the other life feels like and I am not going back there if I can stop it. Sorry, but your word on not being that kind of person is simply not enough to break through my deep distrust. What you say either verifies with my intuition or is discarded.
That, of course, makes sense. Still, the anger needs to go somewhere. Why not the internet? Although there is really a better option: The forest. It always amazes me what comes out when nobody is around.
<” I think god’s greatest joy is to see something great built and then ravaged. After all, that is the cycle of life. Why would he have designed it if not to see greatness rise and demise?”?
I think you’re confusing the Abrahamic God with another one, possibly kali. God doesn’t build just to destroy, since that would make Him sadistic. The reason we have a finite existence is because we are no longer perfect. That’s our fault, not His.
<“Indeed, but why not let oneself feel the sweet pain of being offended here and there? Likewise, why not enjoy the benign sadism that comes with what you call salty language?”?
Lol not sure if i consider offense tantamount to anything “sweet.” Simply being on here does allow for offense to become a possibility, so i think i understand where you’re coming from.
For me, salty language is more of an exclamation point emphasizing a strong feeling to whatever topic i’m otherwise logically elaborating upon. I don’t take any enjoyment from it, it’s just a means to an end.
I do however take enjoyment from annihilating the occasional troll using my intellect alone. It doesn’t take a genius to throw out F bombs, it does however take some real brains to shut down someone logically.
Conflict need not always be bad, or unproductive or counterproductive. It only becomes so when both sides have absolutely nothing in common and no interest in reaching a detente. You’re welcome.
Perhaps it came across to you as such when i said “watch the blasphemy please” but it certainly wasn’t my intent. I would hardly say i “demanded” for you to stop; my words were meant as a caveat dissuading you from future repetitions, and only because i considered you a fellow Christian. You seemed to react more strongly than what was necessary, but instead of antagonism your reaction was more akin to sardonicism. There is probably something in your background that accounts for that, some past history with people of that affiliation that has helped cause you to react in this particular knee jerk manner. Interesting.
You are fascinating. We are all entitled to just a bit of arrogance, but it’s only justified when it’s related to a talent or knowledge that we alone possess or possess more of than the next person.
Knowing what i know now about you, i wouldn’t ask you to do anything for me that causes you grief, because it seems as if abiding by my request would cause you some undue agony. I would however abide by what i said before: once we have drawn this conversation to its timely end i will refrain from engaging in religious conversations with you because of your propensity to utter something which i may find objectionable.
So as not to go on in endless circles, let me summarize it: either you will accept my request or accept my withdrawal over the issue in question. Either one is fine with me.
Incidentally, don’t apologize for who you are or what you do, if you intend to do it again if the situation repeated. Only offer an apology when you intend not to repeat what the apology is meant to ameliorate. I appreciate you doing so regardless.
What truly constitutes a friend though? I believe you mentioned something to the effect that you didn’t know anything about me here earlier. While we tend to give friends more room in which to forgive their insults, idiocies, offenses, etc, we certainly can’t say that anyone on ROK is truly a “friend” since we don’t really know the person we are supposedly befriending. I consider the ROK faithful as acquaintances, because our common enemy and beliefs unite us, but unless we have met in person the word “friend” is used as a token gesture of solidarity and nothing more.
What i said might be self fulfilling prophecy, but remember my use of the word “feeling.” That implies emotions and whenever emotions come into play, situations tend to escalate. My remarks are based on empirical evidence which, while not purely related to fact, nevertheless are rooted in reality because I’ve seen them take place on numerous occasions. I should also mention i didn’t say this would always happen, although i do believe it would very likely happen more often than not.
Again, interesting. If what you say is true then you may lack social inhibitors ingrained in us through our formative years. There are positives to that just as there are some very real negatives, which i’m sure you have experienced. Ok, i accept i was wrong here for thinking you tend to bite your tongue in public lol.
I’d still caution you from being as bold in person as you are here. Moderation is key. Getting doxxed and even swatted may be the natural result of your boldness (which some may consider stupidity) as an inevitability or worse. It’s your life however, so do as you wish, just remember that as an older Man i’m probably giving you the advice i wish i had taken when i was younger.
Duly noted. I grew up with the Mother from Carrie, so i can relate. With regard to what you said here, go see my 6th chronological response here as the solution.
Indeed, although venting anger where none is warranted is kind of emo when you think about it. There is so much in the world today to piss a Man off he either deals with it or lets it make him go mad. Bitterness itself is not manly, although it can lead one to manliness if it’s born out of a bitterness for the bullshit matriarchy we find ourselves subject to.
You can of course yell at the forest while in solitude…just remember not to burn it down afterwards.
BONUS: With regard to your “grey jedi” remarks from earlier, i defer you to the words of master yoda:
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.””
You will not remain a grey jedi forever…either you will gravitate to the light or to the darkside, young padawan.
Choose wisely.
Our fault, not his. I do not buy that. God created us to be just the way we are and to make just the decisions we made.
Taking enjoyment from salty language, well, I wonder if that is the right way to express my sentiment. The correct thing would likely be to say that it is honest. If I feel a particular sentiment about a topic, why should I express it differently depending on who I am talking to? That seems disingenuine.
I was indeed being sardonic. Yeah, I am sure my past has to do with it. But I guess we humans are not very good at remembering the actual causes of our decisions. Rather, we remember associations.
Why, of course I am. Comes with the trade of madness.
That is a fair deal. I accept your withdrawal over the issue in question then.
That is an interesting idea. I apologized because I felt sorry about what I perceived to be an offense to you. But you are right. It is pointless to apologize for something you do not intend to change. I will let the idea sink in a little.
Well, I did not mean to emphasize the word friend, rather harmless banter (if I used those words, not sure anymore).
Another perspective on this: Maybe it is not so much feelings that make it escalate primarily, but one party’s unwillingness to feel a particular emotion, projecting it on the other person who is then vilified.
On the contrary. I am just fighting really hard to annihilate them. Tired of it. When I was very young, I was quite bold. Got sent home from school on my first school day, because I called the female teacher an asshole. I also once grabbed a social worker’s boobs. All that stuff in the first years of school. Then I kinda learned I can gain approval by being nice and having good grades, which appealed to a fatherless boy like me. Took me quite some time to figure out how that is making me sick, so now I am overcompensating in the IDGAF direction. I am quite satisfied with the results so far.
Yeah. But you did not grow up as I did, or did you?
Mother from Carrie, please explain. What do you mean with solution? What shall I look for in that 6th chronological response of yours?
Ah, what do I care whether someone calls me manly. Some dude left a comment on my blog and wrote that I seem like a misanthropic bitter man who attracts crazies. And you know what? The closer I am to self-acceptance, the more I actually like being seen for what I am. I would rather be seen as a bitter man than as something I am not. It is what life has turned me into so far and I like to own it and have it acknowledged.
Light, man. If I had to choose. But I do not want to choose. I want completeness.
Are you reading my thoughts?
No dude, God made us in His image, everything else is on us. Free will aka choice allows us to determine how much or how much less we want to represent Him in all the things we think, say, and actually do. I don’t think God wanted you to say “Jesus F Christ” for instance.
If you represent madness, what do you think i represent? 😀
To each his own. By the way, i think you meant disingenuous. Then again maybe you meant to express the word that way as a means of showing me just how fond you are of being different lol
Perhaps, but human history has shown that emotions tend to be the deciding factor whenever war is precipitated, for instance. Look at the fallout from 911….we ended up attacking a dictator’s country that had nothing definitive to do with it.
No offense intended but, have you ever seen a therapist, or otherwise been told you possess a social dysfunction of sorts? (sociopathy, anti personality disorder, etc) You might be surprised to learn i could answer yes to both if you had asked me a couple of decades ago.
We may have more in common than you think 😉
Go see the movie “Carrie” and you will understand what i meant.
You already found it when you responded back with: “That is a fair deal. I accept your withdrawal over the issue in question then”
We all care to some degree or another what other people think of us. There’s nothing wrong with that, so long as it’s done in moderation. A total reliance on the external stimuli of criticism/compliments speaks to an insecure, puerile mind. Conversely, a total lack of empathy is an indicator of a sociopathic disorder.
Put it this way…what’s stopping you from murder, if indeed you wouldn’t care if people considered you a murderer?
Some people are like a leaf in the wind, allowing the wind to take them this way or that, and end up in whatever location it happens to take them.
Others are like the wind itself, determining when and where they will go and ending up precisely where they expected to be.
The difference between both is: choice. While choice doesn’t always guarantee results, it does guarantee input which, when you factor in its triumvirate relationship with cause/effect and consequence, puts us in a better or worse position than when we started depending on the choice itself.
Don’t be the leaf, be the wind.
Perhaps…:)
The question is not whether I can make a choice. If I am going to be honest, the real question is why I should make different choices than the ones I make. I crave the pain. I want to become its master. I want to be a master of the darkness and know all of its secrets. Be one with them. I want to know the absolute bottom, from which then I shall ascend.
Jesus?
I googled, but I can not conclusively find the difference between the two. Mind to explain?
You said we have free will. A free will indicates that you can not choose not to use free will. But you can trick yourself into believing that you had no choice – to not be responsible. If we are honest, we have to acknowledge that the souls of the US and Iraq decided to orchestrate this war together to make this particular experience. What is wrong about that?
The old one, I presume. I will.
The consequences of the law. And yes, I am being honest. I crave the experience of killing someoone or something. An animal might do, though. I was to the butcher’s recently and asked if that was possible, but it is rather difficult due to health regulations these days. Weird world.
I have not seen one recently, because I do not trust them. I spent a few years in therapeutic living groups with weekly therapy. I mostly made fun of it, because I was not very conscious back then and thought it absolute nonsense. That said, sociopaths seem to have quite the IDGAF attitude I want, plus doing well with women. Tell me why I should not want to be that.
Actually, the really honest and challenging thing is to be an asshole WITHOUT shutting off empathy. To look into somebody’s eyes and say precisely the thing you want to say with full awareness of that person. Quite painful. Since I half-opened my third eye, I realized what this empathy thing can really mean. It is scary. A kind of intimacy I have never even known exists and I am still hestitant about allowing myself to see all the implications.
As for seeing the world burn and reading my thoughts, you may ‘like’ this:
http://manwithoutfather.com/2015/11/15/music-for-the-end-of-the-world/
That indicates that god has the same free will we possess. May be interesting to ask god why he chose to not be evil, then. Who knows, the answer may be: He did not.
Maybe god is, to you, simply the thing you need him to be.
Cave mysteriis dom sathanas. In other words, be careful the dark doesn’t become your master as it almost did with me.
Close…i’m more like Paul, but i’m working on it. Thanks. Paul was badass in the bible. You’d like him…maybe lol.
It’s technically not a recognized word in most if not all, of the leading dictionaries.
No, you actually can. Homosexuals do it all the time when they say they are “born that way.” Not choosing to use it doesn’t mean you lose it, it just means you refuse to exercise it. The choice to not act is still a choice, which people fool themselves into taking just as you said later.
What is wrong is that, we had no business being in Iraq. The intel linking them to Bin Laden was tenuous at best, fabricated at worse. We are not the world’s police. If that was the case, we would have to invade every foreign dictator and either replace them with a puppet government that takes orders from us or allow another worse enemy to take control once we leave. Either is execrable and would not be viewed lightly by the Founding Fathers.
I used to kill pigeons and torture them “saw” style. I saw them as a nuisance that no one would miss and i hated the fact my Mother paid them more love than myself. I wanted to destroy what she loved, basically. I must have killed over 20 of them after catching them in my makeshift traps. I also used to throw roaches into spider webs to watch them being prepped for slaughter. I considered those a “class 1” (low priority) type animal that deserved annihilation. I never killed kittens or cats because i considered those a “class 2” type that justified their existence even if it was in just an aesthetic concern. I did however mace a cat from a dare and once pulled the legs off a crab. They used to call me kid loco. You might say i had a few issues which God has thankfully helped me resolve.
What i had was a fascination with the macabre, which graduated to nihilism as i came to view all life as ultimately meaningless. This was back during my atheist days, right before i tried satanism. Without getting into too much proselytization, you really need to curb the enthusiasm with that, or watch it slowly morph you into something unnecessary and meaningless. The world has plenty of killers, what it lacks is enough people who promote the value of life.
What i do today whenever i feel myself tempted, is read the bible or watch nature videos. My Mother took me to a therapist a few times who once told her “there’s no hope for him. He’s sociopathic.”
I stand before you today as a testament to just how much in error he was. Sociopathy is practically incurable because the madness tends to run deep indeed, and yet i climbed out of the abyss through my faith in the Christ. i realize you don’t consider faith quite the same way i do, but i’m telling you it worked with me.
If neither of those gives you immediate satisfaction, then i recommend watching nature videos, like snake or lion feedings, with my personal favorite being piranhas.
Piranha feedings especially satiate my fascination with death, which once upon a time was a love of death. I must have seen every piranha related nature video on youtube. Trust me, that would help you at least a little bit.
Ahh i knew we had something in common with regard to our past 🙂
As far as point 2 is concerned, i think you’re operating under the false impression that you would be living a “Patrick Bateman” type life. Far from it. What would very likely happen is you would end up a malignant narcissist like him (and like i was once interestingly enough) who would either end up shot to death in some roach infested motel room after eluding the cops for a day or two, or you would end up slitting your own wrists after you realized how much you hated being around people who disgust or otherwise annoy you. Either of those two is intellectually unappetizing, and you would be soon forgotten after the deeds were done. Aspire to something greater than what others have done, like doing something truly positive with your time for the benefit of people. We don’t have enough people like that in the world. Your contribution would always be remembered, because people would want to remember it.
If you still possess empathy, then you are fine, even if it isn’t much. I’d rather you be a feeling asshole than an unfeeling sociopathic monster. Remember however, that it may fade over time if not fed properly, leaving you with nothing left. Keep the light of humanity within you always lit, or the darkness will consume.
How about something lacking in a satanic nature but with an undeniable menacing tone?
Of course God has free will. He is God, He can do whatever He wants and unlike us, He isn’t bound by the laws of physics.
“Maybe god is, to you, simply the thing you need him to be.”
Back when i was an atheist, God to me was a manifestation of people’s imaginations, of what they needed him to be. This is what i needed him to be in order to logically remain an atheist.
Now that i’m with God, God to me is what He presents himself as, not as what i would like Him to be. (non existent)
Does that make sense to you?
How do you know that he presents to you his real self? How do you know that a real self exists?
How come all kinds of civilizations rose, even without Christianity? How come the thriving of Islam and the pious followers? If they are not praying to the right god, how come they do not know it? Are they living in cognitive dissonance?
Faith..that’s how i know. I can’t prove it to you, i can only disagree with you and tell you why i disagree. Since you are not as versed in these matters as i am, don’t take offense to me considering myself more versed in the nuances of faith than you. We can always agree to disagree of course.
Look at it this way…what proof am i offering you that i’m not a sophisticated AI or bot designed to process information and socio-interact with human beings based on interpersonal exchange? You believe i’m human yet you have no definitive proof. Is that faith? Sure it is. Is it justified? Sure it is even if it can’t be proven right now.
It’s no less so for God with me, since he whispers to me directly and through me indirectly. Jesus is the inner ear i use to hear Him in either respect.
Because of free will. Man was given the choice to love God or love other false gods. The bible speaks of the father of islam being a “wild man” and one who would be at odds with other people, including us. Nothing happening now is surprising to us, because true people of faith already anticipated it.
Yes. We all fool ourselves into thinking we are following something greater than ourselves at one point in our lives or more. Even atheists abide by this, they just don’t give it anthropomorphic qualities like other faiths do, since strictly interpreted atheism is the faith of non faith.
In addition other people serve to further cement this CD within us, which becomes repetitious, forms a habit, then develops into a full on indoctrination similar to what the muslims do with their children.
I was an atheist once so I’ve had the benefit of being on both sides, and now know for sure i’m on the right one. I can say i used to operate under CD in order to reject God, when i stopped i was on longer under its influence.
I can’t define for you the exact manner of determining which faith has it right…i can only tell you that i believe Christianity is the truth faith, partly because of my own background experiences and partly because of the fact it’s one of the most hated on earth. Even islam gets more respect from the westernized countries than Christianity does. A lot of the other non westernized countries are already under islam or are being slowly islamicized by ISIS and other related groups. You are of course free to disagree just as i am no less free in not caring.
At any rate, all these conflicting faiths are leading towards an inevitable conclusion: a “Highlander” type scenario where “there can be only one” religion is left.
It’s going to come down to islam vs Christianity as the bible hinted to so many years ago. Atheism and all the other religions with the possible exception of Judaism will be lined up with it against us. Even the catholic orthodoxy will be against us.
What happens next can only be described as “biblical.”
It will not, for I walk into it with light. I am not seeking to be consumed by the shadows. I seek to make them lit. To rob them of their power and command them. I want to make them my bitch.
Technically, there is no such a thing as a recognized word. Dictionaries are written by analyzing written work. Thus, each word can only find its way into a dictionary by simply being written often enough.
How do you know they are not ‘born that way’? I mean, many of them are probably damaged, but most people are damaged in some manner. I do not have the hubris to make a conclusive statement about whether fags are ‘real’.
Of course. My point was: Maybe America needed to be the oppressor and the Iraqis needed to be victims. Maybe you needed it to be able to feel a bit of collective guilt now. I base this on a theory I have come to like, first heard from a dude called Bashar on Youtube. First seemed nutty, but eventually it started to make sense: Nothing in life happens unless you agree to it. So if there is war, that means that every single person in it agrees to the role they are to play in it. On a spiritual level, there is no forcing somebody into something, there is just the choice to engage in power games. Which, by the way, fits well with free will.
That makes a hell lot of sense! Really. I can literally see myself doing it. But it only makes sense with that motivation. I wonder if I could actually do it if it was just about the pigeon and me. Who knows.
All in all, I get the impression here that you feel ashamed of this side of yourself and seek to forget it through ideology – Christianity. Why not embrace it with love? My spiritual mentor uses to say: Everything wants to be loved. Even and especially those darkest sides in us.
I watched the Potter movies this week. Voldemort, the evil man. And all I could think was: Voldemort is absolutely right. He did not get love. The ‘good ones’ denied the darkness a place in their hearts, so the darkness found in him an agent and tasked him with putting darkness into its deserved place in the hearts of all people. And he succeeded. People revered him so much that they did not even dare to speak his name. He had fought for a place in their hearts with a terror equivalent to the terror he has suffered by being a reject.
Kinda like simply emotional physics. There is beauty to it.
Nah, more like a Charles Bukowski style. Catharsis through decadence.
Again, I get the impression that you are projecting some unresolved personal issues on me. But be it as it may, it is never a lack of empathy at the base of it, is it? Your reason to torture those birds was not a lack of empathy. For the birds, yes, but you did it as an investment into the bond with your mother. That does not seem cold-hearted at all.
Boooring.
“It will not, for I walk into it with light. I am not seeking to be consumed by the shadows. I seek to make them lit. To rob them of their power and command them. I want to make them my bitch.”
Fine, just don’t dabble in the occult. Using evil against evil is a recipe for disaster.
in thet cace we shud rite howevr we lik thn?
Ohh plenty of research on my part friend. I’ve spent the better part of 20 years exploring the subject through information gathering and speaking with homosexual acquaintances.
First of all, if being homo was naturally occurring you would be seeing far more people as homosexual/bisexual instead of just heterosexual. Even if you start human history from the first confirmed anthropological discovery of human beings, you have to ask yourself why, if nature truly intended humans to either be hetero, homo or a mix of both, most people chose to remain hetero from that point on up until now. CDC records clearly show that 97-98% of those researched identify as hetero, with only 2-3% identifying as homo/bi. Mind you this is during our modern age, where alternative lifestyles have been accepted as part of society more often than not.
If it was truly normal, why didn’t more people gravitate to homosexuality? You’d think the numbers would at least be a lot closer given how many thousands of years humans have been alive.
Now instead of just theorizing about it, we can turn to the APA itself, the psych body that helped lift the ban on it in the first place. They’ve gone on record as saying that there is no definitive evidence to conclusively state that it originates genetically.
For anyone to think it does is them simply engaging in wishful thinking that has no bearing on true scientific application.
Then of course, you have to figure in all the examples of ex homosexuals in the world, namely through the group PFOX (parents and friends of ex gays and lesbians)
Seriously dude, no one is born that way…they make themselves that way because of their choice to believe they have no choice, just as a guy or girl chooses to believe they were born in another person’s body or that they were born to have an absence of limbs. It’s all the result of a profound mental disorder.
A plan to make America look like a villain? I wouldn’t doubt, but i think there’s more to it than that. There always is.
I don’t recommend it.
I once felt ashamed until i accepted that it happened and i moved on. You can’t stay in guilt forever. I wouldn’t use the word “embraced” but i have come to terms with the fact that it happened. Christianity might have started off as a crutch, but it’s become far more than that to me. It’s as essential to me as my bones are to my body.
Accepting faith is like going to school…you don’t just become part of it, you have to go through the learning process in order to advance to a higher plateau of understanding. Not everyone who calls themselves “Christian” truly understand what it means to be one. True faith is a verb, not just a noun in that respect.
I went through many levels to reach the point i’m at, and i will need to reach many more before i can say i’m a mirror image of Jesus, if indeed i ever make it that far.
Am i perfect? Of course not. But i’m working on it. Day by day.
Not at all, i’m offering you good counsel based on the roads I’ve taken, a few of which you seem to be walking on right now. Call it a benefit of solidarity even if you don’t share in the belief of brotherhood.
While i was lashing out through a lack of empathy for the birds, i can’t say i did it to reinforce the bond with my Mother that you speak of. It was a lot more selfish than that. I think at that point i actually hated my Mother so it was more of a stress release for me. It was a cathartic experience as you said earlier.
I eventually did get caught and that’s when the therapy visits started which were as you say, a waste of time although the last therapist i ended up seeing was really nice to me.
Lol to each his own. How about Metallica, Saliva or Motorhead instead?
Now you are being childish. Black and white thinking. As our conversation to this point proves, we have no trouble conversing. Surely, that is not due to some kind of strict speech police. You are assuming that if you stop being a speech bully, suddenly all those evil sinners will come and destroy language.
On the other hand, that kinda is what is happening. But I figure that today’s degradation of language is a symptom not of bad language, but of divorcing intensional from extensional meanings. That is, words stop referring to anything in reality and instead become an end in themselves, serving only intellectual word games and manipulation a la ‘You like baseball? Ah, then you should donate to the kids’ baseball team here at high school! It is practically your duty!’
Nevertheless, even leftists still use the correct phrasing of words, which makes me believe that it is quite unnecessary to enforce these things. There was good article recently about regulations and freedom and it concluded that regulations actually stem from fear and in the end, MAKE people want to transgress them, because people lose sight of what really mattered. In this case, the conversation. No one really wants to disturb a good conversation, so it is unlikely that this kind of policing is necessary. Just my 2 cents.
That is actually not a logical argument. You are aware of that, are you not? There is no logical reason why it should be more than 2-3 %. If you go to a beach and 2-3% of all stones are black while all others are white, will you conclude that the black stones are recretly white, too, or will you try to figure out why it is just such a small amount?
I read an article some time ago about DNA phenotypes that can sometimes be transferred to the different sex. Would explain gayness. Apart from those people who become gay after abuse, but just because that can happen, does not mean it always is that way.
Not a gay advocate here, but an advocate of reason.
Not like a conscious plan. More like an unconscious contract between all those souls who were involved. Like wearing a short dress invites rapists. Like walking with bad posture attracts serial murderers. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Law of attraction. Get where I am going with that? In a way, people may have been begging for it to happen, even if they dreaded it.
But hatred is a kind of bond, too. Distancing yourself from somebody violently is an act of the heart as well. I would know.
Did you happen to grow up without a dad, too? Or with a useless one? If yes, it would actually be great if you could write an article about your life and those things and how you solved it. Would fit in well with my site. I do not agree on Christianity, but I would love to share your story and perspective with my audience. It seems intense. What cha say?
How old are you again?
Not at all, i just think you are too prideful to accept doing anything that doesn’t support your perspective in the moment. I showed you that the word isn’t formally recognized in standard dictionary use, yet you want to argue the point anyway. That’s prideful, if not petulant itself.
Anytime someone disagrees with you, you are quick to dismiss it as “demanding” “policing” etc. then you follow it up with an antipodal remark, as if to indicate that you are being indecisive on the issue. “On the other hand, that kinda is what is happening.” This tells me you are not as certain on your position as you think.
Take a stand and stick with it…indecisiveness is what females are known for.
Specious argument. You’re equating the natural circumstances of the stones being there with human input derived from people associating/disassociating with homosexuality. Your point is not rooted in logic when you attempt to conjoin natural placement with unnatural choice as a means of justifying your position on the issue.
Not really, your remarks here seem more nonsensical than anything else. We will just disagree.
Granted, but remember i said it was more selfish a motive than that.
Yes to both.
I’ll consider it. Leave me a link.
Late 30’s. Sorry, i don’t give specifics on here.
I do not see any value in sticking with any kind of opinion. I see truth as a process and a flow. Call it female, I just call it dialectical. There is always more than one side to truth. I argue with the antipode precisely to challenge the proposed truth. I think of the best argument against it that I have. If the person can refute it, I let them convince me. If the person has no good counterargument, I am convinced myself. Sticking with an opinion is just a way of saying ‘Close yourself up to new ways, because this is the first one you thought of’.
Your appeal to male decisiveness makes sense when a decision has to be made. In this case, my decision was to challenge your worldview. In another case, it may be to decide for a restaurant to go to with a girl.
You are right, I often rebel against perceived policing. Not always. It is how I see the world. My intellect protests. It literally hurts me to not voice a counter-argument if I can think of one. I can not sacrifice those details to the common good or whatever. Yes, it is prideful. I like to challenge established truths and I have no respect for attempts to establish absolute truisms that must never be challenged for the sake of what-fucking-ever. You, on the other hand, seem to have a strong desire for order and a worldview that is easy to overlook and safe to abide by.
Besides, my argument about dictionaries is a pretty good one in my eyes. Who cares about formal recognition? That is like asking your slave masters – pardon the hyperbole – which way they allow you to express yourself. Which is something a woman might do.
I already applied a bit of your advice here, by the way. You told me not to apologize for that which I do not intend to change, so I am not saying sorry for my admittedly passionate language.
I am not equating those. I see you took care to use the words ‘associating/disassociating’. Fair enough, of course. But you only invalidate my argument based on your axiomatic assumption that the choice is somehow unnatural (whatever that means).
Logic is all about how you can combine axioms to derive more complex conclusions. What I did here was to challenge your axiomatic assumption that being gay is (always) a choice and that it is unnatural – whatever that means. I accept if you refuse to consider this, but that does not make me illogical. It just means I do not share your axioms.
There is no conclusive evidence for the existence of god, either. Yet you believe. Does the lack of conclusive evidence invalidate your experience? I reckon not.
You talk about wishful thinking, which indicates to me that you have strong emotions about this matter. Not saying that you are gay, but perhaps shame regarding the topic that distorts your objective sight and makes it look like a dark menacing thing (my experience with shame). I do not care for or against gays. I am just curious about the truth. If you are right and can prove it (maybe even through an argument of intuition or personal experience with gay people), I am completely open to accepting your proposition. I attach no value to either view, apart from perhaps the pain that arises for non-gays when they are convinced into gayness; that is, indeed, fucked up.
Of course theories get debunked, but that is the point of science. To put up theories and then either prove or disprove them.
But yeah, I can see how it may be important to shame gays and even accept collateral damage for the people who want to protect themselves against the stupid propaganda. Take away the propaganda, though, and all you are left it is a meaningless sexual orientation. Hardly a big topic of debate.
Awesome, I would love it. My page is called ‘Man without Father’: http://manwithoutfather.com
No worries. Just wanted to mock you for being old-fashioned. But what do I know, I am 26. I hate Bieber, too.
“
Understood, but the processes by which you determine what is actually “truth” must be internalized NOT externalized and at some point you MUST stand your ground on an opinion related to such once enough information has been reasonably gathered. Basically you take what information has been offered to you and judge it on its merits. You weight the external point (someone’s disagreement) against your native counterpoint (your disagreeable viewpoint) using your
objective logical mind to determine if it’s factual or not (or at least
rooted in greater logic than yours) then you share your decisive
viewpoint on the issue after all the information has been considered.
Sharing both the pro and con view rather than your decisive stand on it
tends to come across as wishy washy, because it speaks to a lack of confidence on taking a stand. You wouldn’t do something like that
in a formal debate, not simply because of a lack for time either. Don’t take both a pro and con position while addressing someone else’s remarks to the contrary unless it’s first done in your mind, and then once all the info is exchanged you have to arrive at a reasonable opinion and stand on it as you share it with your opponent, even if that position is an intellectual truce regarding something that can’t actually be proven through the scientific method. (Is there a God?)
As i said being
indecisive speaks to an immature mind that is not confident enough in
its position, possibly because of emotional influences. Emotions should
function as an ancillary consideration in this regard, if they even have
to be considered at all.
Do not make excuses for this negative characteristic; that’s also a female trait (excuses) or a trait of a male who needs more crimson understanding. Our nature is to stand, not to waffle.
This of course works best with regard to things which have no “gray area” of uncertainty…things like “what is the answer to 2 + 2?” but it can still apply to debatable subjects such as with homosexuality, where the greater weight of the information leads one to logically conclude that it has no true legitimacy as far as a biogenetic origin belief is concerned.
Now if your means of taking in the information is not the issue, then it’s likely your objectivity in processing it that is, at least with regard to the thematic issue of homosexuality. In other words, do you tend to disagree with someone because of what you don’t know, or because of what you do know, even if what you do know is not exactly factual?
I’ve been coming across your remarks here and on other areas of the site. Do you understand why you sometimes get flak from the ROK faithful with regard to what you write? If enough Men are telling you that you “are wrong” and there’s enough proof to prove that you are, aren’t you being less than masculine in not simply taking the criticism as it is, instead of choosing to dismiss it as “policing” or some other such negative term? Are you mature enough to admit that you might be immature enough to understand why you might not be being “policed” even if you think you are?
To summarize: It’s not always “policing” if there is actually wisdom to what’s being addressed to you. Dismissing it as such may be a blue pill part of yourself resisting against the amount of red pill causing you to come and agree with the viewpoints here in the first place. Food for thought.
Therein lies the problem. Beware of solipsism…too many ipse dixit remarks can lead you to think your opinion is enough to invalidate fact.
Order is what the world lacks, whether its with males or humans in general so yes i have a strong desire for order. My worldview is supported by empirical research and theoretical application or both, making it intellectually formidable and practically undeniable. I have no desire to infatuate the fatuous.
Yes…you may consider me arrogant at this point. It’s fine.
Because the choice has never proven to be natural. As i said even the APA won’t go this far. Your opinion doesn’t count as fact, moreso when you attempt to use ipse dixit remarks to ignore that which is logical (homosexuality not being natural) in favor of personal perspective (the belief that it is or could be)
Ahh but i never tried to pass off God to you as a “fact” just a belief based in belief. Therein lies the difference. The first requires logic, the second requires faith. With regard to homosexuality, the second does not apply unless of course you would apply the same sort of motivations to them as with those who religiously believe in their god, which i wouldn’t necessarily disagree with given the fanaticism involved.
Those emotions are secondary to my strong educated research on the subject. I’ve spent over 20 years invalidating the type of solipsism those on the homo left tend to use whenever they try to push the “born gay” argument. Those emotions exist because this is a pernicious disease affecting the social fabric of society, the support of which tends to infect the ignorant or easily indoctrinated. You can google ROK Related articles on this to see why homosexuality offers no real benefits to society, but many real negatives. I’ve declared war on it, using reason and logic as my weapons of choice and i make no excuses for that.
Never been that, never will be. Submitted for the record.
Mock away. I’m older than you but also wiser than you, as our exchanges have confirmed 😉
Well, why then do you not show understanding for a mind that is intuitively making its way through the jungle of cognition? Yes, you are arrogant. But I do not see it as an insult as much as an admission of weakness.
I have always in my life taken the stance of intuitive learning and in the long run, I have always surpassed those who followed rules. As a programmer, as a schoolboy, as a photographer, as a film maker. While all others were thinking about the right way to do it, I just fucking did it. And I ended up with deep understanding that others did not even dare to think about. People came to me for advice and I said: Just try stuff out and you will learn. But people wanted tutorials to achieve the same that others have achieved. And that is why they fail and will always be mediocre. Just like you will always be mediocre if you follow rules and suppress your intuition.
You here are giving me a scheme for thinking. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. You can not even tell me why I should be using this exclusively, other than that it makes me look like a man. Sorry, I find it embarassing and school-book like. And the whole ‘taking a stand’ thing seems like something out of a Hollywood movie where everybody screams ‘Yes, Sir, No, Sir’ to look manly.
I agree that it takes willpower to go through with a decision that may be imperfect. Yeah, it may be a good quality for a war general who can not stand around wondering in which direction he should send his men. Naturally. But if truth is the concern, a relaxed long-term approach is much more beneficial. Are you aware of how fucking long it took the great minds of the past just to figure out the orbits of planets? It took years. Fucking years. And here you are, expecting me to ‘take my stand’ after one or two messages I exchanged with you on the matter. It is ridiculous. I mean I may even use your arguments in another personal debate. I may even act based on your ideas if I was to be a politician and make a decision. But as I said, my concern is truth, not decisionmaking. If I have to make decisions, I make them. If I want truth, I take all the time in the world.
There are members at ROK that gave similar advice to yours, sure. But that was not the exclusive feedback. In any case, I take the advice in, even yours. I take it in, let my subconscious process it and with due time, my mind will mature and I will find myself exactly where I need to be.
Sure, I would hardly be a leader with an immature mind without convictions. But faking conviction will not make me convincing or a good leader. If I am not sure where I want to go, how can I lead? I am freeing my mind after many many years of almost madness and I am rediscovering the world. I am marveling in its beauty and all its facets. In all the curious questions that arise. And yeah, think what you want, but I will not let you police me. I could simply say ‘Thank you for the advice, duly noted’; but that would be dishonest, because I need to defend my mind.
And if you say that my defense and explanation of my motives is girly, well then we can just as well stop the discussion completely. What are we, two politicians who face of at the stage to impress everybody? The one who is louder and more confident and masculine wins? What a bunch of bullshit. A friend of mine once said that he considers discussions like playing ball. A game where each inspires the other and that process goes on indefinitely. With time, the mind grows more convincing and so. But hey, even after years, you may find out you were utterly wrong. Take Johannes Kepler, who spent his life in the firm conviction that the solar system followed sacred geometry. Towards the evening of his life, he had to admit that it was a bunch of bullshit. What a painful lesson in humility.
You say that I am externalizing my monologue. Yes. That is exactly what I am doing and I am doing it very consciously. I am inviting others to take part in my thought process, which – by the way – takes balls, because it requires me to reveal quite a lot of stuff I do not necessarily feel good about. But it is the only way I can really address all important issues. If you think of this as girly, then you are just an ideologist who categorizes in ‘manly’ and ‘unmanly’. I have no interest to be part of such a cult.
About order, let me bring up this neat little article which I partly agree with:
http://freenortherner.com/2015/11/08/order-and-freedom
Now you are totally projecting, dude. Ipse dixit seems to be an ‘it is as it is’ remark. Which is exactly what you are doing by saying it is not natural. You say it is logical? Then show me the logical deduction. All your arguments merely indicate that your view may be correct, which you – combined with your strong intuition – interpret as absolute evidence. Which is nonsense. I told you I have no stakes in this. I do not care if homosexuality is indeed a disease or not. Really. I actually wish it is, because I have been struggling with some sexual abuse.
All you have logically proven is that statistically, your assertion is possible. You have not even proven that it is probable. Why? You said ‘it should be more people if it is natural’. If that is a logical statement, what do you deduce it from? There is no need for naturally occuring things to be existant in same quantities. Psychopaths, for instance, make up about 1% of the population and are – as far as I have researched – genetic. Yet they seem to serve a purpose in this quantity, which keeps them in existence. You may say that gays should exist more because men and women are natural and exist in equal quantity. But that is a fallacious statement by analogy.
If we are all about logic, then you also need to explain what ‘natural’ actually means. Logic deals with stacking axioms on top of each other. It is a rather mathematical discipline. Which is why it actually, as you say, best works with ‘1+1 = 2’. You see, the axioms there are that you have numbers from 0-10 and that they each represent one more item. When you use the ‘+’ symbol, it means you are putting those items together. Stack those axioms and 1+1 become 2. But nowhere does mathematics or logic make statements about ‘naturality’. It is actually a real established fallacy called Appeal to Nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Now we are talking. So you admit that it is really important to you because leftists are obnoxious idiots and make everybody’s life hell. Fine. That is understandable. I might even join you if I was more informed about the societal problems it causes. That is, if I cared about society at this point in my life.
Is immaturity a disease? If I am so immature, take your time answering my objections and questions like you would with a naive school child. The problem here, my friend, is that you actually have no answers, so you just keep calling me ‘immature’ and ‘unwise’ to shame my intuitive thoughts. You are not being logical, but dogmatical.
Can you make a school child into a man by screaming at it: If you were a man, you would be 6 feet tall and had a lot of muscles?
No, you take your time and answer the kid. Then let it choose what to do with it.
I have a proposition for how Jesus convinced the 13 fishermen to follow him: He made them feel good about having no sex life.
Hey there, excuse the delay. Just got back from my thanksgiving vacation.
I actually am. My conversations with you are a sign of that.
We all have some weakness to some degree or another. Admitting to such is a sign of strength if you will pardon the paradox.
Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe i was like you once upon a time? That maybe my current affinity for rules is because of my former fondness for anarchy?
While I don’t actually reject intuition, experience has taught me that I shouldn’t base my decisions solely on it. Everything in context of course.
You reject it because you haven’t lived long enough to understand why you shouldn’t reject it. At this point it’s pointless to give you further advice on it, i’ll just let you steer your own path and learn the hard way, as i did. It’s the destiny of mortals i suppose.
Are you saying that the great minds of the past achieved their works through a cavalier approach? If so, i disagree. If anything, consistency and tenacity coupled with personal discipline helped them achieve their ends even in the face of intuitive disagreement which was based on nothing more substantive than an emo approach.
It’s good to know you won’t dispense with it, even if you choose not to heed it for now. I wasn’t sure if you were taking offense, some of your words were leading me to conclude you were getting annoyed.
No one is asking you to fake anything. You can’t be something that you don’t understand the need to be. I suppose life will have to season you more before you can take my advice as more than just bs, if ever. Since you think i’m “policing you” i will stop offering you advice, even if i wasn’t doing anything to that effect. You have much more to learn grasshopper.
I never actually called you “girly” i simply gave you instances where one can be considered girly but since you are taking offense again, i will cease from offering you advice. My intent is not to offend you, just offer you pearls of wisdom that you can use or toss at your discretion.
Indeed. It’s happened to me before which led me to my current position on things. I hope you take this sentence to heart with as much zeal as i do.
You think that externalizing the process is the only means by which you or someone in general can address all important issues or the best one? Interesting.
Perhaps i am an “ideologist” but i am also a masculine traditionalist, and I’ve come to notice that too many younger males in this world tend to reject the advice of old school thinkers like myself and simply because of “feeling.” Time will tell if your approach reaps you more benefits than mine. If you consider my words to such effect cult-ish then so be it. I consider yours in this regard immature so there you go. To each his own.
Strawman. I’ve provided for you strong logical evidences to support my claim and keep it from being purely ipse dixit. You as yet have not done the same. Me saying it isn’t natural is backed up by strong evidence and not just my word alone.
The “logical deduction” is that it has not been proven to originate genetically, which even the group that lifted the ban on it won’t go as far as to state conclusively. You say it’s intuitive of me to believe my view correct? Maybe, but that’s incidental to the logical evidences I’ve spoken of and not the primary evidence in itself. Why would you assume that something is natural if it has never actually proven to be? Your point is fundamentally flawed.
For the record you’re not the only one who’s dealt with sexual abuse, i have myself. My uncle molested me when i was in my teens. The trauma incurred could have turned me towards that lifestyle but instead it steered me into an absolute hatred of it and all those practicing it, which has since been tempered by taking a more logical -and less emotional- approach to it. My demons in that respect have been conquered, i war against it because of it’s pernicious effect on people and no longer because “its personal.”
Ahh but i never said that it would be existent in “same” quantities. However if one were to logically believe that this sexuality was natural, why then can one not logically theorize that there would ergo be more homosexuals alive than the mere 2-3% the CDC states? Since humans are genetically predisposed to being Black, or male or female (because of their progenitors) there are naturally going to be plenty of those on earth, even if they are not to the same exact numbers. Why should homosexuality not be held to the same theoretical standard, if indeed it is of biogenetic origin?
This is no different than an astronomer theorizing the date of a comet’s position based upon the gathered telemetry pertaining to it’s current speed, heading, and so forth.
Your error is presuming that the presence of psychopaths in question should be considered in the same intellectual regard as the presence of homosexuals. That is the fallacious statement, one which presumes that the second must originate with genetic causalities as the second has been shown to. No such research indicates as such with regard to homosexuals. You keep avoiding having to acknowledge this.
Natural means having no human interference, originating as per a design free from the input of man. God designed, as i prefer.
If you are saying i’m “appealing to nature” in my remarks, then are you not appealing to emotions by making the emotional (intuitive) argument, one which ignores evidences that exist beyond your perspective?
If that is your ignorant belief you are welcome to it.
Thanks. Actually, a friend made – to me – a proposition that seems more probable, which actually makes more sense: They were sexless and Jesus told them: If you follow me and convert other people, girls will see you as leaders and you will have groupies.
The bible says differently. You of course are welcome to believe what you want to believe.
Well, your whole argument to believe in the bible was that Jesus somehow convinced the fishermen. You asked me why I think that happened. I think my explanation is plausible. Sexual energy is one of the strongest emotions and thus motivators there is. If ‘the bible says’ differently, is that not circular reasoning? E.g. the bible says they were convinced by seeing god in him and you combine it with the knowledge that they were indeed his followers and take that as an explanation. But is there not a much simpler one?
Sexual sublimination and redirection of sexual energy from the lower chakras to the higher ones, I am sure can produce quite divine and lofty feelings, as it did with me. This seems like the only alternative when sexual shame is very pronounced, too.
Yeah but your remark seems more fitting of a standup comedian’s interpretation rather than any serious exegesis.
” If ‘the bible says’ differently, is that not circular reasoning? ”
No…i’m not blowing you off with ipse dixit like “because the bible says so” i’m saying the bible says differently, meaning there is an explanation in there that counters yours.
Are you into the tantric philosophy?
But you can not deny that sexual energy is a very strong force in humans. In fact, it is somewhere near the bottom of that needs-pyramid. Reason and that head-stuff is far more at the top. So how could reason and spirituality control sexuality? Simple. By channeling sexual energy into it. So that reverence to god becomes an almost sexual experience in intensity.
What is the bibles explanation?
Not explicitly, but yes, my meditations are quite in the Eastern traditions and they always start with activations of Chakras and some extra stuff. My mentor helps me do the Kundalini awakening, which is at the end of all of this. So what I am doing now is basically cleaning up the mess from my whole life and past lives. Like the sexual abuse. I am – compared to a month ago – very intensely aware, conscious and calm these days and in touch with a very vast amount of my emotions. Ironically, this ‘being in touch’ actually frees me from being thrown around by them, so it is kinda stoic in that regard. For the first time in my life, I see other people as almost entirely separate human beings, as they no longer control me. I love it. All that still bugs me are unresolved emotions about the sexual abuse in that lowest chakra – that is, in my ass. That is where many ideas and emotions kinda ‘bounce’ back up due to some blockage and that makes me very emotional and in the past, easily offended. Quite funny.
But yeah, you told me that you stopped with your meditations. I think you should give it another try someday. Surely, those dark places it was taking you were something worthy to be discovered. Would likely make you understand why you tortured those animals – is that not a promising prospect? But I guess that you kinda need the right technique or guidance to do it without danger or getting lost. Luckily, I have that.
“But you can not deny that sexual energy is a very strong force in humans. In fact, it is somewhere near the bottom of that needs-pyramid. Reason and that head-stuff is far more at the top. So how could reason and spirituality control sexuality? Simple. By channeling sexual energy into it. So that reverence to god becomes an almost sexual experience in intensity. What is the bibles explanation?”
I don’t deny it…(sexual energy…strong force) the thing is, the judeoChristian faith is based on a puritan approach that tends to discourage such things…a denial of the baser animal instinct within all of us. The teachings of God and Christ emphasize personal restraint especially over licentious activities outside of of a holy union (Marriage)
Now you see why i called you “ignorant” in that regard. I wasn’t actually insulting you, i was addressing your unfamiliarity with its explanation of Jesus’ life with specific regard to what you mentioned.
We are all a little ignorant about this or that, it’s STAYING ignorant that truly confirms one as comfortably stupid.
“Not explicitly, but yes, my meditations are quite in the Eastern traditions and they always start with activations of Chakras and some extra stuff. My mentor helps me do the Kundalini awakening, ”
Somehow i knew you were going to mention kundalini. Your words gave me that impression too.
“All that still bugs me are unresolved emotions about the sexual abuse in that lowest chakra – that is, in my ass. ”
Were you actually raped in the ass? I’m not trying to be funny, but since you mentioned it.
If so…damn dude. My condolences. The worst i got was felt up.
“I think you should give it another try someday. Surely, those dark places it was taking you were something worthy to be discovered”
Nope. I’ve been down the rabbit hole. No interest in going back.
“Would likely make you understand why you tortured those animals – is that not a promising prospect?”
I know why i did it. I didn’t have God in my life. This was back during my atheist time, before i dabbled in satanism.
” But I guess that you kinda need the right technique or guidance to do it without danger or getting lost. Luckily, I have that.:”
That’s what they all say before they start sounding like me. Good luck with that.
That is cool, I understand – now, anyway.
See, so my first suggestion was not a bad one. He made them feel good about having no sex. You may object to my crass phrasing, but it is nevertheless just that.
Interesting. Probably because it is said to be located in that root Chakra.
Yeah. Disgusting stuff. I have no conscious memory of it, but the emotional memory is there, so I kinda feel it. I always had it, but was never aware of what it was. I am coming to the conclusion that it did not happen in this life, which my spiritual mentor encourages me to think. But I am open to the idea that it is just a repressed childhood memory. Be it as it may, the meditations help resolve it, so it does not really matter where it comes from as long as it goes.
Fair enough.
Alright, god helps you not do it. You mentioned that. And yet you are dependant on god to fight or at least compensate this urge. Would it not be better to actually not feel any of it anymore? To be completely free of it forever, no matter whether you are with god or not? Whether I agree or disagree with your religion is irrelevant, but would it not be greater to choose it not as refugee in dire need of distraction and instead as a fully conscious loving being?
Just to demonstrate what I mean: I always had rape fantasies. I was never aware that it had anything to do with me. I thought it is just what men fantasize about. Now I have dealt with that issue to a large degree and it just seems … like a nonsatisfying idea. Not even shameful anymore, but plain and simply an unnecessary thing to do. My mind does not go there anymore, at least less often. And once I am through with this, I am certain it will be gone for good.
“See, so my first suggestion was not a bad one. He made them feel good about having no sex. You may object to my crass phrasing, but it is nevertheless just that.”
The thing is, it was way more to it than that, even if that is the pedestrian way of understanding it.
” I am coming to the conclusion that it did not happen in this life, which my spiritual mentor encourages me to think.”
Are you saying you believe in reincarnation? Have you read any reg vedas regarding that?
“Would it not be better to actually not feel any of it anymore? To be completely free of it forever, no matter whether you are with god or not”
It would, but it’s not possible. To err is human. Perfection eludes us, even if we go by our own means to draw closer to it. There will always be some form of temptation in the world. Unless you live in a sensory deprivation tank for the rest of your life you will succumb to baser instinct, and even then your own thoughts can entertain you with the idea of temptation if your mind is not trained properly. Maybe you think you have mastered the means, but i seriously doubt you actually do.
“My mind does not go there anymore, at least less often. And once I am through with this, I am certain it will be gone for good.”
See? That temptation is in you, at least partially. You believe your approach will remove the idea, but the thing is…the temptation that put the idea in your mind in the first place will always be there regardless, because you can’t bend reality to suit your will, you can only strengthen your will against it.
One more thing…you mentioned a “spiritual mentor.”
So are you saying that there is someone in this world that guides you and helped you direct the flow of your chakra/thoughts/feelings?
Is this person not “policing” you in that respect, to keep you from falling off?
Okay.
Yes, I do. But it is not very important for you to share this belief for the sake of this discussion. I never heard of reg vedas. I think the concept is simple enough to grasp, but surely there are detail questions that are left open. Not important to me, though. To me, the importance of the concept is just this: To accept the memories and emotions my mind brings up as real and thus being able to resolve real issues. Experience has proven to me that it works now, so I am pretty much sold. But yeah, it is of course possible that my mind generates images as representations of my emotions to allow my brain to resolve them. But then again, why should it be so complicated, when the other answer is so intuitive? If one life is possible – of which this life is evidence – why should more lives not intuitively be just as much possible?
And it is not about perfection. It is about full self-love and self-acceptance. You talk about temptations as if they were not a part of your self. As a burden imposed on you. And this is why you fail to grasp that these urges are there for a reason and are actually a decision – if yet an unconscious one.
The goal is not perfection. The goal is to be fully yourself and trust in all your emotions. Which you do not, obviously, as you are fighting them. You are basically sacrificing your urge for violence for – what? – fitting into society? And thus you deprive yourself of the chance to learn that these urges have a very valid reason to exist in you which you can actually learn to understand.
Just speaking about myself here: When I thought of these things in the past, I had this overwhelming feeling of darkness and evilness which I associated with myself. I was convinced that nobody must ever know about these things. Whenever I admitted these things to someone, I only did so with the reservation that I of course know they are bad.
But here is the funny part. This feeling is ‘the devil’. Carl Gustav Jung for instance refers to the devil as an archetype. The shadow. It represents the parts of our self that we have not incorporated. You may say that ‘this feeling IS the devil’. But what if the truth is more obvious? What if we see the devil as a demon represented by the emotion of shame? A dark, all-clouding toxic black cloud of shame? And whatever falls into that cloud then seems like it belongs to the cloud. That is, you do not say ‘I feel ashamed of my urge of violence’ but you say ‘my urge for violence IS shameful’. Thus you rob yourself of the ability to LOSE the shame for it and thus uncover its true nature. And when you do uncover its true nature, you actually begin a process of healing. Once you incorporate that urge, you learn more about it and when you learn to love it, it actually starts to vanish.
The darkness you remember from your meditations is evidence that there is something in yourself that wants to be heard and confronted. You are afraid of it. You do not have to be. But the fear itself is of course okay, too.
Now, you talk about lesser instincts. But tell me, how would you distinguish between natural instincts and traumata? If a veteran comes back from war and is all tense and violent, but was a kind person before … would you say that he just discovered his lesser instincts or would you think he has a healable trauma? Now, you are no veteran, as far as you know, which makes these emotions seem pointless and without any context. Which kinda makes you feel like a victim of those emotions, as they do not make any sense to you. And that is where past lives come in as a concept.
Even then, I simply do not feel ashamed of it anymore. That is the point. I felt a very strong shame regarding the emotion and kept it hidden. I have worked through the shame by visualizing actually raping a woman and I believe that now I could actually do it without losing myself in the darkness or hating myself for it. BUT, in the moment I fully accepted my urge to do it and let myself contemplate it, I gave attention to something inside me – to an old pain. And now that I have acknowledged it, it is gone in the sense that there is no fighting it anymore. I may still think about it, but I feel no way about it. It is just something I could do, but feel no need to do. What my organism really wanted there was to resolve the shame and have a free mind.
So the end goal would be closer to you freely contemplating to torture or murder someone, but without feeling bad or ashamed of that thought – and thus without any need to actually act on it. A free mind. Not free of the thought, but entirely undisturbed and undistracted by it.
Good point, actually. I did accuse him of being an arrogant Jesus-like narcissist first. Why? Because he showed full understanding for me. I told him that I find it silly of him to treat me well despite me treating him badly. He said that he understands I am doing it because I feel a lot of pain.
I could not accept his understanding and distrusted it. So I called him a fake Messiah narcissist.
And what did he reply? He said: If you feel like I am acting like Jesus, you should realize what a big part of yourself is in that perception.
And that was just one of the things he said that did something to me. No matter how bad I treated him, he never forced me to change or believe what he said. He just stated observations and said ‘You are where you are and where you need to be and everything you are is okay’.
And one day, I freely asked him if he could help me awaken Kundalini, as I was feeling those unresolved energies in my butt. I did not know exactly why, but my subconscious must have seen that this is a way to resolve those issues. And all he basically did was to give me very simple meditation instructions. They basically consist of speaking a few words and then just lie down for 30 minutes or so and simply observe everything my mind and body brings up. The goal is to just watch the emotions and thoughts pass by like trains and observe without judgment. Policing the thoughts is the opposite of that. Full acceptance is the goal instead. It was very painful to go through some of those emotions and thoughts, but now I am so much freer and no longer fear them. I wish I could share this transformation with you. But hey – just like me, you are exactly where you need to be and there is no need to do anything unless you feel it.
” I never heard of reg vedas. ”
I was referring to the Hindu Rig Veda. I’ve read parts of it. Nevermind.
“But then again, why should it be so complicated, when the other answer
is so intuitive? If one life is possible – of which this life is
evidence – why should more lives not intuitively be just as much
possible?”
Again, you’re relying too much on self perception influenced by emotion. What if one were to dabble in LSD…should the images they see as a likely result be considered legitimate reality? Meaning, images that exist in reality that we are actually perceiving (diluted as they may be) as part of it? Of course not. They are no more than delusions. Have you ever experimented with psychotropic medications by the way?
” It is about full self-love and self-acceptance. You talk about
temptations as if they were not a part of your self. As a burden imposed
on you. And this is why you fail to grasp that these urges are there
for a reason and are actually a decision – if yet an unconscious one.”
Temptations are a part of people like a virus is part of an immune system. They exist in nature and are natural (most anyway) but that doesn’t mean that they should ergo exist in the human psyche because of the deleterious results they tend to have.
What you are supporting is a primal state of being, an animalistic approach that of course acts in conflict with civilization, hence your stated perceptions thus far. You might have enjoyed being a native American by the way.
“The goal is not perfection. The goal is to be fully yourself and trust
in all your emotions. Which you do not, obviously, as you are fighting
them. You are basically sacrificing your urge for violence for – what? –
fitting into society? And thus you deprive yourself of the chance to
learn that these urges have a very valid reason to exist in you which
you can actually learn to understand.”
No, the goal should always be to be something greater than the self, since the self can deceive. Emotions can lead you astray. Wars have been fought because of emotions first and logic second.
If you’ve read my posts so far, you’d realize I’m not actually “sacrificing” an “urge” for violence…I’m merely inhibiting it at which such time that it can be dispensed appropriately. My faith helps greatly in this regard. If anyone truly understood the faith, they’d realize that violence is not actually forbidden in the Christian faith, only unjustified violence. Jesus went around flogging people for instance, and he went shopping for swords with his disciples.
The goal of the masculine traditionalist (now commonly referred to as neo-masculinity) is “Si vis pacem, para bellum ” as the Roman writer Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus once said.
-If you seek peace, prepare for war.
In other words, enjoy the peace that you have but prepare for the war that you will have because of those who forget what the price of peace actually is.
“You may say that ‘this feeling IS the devil’.”
No…i might say that the devil is crafty enough to use temptation to trick our active minds into believing that what we are pursuing, achieving, and then believing is not of the devil.
“The darkness you remember from your meditations is evidence that there
is something in yourself that wants to be heard and confronted. You are
afraid of it. You do not have to be. But the fear itself is of course
okay, too.”
No..there was something in me that was lacking and unrefined. There is no fear in me of me or of that. I know what my limits are because I understand what limits there should be on me.
On the contrary, I’ve never felt more confident and strong. I study the storm, i am no longer part of it.
“Now, you talk about lesser instincts. But tell me, how would you
distinguish between natural instincts and traumata? If a veteran comes
back from war and is all tense and violent, but was a kind person before
… would you say that he just discovered his lesser instincts or would
you think he has a healable trauma?”
Context of course. It’s all about context when you add layers of individual complexity. I’d have to know far more about the veteran before i can give an assessment as to his current psyche.
“Which kinda makes you feel like a victim of those emotions, as
they do not make any sense to you. And that is where past lives come in
as a concept.”
Are you speaking in general or with specific regard to me? Regardless, i don’t believe in the “past lives” philosophy most commonly known as reincarnation.
What i DO believe is that traces of ourselves get passed on to our progeny as we reproduce. They ebb slowly over the passage of time, but even still distant memories of an ancestor might manifest in a person’s mind as if they had lived them themselves. It’s obvious we take on some of the aesthetic characteristics of our parents; what isn’t quite as obvious is how much of their personality/thoughts/feelings/memories etc we actually take on psychologically which is used as a default template for everything that gets programmed into us by others, in addition to what we program ourselves with through intent and behavioral conditioning.
Indeed, there was a study done on animals that seems to give credibility to this belief, which some lesser informed people might superstitiously mistake as a”past life.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25156510
“I may still think about it, but I feel no way about it. It is just something I could do, but feel no need to do.”
Yes…but what’s actually stopping you from doing it? Give it a word…flesh it out for me even if it’s two dimensional.
“So the end goal would be closer to you freely contemplating to torture
or murder someone, but without feeling bad or ashamed of that thought –
and thus without any need to actually act on it. A free mind. Not free
of the thought, but entirely undisturbed and undistracted by it.”
If you are contemplating it, then you’re not actually free from doing it…you’re just choosing not to do it right then and there because you’re so busy being fascinated by “it.” Your words lead me to this conclusion.
To be truly free is to do more than just contemplate…you need a necessary moral inhibitor. Otherwise, you are just operating as an unethical scientist would, in that you would choose to do it ostensibly in the pursuit of science. My inhibitor is my faith. What’s yours? Give it a one word name.
Do you know how many medical advances came about because of guys who contemplated unethical things, and chose to excuse away pursuing them because of a lack of moral inhibition, all in the name of science?
“I did accuse him of being an arrogant Jesus-like narcissist first. Why?
Because he showed full understanding for me. I told him that I find it
silly of him to treat me well despite me treating him badly. He said
that he understands I am doing it because I feel a lot of pain.”
I wonder how much of this you have applied to me, or how much of it you would apply to me upon inquiry…especially that (arrogant) word which i threw to you as a tool to better help you carve out an impression of me beforehand.
After all…why do you think i still keep talking to you? Am i really that bored? Or are you really that interesting?
Before you respond…give it some additional thought.
They are not any more legitimate reality than any memory is. And yet it does not matter. What matters is what it means to us. Our soul saves the memories just in the way we need to remember them. That is, they become biased and distorted by what we see in them, but luckily, what we see in them is all they mean to us and thus all we need to resolve them. This is true for LSD as it is for normal memories as it is for these meditations.
Tell me, what exactly is a delusion? What, if not a thought or emotion or idea that seems to come out of nowhere? Is that acceptable to you? To be delivered to a big bunch of senseless crap that your brain produces? Maybe it is. But that only means that you do not care to understand it. It does not mean it can not be understood. And if you are so eager to claim it can not be understood, I dare ask: Who told you that? What convinced you that this is true, if not simply your own failed attempts to understand it?
But deleterious is again a judgment based on what? Based on a standard. And who sets the standard? You heard it from other people. How do you verify a standard against reality, if not through your emotions that clash with it? Yes, who says that civilization is a positive force? Would you not really rather live in complete peace and harmony with yourself in tribal nature as opposed to fighting yourself every single day in civilization? Even if that meant a shorter life? What is the satisfaction you gain from that fight? I have an answer to that, but I want to hear it from you.
I may indeed have enjoyed that native American style. On the other hand, small tribal structures may lead to a lot of bullying etc. I believe I live in just the right time.
Deceive from what? Again, from a standard that is not your own – not part of the self. Which means that your self deceives you away from … that which other people want you to be. Yeah, sounds like one should abandon the self!
A person fully in touch with their emotions will see no reason to fight a war. War is an expression of violent urges. When you clear up your emotions, war will / would simply feel pointless to you. It is the suppression of emotions that actually necessitates acting them out.
That may be the ‘problem’. But it of course is none if you do not see it as one!
What would you need to know? You see this confident joyful person you once knew return home in a state of anxiety and tension. Have you seen American Sniper?
Your answer is abstract and evasive. What kind of information would you need to make a judgment?
Yes, I also like that theory a lot, have read of the experiment. Nonetheless, it does not invalidate what I say. Even if it is indeed passed on, it is still accessible and it can be worked with.
Nothing is stopping it. You misunderstand. There are no competing forces in me about it. I just am. I am and it does not happen.
Bruce Lee said in a movie ‘When I see an opening, I do not hit it with the fist. The fist hits it all by itself’.
It is just like that. I am. And it does not happen. There is no reason why it should happen. The thought to do it is just a residue. A memory of the fact that I used to have that urge. But it no longer is in any way compulsive enough to actually make me do something. You know, it is strong enough to produce a slight emotional reaction, but not NEARLY strong enough to actually get my body moving even a finger – that would be more energy required than the emotion has. I will never do it, because there just is no energy behind that thought anymore.
Again, you are talking of two opposing forces here, because you have externalized your violent urges. You do not see them as a part of yourself, hence you feel a conscious competition. I do not feel it in that way anymore. It is just all automatic and subconscious. My conscience is a part of the equation as much as anything else, but it is not like it is inhibiting it. It just all forms together into a flow that simply exists, without conflict.
I did apply it to you very strongly. Now less. I no longer feel angry about arrogance. The resonance is kinda gone, because I no longer have such an intense fear of you being able to manipulate me.
Why do you keep talking to me? I am not sure. I suppose that you want to help me. But I also feel that you are really just seeing your own past self in me and try to steer it to the path you have taken to validate your choice of this path. I think that this is your slightly misguided, but well-intentioned motivation.
Has it entered your mind that I do not need your help and have not asked for it? Has it entered your mind that I am making exactly the experiences I need to be making?
I am not offended – anymore – by the suggestion that you just want to help me. But realize that you are projecting your own past self’s wish for help on me. You think about what you would want if you were me – your guidance. But you are not me.
I hope you have been well, my friend.
“Tell me, what exactly is a delusion? What, if not a thought or emotion or
idea that seems to come out of nowhere? Is that acceptable to you? To
be delivered to a big bunch of senseless crap that your brain produces?
Maybe it is. But that only means that you do not care to understand it.
It does not mean it can not be understood. And if you are so eager to
claim it can not be understood, I dare ask: Who told you that? What
convinced you that this is true, if not simply your own failed attempts
to understand it?”
To understand a delusion that is chemically induced and ergo not natural is to seek to understand chaos at the expense of order. The order of proper health. The abyss does not give up its secrets without a price.
“But deleterious is again a judgment based on what? Based on a standard.
And who sets the standard? You heard it from other people. How do you
verify a standard against reality, if not through your emotions that
clash with it? Yes, who says that civilization is a positive force?
Would you not really rather live in complete peace and harmony with
yourself in tribal nature as opposed to fighting yourself every single
day in civilization? Even if that meant a shorter life? What is the
satisfaction you gain from that fight?”
A standard of order. We seem to be at an impasse here. I represent order and you seem to represent disorder. Would you say that is correct?
Civilization is a positive force only when it truly represents civility and is the best kind of civilization when it represents principles greater than those within it.
No, i wouldn’t want to live in “peace and harmony” with myself because the easiest way to do so would be to stay stupid and ignorant, hence the term “ignorance is bliss.” This is what constitutes a lotophage, or someone who prefers to stay in blissful tranquility at the expense of the red pill that comes with the knowledge of truth. I prefer to stay in “conflict” with myself, or more accurately, with those external forces that seek to superimpose themselves upon my ego.
The satisfaction i gain is the knowledge that i am awake in this my brief life while everyone else is fast asleep living their long tedious lifespans.
Having a shorter lifespan encourages one to do more with the little time they have left. It’s a great motivator. Immortality would only breed mediocrity in the average thinker.
“Deceive from what? Again, from a standard that is not your own – not
part of the self. Which means that your self deceives you away from …
that which other people want you to be. Yeah, sounds like one should
abandon the self!”
Deceive from reality by interpreting reality based on a preconceived bias not altogether different from solipsism.
You are forgetting that one need not become like others in a need to suppress the “self,” since the Godly aspect is the greatest intangible that exists beyond the self and others. We can agree to disagree on that, of course.
” A person fully in touch with their emotions will see no reason to fight a
war. War is an expression of violent urges. When you clear up your
emotions, war will / would simply feel pointless to you. It is the
suppression of emotions that actually necessitates acting them out.”
Disagree. Your remark would indicate that females would be the last to resort to bellicose actions precisely because of their familiarity with the emo instinctual catalysts that tend to govern them. History has proven that to not be the case.
“That may be the ‘problem’. But it of course is none if you do not see it as one!”
Could this apply to you as well?
“What would you need to know? You see this confident joyful person you
once knew return home in a state of anxiety and tension. Have you seen
American Sniper?
Your answer is abstract and evasive. What kind of information would you need to make a judgment?”
Yes i have seen it. If we are going to use him as a frame of reference, your earlier question would need to be dismissed due to a lack in logic since Chris didn’t come back “tense and violent.” I would suggest another example, maybe Tim Mcveigh unless you are changing up your questioning. My answer only seems evasive because I’m not going to answer something hypothetically if i don’t already have an educated familiarity with the subject. It’s like asking me to explain the chemical composition of dark matter without having been made aware of its atomic composition in the first place.
“Nonetheless, it does not invalidate what I say. Even if it is indeed
passed on, it is still accessible and it can be worked with.”
You believe in reincarnation, and i don’t. I believe in God as i understand Him to be, and you don’t. It would be hypocritical for me to say you were wrong because of your preferential supernatural intangible, so i will just say we agree to disagree.
“Nothing is stopping it. You misunderstand. There are no competing forces in me about it. I just am. I am and it does not happen.”
In other words, you are no different than a force of nature. Would that be correct?
“Bruce Lee said in a movie ‘When I see an opening, I do not hit it with the fist. The fist hits it all by itself’.”
Lee was also a likely pothead and an atheist interestingly enough. As much as he understood life he still had a lack in understanding greater concepts beyond his jeet kune do and eastern philosophies. My remarks here are meant to show another side, the side not many are aware of they are not an attack in and of themselves.
You can find traces of Descartes, Dostoevsky and even Milton in my beliefs, by the way.
“But it no longer is in any way compulsive enough to actually make me do
something. You know, it is strong enough to produce a slight emotional
reaction, but not NEARLY strong enough to actually get my body moving
even a finger – that would be more energy required than the emotion has.
I will never do it, because there just is no energy behind that thought
anymore.”
Your certainty in this is certainly based on emotion itself. I hope that time and tide prove you correct.
“because you have externalized your violent urges.”
Why should i internalize them? I am not violent per se so why would i ascribe the word” violent” to me at all? I am more than an animal, and far less than a god. Just as you are you, i am me. To each his own.
“You do not see them as a part of yourself, hence you feel a conscious competition.”
No competition to speak of. I have become the custodian of the fuel that causes the spark of rage to occur.
When rage hits, it hits because i have allowed it, not because it has escaped my grasp of custodial reasoning.
How does your conscious know what your subconscious is saying automatically? When you dream, are you aware that you’re dreaming, or not?
Intelligent people tend to be perceived as arrogant and may in turn further cement that perception as a means of reinforcing that intelligence. Irritation from such tends to promote error, and error is the dagger that strikes at the heart of the inferior argument.
I’m glad you no longer have a “fear” that I’m trying to manipulate you…after all, what subconscious force can i exert over you that your own subconscious would not be able to detect, given how you highlighted your conscious mind’s influence of it earlier?
“I am not sure. I suppose that you want to help me. But I also feel that
you are really just seeing your own past self in me and try to steer it
to the path you have taken to validate your choice of this path. I think
that this is your slightly misguided, but well-intentioned motivation.”
Close. I begged to differ at the moment you shared this: “”to validate your choice of this path”
I don’t need you to validate anything for me, anymore than i need Roosh to validate my existence as a masculine traditionalist. My goal is purely altruistic. Given that i said far earlier that i need not care for you beyond that which is required, perhaps this is an example of me staying true to my beliefs, however “misguided” they may ultimately prove.
“Has it entered your mind that I do not need your help and have not asked
for it? Has it entered your mind that I am making exactly the experiences I need to be making?”
Indeed. As I earlier stated, perhaps the best lessons are the ones learned the hard way. Perhaps my offer of help would sabotage the evolution of your understandings and keep you from learning why you should have accepted my help. It’s paradoxical in a way.
“But realize that you are projecting your own past self’s wish
for help on me. You think about what you would want if you were me –
your guidance. But you are not me.”
I would realize that, if you were actually correct. My endeavors thus far are not a means of therapy, nor regret, nor ego, it’s actually far more than all that.
I am not you…but i was once similar to you. You however have never been me, and will never be me, especially if i offer you help to keep you from becoming what i once was.
Well, man, you are just making unsubstantiated claims. Tell me, why do I feel better, more confident, more self-aware, lexx anxious, as a result of my drug use? The devil seducing me with a gift I do not deserve?
No. But I will agree that this is what I represent to you. Which, coincidentally, is also something your subconscious is able to detect, but seems to be unable to work with yet.
I believe that all the beliefs you present to me are the deepest and most real beliefs you hold. But you are unable to question them as they are likely masked by that darkness in you which you have not yet fully confronted. To question your beliefs would neccessitate exploration of the darkness, which you are not interested in. So you are caught in your current belief system and helpless to think anything but that.
So your conviction is that I reject truth. And yet we agree on so many things outside the spiritual realm. I disagree, by the way. Peace and harmony is not to be achieved through ignorance, but by being at peace with truth. Else, there is no peace – merely denial and avoidance.
I reckon pride is a sin.
I reckon that is your ego talking. You are saying why it SHOULD be that way.
So it is preferrable for me to interpret reality based on your preconceived bias instead?
To express strong emotional reactions is not exactly the same as to be in touch with one’s emotions. Some stupid bitch that projects her inner world out into the world naturally leads to disappointed expectations and a lot of rage. But be this as it may, we were talking about the male soul, not the female. They are not quite comparable, I believe, and I admit not being familiar enough with female nature in empiric terms to further discuss this aspect.
Everything I say applies to me as well, as I am the one who is saying it.
I just saw the movie and yes, he did. Unless you – like my past self – see his return state as natural. But fair enough, let us cease the topic.
Of course. Just like you. A force of nature, as you probably mockingly say it, does not need to be infinite or awe-inspiring. It is just what it is.
Again, vanity. Who cares? You either make sense or you do not.
True. But why is that a problem?
Your saying that you are not violent per se is simply a manifestation of your dissociation. Your saying that you are more than an animal is a sentence that is quite a cliche and yet means nothing. I wonder why you feel the need to emphasize that point. After all, you can be more than an animal without denying the parts you share with an animal.
I have not yet ventured into dream awareness too much, but I hear it is possible. That said, I would not say I am. I would say I am aware, but I do not, in these states, possess conscious awareness that would be necessary to contemplate meta-information like the reality of my perceptions. But after I wake up, I recognize the dream as clearly dream, yes.
Not sure what your first sentence means. Here is another take. You yourself rely on your subconscious to bring up the right thoughts of ‘order’ in the right moments into your consciousness. Do you understand exactly why and when this happens or are you just an observer as well? Is your certainty not just a conditionng of your subconscious to provide the conscious with a consistent stream of information?
Fully agree. Well deduced.
And yet even your altruistic motive gives or promises you satisfaction, else you could not muster the motivation to bother writing with me. That means that your own subconscious sees something in me that has relevance to yourself, however little. Altruism is the manifestation, but even altruism has an internal motivation.
What if I come out on the other side just as I hope to and can demonstrate it to you? Will you let me prove you wrong then?
What are they then?
And yet you keep failing to convince me of a necessity of your help, so what use is it? Help can not be administered unless accepted.
Yes i have thanks! My thanksgiving vacation is over and i’m back on here in full. My next article should be up in a few days, God willing.
Excellent. Please get me a link when your article comes up.
“To be truly free is to do more than just contemplate…you need a
necessary moral inhibitor. Otherwise, you are just operating as an
unethical scientist would, in that you would choose to do it ostensibly
in the pursuit of science. My inhibitor is my faith. What’s yours? Give
it a one word name.”
Pure awesome. 1000 thumbs.
“Well, man, you are just making unsubstantiated claims. Tell me, why do i feel better, more confident, more self-aware, lexx anxious, as a result
of my drug use? The devil seducing me with a gift I do not deserve?”
Not unsubstantiated, since again i reference from experience. Still, you are entitled to your belief here. It’s pointless to argue with it because of your feelings on the issue.
“No. But I will agree that this is what I represent to you. Which,
coincidentally, is also something your subconscious is able to detect,
but seems to be unable to work with yet.”
Ok, how about i represent order and you represent a lesser order? After all, you can’t have it both ways…you can’t be both for anarchy and against it right?
I think i’m working with you just fine…we are still speaking cordially to each other. We don’t have to agree with anything/everything for that to be fact.
“But you are unable to question them as they are likely masked by that
darkness in you which you have not yet fully confronted. To question
your beliefs would neccessitate exploration of the darkness, which you
are not interested in. So you are caught in your current belief system
and helpless to think anything but that.”
You are making assumptions here. Again, i have already been down the road that you are on. I’ve asked similar questions to yours, i’ve questions ALL beliefs. I was an atheist and later dabbled in satanism. Given my current antipodal faith, your remark there is highly inaccurate.
“So your conviction is that I reject truth. And yet we agree on so many
things outside the spiritual realm. I disagree, by the way. Peace and
harmony is not to be achieved through ignorance, but by being at peace
with truth. Else, there is no peace – merely denial and avoidance.”
You reject some truths, not necessarily all. I see you as purple pill because of that. I do agree that one must be at peace with the truth but as i said earlier…that only makes one prepare for war against the external factors which threaten it.
“I reckon pride is a sin”
Aww now you’re talking my language 🙂 With apologies, i did not mean to come across as prideful. I should have said “most everyone” else.
“I reckon that is your ego talking. You are saying why it SHOULD be that way.”
No, it’s just my belief. In no way am i saying that’s a fact or that it should be that way.
“So it is preferrable for me to interpret reality based on your preconceived bias instead?”
I only have a bias for the truth, regardless of how inconvenient it may be. Can you say the same?
“But be this as it may, we were talking about the male soul, not the female”
Granted, but given that we are the yang to their yin, we should not strive to be like them; through their subconscious actions and through their conscious idiocies.
“I just saw the movie and yes, he did. Unless you – like my past self –
see his return state as natural. But fair enough, let us cease the
topic.”
Agreed, we agree to disagree on this one.
“Of course. Just like you. A force of nature, as you probably mockingly
say it, does not need to be infinite or awe-inspiring. It is just what
it is.”
No mockery intended. I wouldn’t say I’m a force of nature, I’d rather say I’m a force IN nature. There is a difference.
“Again, vanity. Who cares? You either make sense or you do not.”
Well since you went into exposition over Lee why would you deny me the luxury of doing the same? Tsk tsk.
“True. But why is that a problem?”
See everything i’ve posted on this up until now.
“Your saying that you are not violent per se is simply a manifestation of
your dissociation. Your saying that you are more than an animal is a
sentence that is quite a cliche and yet means nothing. I wonder why you
feel the need to emphasize that point. After all, you can be more than
an animal without denying the parts you share with an animal.”
A cliche? How so? If i am emphasizing that i can operate in a far more sophisticated fashion than an animal, and indeed my words have shown this to discernible effect, how is this simply “a manifestation of my dissociation?”
You again make the mistake of thinking you know me better than i know myself. I will acknowledge you as correct when you actually are, not before.
I share genetic information with an animal and the same basic instincts/functions that an animal does, however there is far more to me than that. My mind sets us far apart in terms of self substantiation and other factors.
Cogito ergo sum.
“But after I wake up, I recognize the dream as clearly dream, yes.”
As do most people. I’ve yet to meet a dream master however. I was hoping you would be one.
“You yourself rely on your subconscious to bring up the right thoughts of
‘order’ in the right moments into your consciousness. Do you understand
exactly why and when this happens or are you just an observer as well?
Is your certainty not just a conditioning of your subconscious to provide
the conscious with a consistent stream of information?”
Actually it’s the other way around. The ego is supposed to keep the primitive ID in check. The subconscious is the raw animalistic part of you that can manifest fully if civilization is undone (think lord of the flies) in lesser minds. The ego keeps it in check, and the superego provides the why.
I’m curious..what is the ratio of conscious/subconscious adherence in your mind? Meaning, which one would you say governs you more if indeed they aren’t in a fully equitable proportion? I think it’s your conscious part, but i just wanted to make sure.
“And yet even your altruistic motive gives or promises you satisfaction,
else you could not muster the motivation to bother writing with me. That
means that your own subconscious sees something in me that has
relevance to yourself, however little. Altruism is the manifestation,
but even altruism has an internal motivation.”
Are you saying that if i did not have some emotional indulgence in my pursuit of altruism i would not engage in it? Disagree. I’ve done the same for others and received no such payment.
HAD relevance to myself, would be far more accurate.
“What if I come out on the other side just as I hope to and can demonstrate it to you? Will you let me prove you wrong then?”
If you can fly farther, faster and better than Icarus could then i will be more than happy to adjust my current philosophy to include parts of your own, where applicable.
“What are they then?”
You should already know the answer by now. I’m a tad disappointed.
“And yet you keep failing to convince me of a necessity of your help, so
what use is it? Help can not be administered unless accepted.”
I’m no longer trying to offer you help. Right now, we are just exchanging ideas, no less different than an orthodox think tank seeking to solve the mysteries of the universe. If that helps any, good. If not, it’s no concern of mine.
Thanks brother. Much appreciated.
Nope. She is disgusting. The fact that she was made a bond girl is probably one of the top five ways you can tell we are headed towards total annihilation.
I will put this out there. You may love your wife and think she is beautiful or want to nostalgia fuck Julia Roberts or whatever, but there are 0 hot women over the age of 28. Hotness is a 10 year window that starts from AOC (yes, this does mean countries with lower AOC have a lower age for the wall.)
There are some over 28 that are boneable. Even some that are boneable while sober. But they simply cannot be hot by definition.
A Bond Girl that’s older than Bond? Yeeesh!
In the old days, Connery and Moore’s Bond were fucking young hotties and now, …
Jennifer Aniston and Elizabeth Hurley beg to differ.
Neither are currently hot and I would argue that Jen Aniston is the prototype for telling American men that dumpy ugly chicks are sexually desirable.
Dumpy, ugly?
Surely you jest.
http://trend911.com/wp-content/Jennifer-Aniston-gown-2015-SAG-Awards-2.jpg
Hurley looks pretty nice as well, especially given her age.
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/wennpic/elizabeth-hurley-2015-estee-lauder-breast-cancer-awareness-campaign-02.jpg
The argument can be made that they were more attractive when they were younger, but you’d be hard pressed to try and tell me, successfully, that these are not still beautiful women.
Agreed. While I personally don’t find Jennifer Aniston all that attractive (purely personal tastes), they are definitely way above most of the women their age and even many younger women.
Hurly is fuckable and was a genuine smoke show pre wall…but cannot be considered hot. Her vagina probably looks like fidel castro eating a raw steak.
I stick by my comment that Jennifer Anniston has never been hot and, moreover, has only, at best, been fuckable without alcohol thanks to her money.
Absolutely. I’m not making a “old women are hot” argument. Just trying to ensure that there is a recognition that there’s always an exception to the rule.
We clearly have differing tastes in women then, I like the mousy type that she personifies (Aniston). When she was 20 I would have allowed her into a threesome with me and the wife, she was that damned pretty.
Hurley is quite beautiful still. And she is the *exception* that utterly defies the rule. Most men here on this site, on any site, can’t pull a 20 year old that’s even close in attractiveness to her modern self, let alone hope to find a woman that ages as well as she has.
I generally agree with your original post on this, just noting that there are a few exceptions to every rule.
Agreed.
I think we need to make a distinction between “hot” and “fuckable”. With good plastic surgery, a woman can still look hot in her 40s. However, her vagina will be loose and you won’t probably get any pleasure fucking her.
I make the distinction this way: Hot is I will go out of my way to fuck Fuckable means, while I will fuck her sober I am not going anywhere or paying for anything to do it.
I would say that there are plenty of women over 28 who are fuckable (whether good or no) but absolutely none of them that are hot.
You don’t know when those pics from the net were taken. That’s like some 45 y/o broad on a dating site lying about her age and saying that she is 35, and using pics from 25.
Both are from 2015.
Absolutely spot on.
I was never sure what “hot” was supposed to mean to differentiate itself from “beautiful”. Some folks say hot means “want to fuck it!” but then I want to fuck beautiful women too, so that doesn’t fly.
we clearly need to hold a council of nicea level symposium where hotness is officially and canonically decided.
The ecumenical council on the judgment of feminine beauty would be great. All participants would have a say than then, when it is over, would agree to abide, on pains of death, the concils ruling.
Its easy to build a site that rates the hotness of women by allowing men to vote. Usually super models get 9.5. NFL cheerleaders 8.5. But who the fuck cares? I personally find super models big boned. Gisele Bundchen looks like man in her street casual clothes.
Gisele is way past the age of being bangable.
As for what it matters: I think women will then be given an objective number defining how attractive they are and from secretaries to movie stars their pay will be based on that number.
I will give you the last word.
However, I think most guys would go out of their way to fuck Halle Berry or Jennifer Anniston. Just my opinion.
I don’t doubt that most guys would…..this is why we need a counsel of pooncia
wait, can I revise my comment to make a joke about Halle Berry getting away with vehicular manslaughter? No, no, I will stick with Counsel of Pooncia.
Looked at that pic of Anniston again. Hair extensions (I was so depressed when I learned about these…I thought, when I saw her in Love and Other Drugs, that Anne Hathaway was perfect), sagging boobs, waist as wide as hips creating a block body, wrinkly old lady hands (plastic surgery and botox can’t fix a woman’s hands) and a look to her like she is an over entitled, privileged cunt who is going to whine to you about her exes……she is straight up hideous and that doesn’t even go into the fact that her vagina probably looks like walter mauthau’s face eating particularly sour grapefruit
Yeah, pointy elbows, bro.
You can have it…taste is subjective. The hair extension thing with Hathaway really did depress me. I felt like a German Arms dealer who worships a trick shot shooter until finding out about trick photography.
also, let’s face it….none of these women are an 18 year old mute so they all have a long way to go.
Yeah, almost the same way I felt when I found out that you can’t tell if it’s a mail plane by looking for testicles.
Now if you’ll excuse me, some chick wants me to kiss her on the veranda, but I’m going to let her know that I prefer the lips instead.
That’s the infamous GoJ for ya. He is more than famous.
I feel so bad for the confused lot who aren’t picking up this reference.
What’s sad, for me, is that I instantly caught it as if it were the first thing on my mind when I got up this morning. Fact is I haven’t thought about *that* particular reference for decades now, heh.
Strippers start to “think about their future” at around age 25. They are highly attuned to how they are perceived by men. They know the new 20 y/o is getting more $100 bills thrown at her. By 30 they have to change to bartender or do something else. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t fuckable.
correct. In fact, I said in my comment…over 28 there is plenty that is fuckable and some that is fuckable even while sober, but they can no longer be called hot.
Heh, yeah, that’s about the time they “get their degree” that they’re “working on, which is why I’m doing this”. Doubleplus heh.
ROK should write article about dating strippers.
I have dated many of them…like dozens (I worked in a strip club for 4 years). If there was an article on dating stripers it would go like this.
Dating Stripers: A Guide
DONT FUCKING DO IT
I never worked in that environment. I joked about going to see a “hostess” at the club where she worked. I can’t describe the look she gave me. Almost like she was about to take out a gun and shoot me. Apparently it ruins it for them if the guy they date outside work sees them in that setting?
How red-pill must you be after a career as a stripper…
Not anymore, she doesn’t
Her “Old Bond Girl” is celebrated for the same reason uggos and freaks are celebrated – because promoting unattractive women as beautiful makes feminists feel better about themselves
In her prime hell yes now more motherly than sexual.
They were trying to push what remains of her sex appeal in Spectre. She used to be very attractive but she’s old now; everyone gets old, even hot women.
Rightfully, Bond bangs her, leaves, and ends up with a younger girl.
You could also reverse this, where the phony interstellar mission copies America’s stupid and corrupt feminist-diversitarian dystopia of 2015, while the organic society in America over the next few generations becomes a healthy patriarchy again.
There were black military officers at that time. My father was one. Also, relations between blacks and whites were not nearly so antagonistic at that time as we have been led to believe.
Blockquote fail!
You were a fraction of a second too late…
Fuck.
I think most none Left leaning loons realize that the problems with the Black community aren’t caused by the types of people that become officers or get none SJW degrees in college. The curse of the Black community is it’s solidarity against white people above anything else. Both White and Black people should be able to identify and persecute shitty people and criminal types. People like good people and want to work and be around competent and nice people. There is a whole section of society that seems to believe that Black people can do no wrong,because of white supremacy , despite a large section of black people doing a lot of the wrong in society now.
The problem with the black community is they listen and follow the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. These faux leaders purposely keep this racial divide alive so they would continue to have power. More legislations are passed in favor of the minorities and now there is an imbalance in the opposite direction and they still demand more. Now it’s to a point that they are viewed as lazy, yet in their minds, they feel they are oppressed. Being a victim is much easier than to work and achieve something
You forgot the asshole common denominator in the WH.
I was going to but then I thought since he’s in the highest office in the country, how can he still say they’re oppressed.
Trust me, he’ll find a way.
Yeah I stopped listening to those guys in the Eighties. ..
Indeed.
By the 1980s everybody was getting along 99 percent of the time. Sure there was always some incident somewhere, but that’s the human race for you.
In the late 1980s, “it” all started, the race baiting, the sensationalizing of any small incident. This was deliberate.
It’ll all come out in Nuremburg 2.0
I trace it all to the rise of Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley. You can laugh but Al advanced the agenda that the ‘truth’ didn’t matter as much as making sure blame was firmly assigned with whitey/ the jews.
Up un till about 1965 the Black and White crime rates were about equal in the USA. The black v non Hispanic white rate is now around 10:1 (not age corrected). Most victims today black on black.
There are many explanations but it seems the sexual revolution, and easy divorce of White liberals hurt Black families much harder. Perhaps Immigrants from Sth of the border competed for jobs, the breakdown of sincerely held Christianity in the Black community and its replacement with something not as forgiving.
I love this site’s views on gender roles, but every now and then displays of racism are shown. Earlier in the article he lists interracial relationships next to other evils of modern society like feminism and smart phone addiction, a cowardly tactic.
Where did you see that in the article? I didn’t get that impression.
Most of the racism comes from the idiot trolls that love to say “Jew” or “Black” or “Spic” on occasion.
He doesn’t classify those as evil, just our current reality or all the developments from the 1960s onward (interracial relationships were frowned upon before then). Why would smartphones and the internet be evil?
This website and its ideas wouldn’t most likely be possible without the Internet.
Nope interracial marriages were common and weren’t given a name until the 1700’s
oh my lord if you’re so stingy on specifics: “interracial (black-white) marriages in the United States of America from the 18th century to the 1960s were frowned upon”.
And interracial marriages in general were not common simply because the white people were in Europe, the black people were in Africa, and the Asians in Asia, and there wasn’t any of the mingling necessary for marriage to occur.
Again there wasn’t even a word for it before last century.
It just didn’t happen on an international level ironically until now
Well said. Indeed, displays of racism are in fact displays of insecurity.
The fact of the matter is that race mixing is participating in genocide for both people involved.
But apparently two people who lack honor for their own racial heritage, and want to contribute to it’s extinction by destroying it, are race lovers and good people? But those who honor their heritage and culture, promote and encourage their own racial preservation, and by extension the preservation of every other race, are race haters? Race preservation is evil but genocide is good and love for the human race? These ignorant, destructive views lack any logic whatsoever.
Someone without honor for their own heritage is mistaken to accuse those who have it of being “racist”. You hate your own race or you’d be promoting and participating in its continuation. The same goes for accusing someone of being a coward or insecure. Agreeing with race mixing is such an unpopular stance to take today, right? You have so much to lose and so little to gain. Yeah, that position is the epitome of being secure and courageous. Selling out your race is selfish; not courageous.
It takes way more courage and confidence in this age of confusion for someone to come out against racial suicide and endure the baseless, hateful slander and libel that follows than to stay silent or agree. People who throw “racist” around and name call on this topic deep down inside know they’re morally on the wrong side of the issue and are just seeking out that need for constant affirmation from others who are as well. Hiding behind PC buzz words is definitely cowardly. It lacks substance and attempts to discourage any discourse in opposition. Most people disagree with, or would never participate in, race mixing even if they remain quiet because of the PC environment present today. The majority has always been that way and always will. They know it’s wrong.
A person who disagrees with race mixing does not equal a hateful, evil person. To say so is, ironically, pretty racist and prejudice. “Racism” has to do with promoting injustice and hate against another person simply because of their race, not disagreeing with race mixing. There are interracial couples who promote hate and injustice toward more than just the two races they are already biased against, while on the other hand, real men and woman of every race who honor their heritage and get along just fine with one another.
If you don’t love your own race and heritage enough to preserve and promote it you definitely don’t, and can’t, claim to love the greater human family. You also have no claim to stewardship of anything cultural. The most natural way to love culture is to continue one within your own race and you’ve abandoned it. You either get this or you don’t. If you don’t, it might be wise to consider a different viewpoint than your own.
“Race” is no big deal, or at least it is only as big a deal as people make of it. Culture, in the broadest sense of the word, is far more important. People conflate the two.
Because that wasn’t white hate. At all.
If you want to talk about culture than even a large amount of same race marriages would apply, like a french man and an Irish woman. I think lots of women from other races are smoking hot, and are generally more traditional than the priveleged white girls. If a woman is traditional, feminine and attractive, I’m good. I really don’t care if my children have my skin tone, I care about the adults they become and the best woman I find for the job of mother and wife to assist me with that may not be white.
I would have thought cultural preservation was more important than racial preservation.
It also seems to me that interracial marriages bear genetically stronger children.
Culture is different than race. Culture, in large part, is religion externalized. Different completely from French, Irish, etc. all sharing genetic roots going back to common Anglo, Celt, Germanic, etc. ancestors. A French Caucasian and an Irish Caucasian are both Caucasian. They are the same race. The distinct Caucasian cultures they produced branched off from these older Celt, Anglo, Germanic, etc. over time and would have never been possible if these groups mixed themselves out of existence.
There are feminine and attractive women of every tone. Each tone should care enough about their tone, to want to preserve their tone, and their feminine and attractive women of that tone. “. . .Traditional” by its very definition, has to do with traditions. Race mixing is not a tradition and doesn’t preserve tradition. Look at the history of Portugal.
Preserving one’s genetic heritage is a virtue. There’s something with someone’s understanding when they confuse genocide with procreation, tradition, and love.
There is a time and a place for all things under heaven including hate. I don’t always hate, but when I do, I hate equally. Buzzwords like “white hate” and “racist” are bleeding out today so the absence of logic and reason is going to continue to be even harder for proponents of those buzzwords to hide.
“Seems. . . interracial marriages. . .bear genetically stronger children”
I’m a big advocate of less “seeming” (and “feeling” for that matter) and more “thinking”. The overwhelming majority of interracial “marriages” do not last.
“. . . genetically stronger” is a loaded statement beyond the scope of a single response here. I like to focus more on new posts instead of getting bogged down in responses. My thought is that people reading either get something or they don’t. Those informed by what someone says can do their own research and come to their own conclusions. If one’s eager to disagree, posting opinion “a” online will always flush out opinion “b” in response for perpetual debate and arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics: Even if you win you’re still retarded.
Anyway, ask yourself “genetically stronger” as meaning what exactly? Sending men to the moon? Producing the best warriors? The best armies? Producing sports venues (no affirmative action in the NBA, by the way) that give all races opportunity to become wealthy because of their God given natural athletic abilities? Opportunity they would not have otherwise? More able bodied people to provide disaster relief, food, medicine, etc. to people around the world in need? Quantify “genetic strength” for yourself. Also look up how hard it is to find a bone marrow donor for a mixed race person compared to a person who is not mixed race. Happy truth hunting.
Race defines culture. There is difference between Korean and Nigerian culture and customs.
Society is racial construct.
Race preceed culture. Culture does not fall from sky or come out of the blue.
It took the modern philosopher Chris Rock to define the difference between black people and niggers. I stand by his analysis and think that all races have their own “niggers” who drag them down.
Well, some races have more “niggers” than others.
By the way, 50 Most dangerous cities in the world are all nonwhite.
It seems that not all cultures are the same.
The “murder capital” of Canada is Winnipeg which also has the highest percentage of First Nation members. In fact, the correlation between homicide rates and the percentage of First Nation members on a provincial basis is shocking.
Exception proves the rule.
Which exception is that?
My fiancé is Chinese. I intend that our children will be “Canadian” in the sense that I see it.
.
Asian/white mongrels tend to look rather sexy.
America defies the conclusion that “Race defines culture”. It did that for several decades leading up to the Civil Rights Movement.
.
I don’t know many Koreans but I have met a bunch of Nigerians and they will make good Canadians.
Most dangerous countries and cities in the world are settled by nonwhites.
I don’t see that people are escaping from white, European countries into Africa, Middle East, Asia, but many of nonwhites are risking their lives to immigrate into white countries.
It speaks for itself.
Ignorance is bliss.
Canadians are white. Canada was founded by white people. Nigerians are Nigerians, and they will never be Canadians.
Maybe small portion of them will embrace Canada, but bring millions of Nigerians into Canada and Canada will become Nigeria.
I said “a bunch” not “millions”. And yes it does depend on whether they will embrace Canadian culture.
I sort of have to agree with your point: crime rates tend to be lower in white bread communities and grow higher when you introduce more “people of colour”, or in the case of Winnipeg, more Indians.
Now it all makes sense, rationalization, why you support multiracialism politically correct called multiculturalism.
Canadian is social construct by white people, English and French to be more specific.
No, they will be Canadian or Chinese, depending how they feel in their own skin.
Olivia Munn? She does not resemble her father nor mother.
Anyway, because of your fetish you will have children which does not look like you. And you are not doing them a favour. They will have split identity.
Although I agree that white-mongoloid mongrels could look white unlike white-negroid mongrels.
How many black pilots, astronauts and NASA scientists back then in 60’s?
This is another affirmative action and PC diversity at action.
It is funny how Jewllywood is promoting blacks as scientists, inventors and pilots although they are small minority.
Just look at this pathetic PC poster, negro, (white) female and white man.
Black pilots? There was a bunch during the Second World War. At least two astronauts during the Sixties (but there were not many astronauts in total at this time). There have been black scientists in the West for more than a hundred years – can’t speak for NASA directly though.
Sure they are a minority but Black people are a minority in general in America. But I think you will find that scientists form a minority of any population.
Red Tails? Nigga please. Irrelevant.
Black people are minority in general in USA, but overrepresented in crime unlike in science.
Chinese and Indians are minority in USA but there are many Chinese and Indian scientists in USA compared to blacks.
LOL! Its perfectly relevant to your argument! You’re a bit of a jackass aren’t you?
How many is irrelevant. The fact is Black pilots, scientists and astronauts were around in the Sixties. Thus your argument collapses.
Who was behind major NASA projects if not white men?
A bunch of clowns were behind it because NASA is one big joke.
Frankly I’m surprised a series like this even aired. You’d think the feminists would’ve blown up about it or something. Too busy with gamergate back then I imagine.
After being awaken or unplugged from the Matrix, I now realized that the orginal “Star Trek” series was an indoctrination of our current culture. While the show was noble in the ideology of racial harmony, it also elevated women’s role to be almost to that of men. Having a woman working alongside men on the bridge of a battleship was unheard of back then, but now it is accepted and today we have women serving in the military.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the show and the subsequent versions of Star Trek that followed, but I wonder now if that message the show conveyed was really a good idea for our society.
I did too as a child ,but so many of the problems now revolve around the values Star Trek held up as admirable.
I think that the values are admirable. What happened was one side abused it and had no consideration for others.
“There is a league of women on board who comprise the Sexual Stewardess Corps…”
This is what Delta airlines is badly in need of. Instead, they have begun infusing feminist articles into the Sky magazine, painted a plane pink in honor of Breast Cancer Awareness month, and have hired too many androgynous men named Lance to serve me my cold beer before takeoff.
So right. What I wouldn’t give for just one flight like my grandfather took for business when he was younger. Stewardess handing him a scotch while he reminds her of the name of his hotel….ass touching optional.
That’s why I love flying Korean airlines whenever I get the chance: slender Asian stewardesses are the norm.
me likey. I’ve never been to asia. They should think of doing flights everywhere. I would def fly Korean air from New York to Miami.
Yep. Singapore Air. Thai Air. Thats the way it used to be in america back in the 70s before feminists and their lawyers claimed that fat bitchy women were being discriminated against. Almost all foreign (not american) airlines have better looking stewardesses. If you fly american carriers you’re more likely to get the gay male “flight attendant” or used up old broad.
…wait… are airlines a metaphor for something else? lol
What ! You don’t think three hundred pound flight attendants can do the job! You Bigot!
Very true.
On a related note, I saw an old rerun of “The Brady Bunch” a few weeks ago. It was an episode where they were visiting an amusement park. At any rate, there was not one fat person in the crowd. Contrast today with a stroll through, say, Disneyworld in Orlando. Watching the fatties in their motorized wheelchairs is a sight to behold.
It is amazing how quickly a society can spiral downward.
I lived in that world. It was glorious.
All those thin, svelte girls with not a spot of ink on them, long hair, short shorts, no piercings except a single set in the ears.
It didn’t suck.
high fructose corn syrup in everything.
Not just Delta. ALL airlines need to get back to the old days of friendly stewardesses who hand out drinks and cater to the flyers.
Granted, there’s some give and take as the customers need to stop being dicks. Not all, but I’m speaking about the pricks who think they can do anything they want on the plane because they paid for the ticket and the fat cows who think they should only pay for 1 ticket while their rotund buns fill up 2 seats.
If you fly internationally with an Asian based airline, their stewardesses are much more feminine and pleasing to be around.
They’re really intuitive also. You don’t even have to ask for things. They just know what you’re thinking and do it for you. Unlike american women who you have to ask multiple times and they reluctantly do it half-assed and resent that you even bothered them.
Who then turn around get pissed off when you don’t telepathically know exactly what you want and get it for them BEFORE they ever open their mouth.
Thought I would add in that little part about women you forgot.
If american women could read your mind, they’d use that info against you, to make you feel like shit until they get what they want. Because feminism.
Hence why men have the instinctual response of “Nothing” to the female question, “What are you thinking about?”.
Gotta check out this show. It sounds like something I’d like
“With only 600 people on board the ship, and no birth control, marriages are selected, supposedly by a computer algorithm”
One small detail is off. There was birth control on the ship. The women have some implant in their wrist or something, and I remember one scene where the women encourage each other to slut it up before their arranged marriage took place and their implant removed. I thought themes of feminist rebellion and manipulation were prevalent in other instances as well.
I thought the show still went out of its way to reflect patriarchy and traditional values as oppressive and perpetuating a melancholy mood. And meant to make the audience feel some kind of empathy for those trapped in its psychological prison within a society straining to hold itself together.
I also thought it echoed themes of progressive enlightenment and social justice we’ve all grown so depressingly familiar with. Let’s not forget the ship isn’t really a “Lifeboat for humanity”. At least not in a cultural sense. The social structure in the ship is portrayed more as an unintentional form of cultural stagnation.
SPOILER ALERT:
It’s a simulated experiment in a hanger in which the people outside running it are all having a good laugh at the perceived, backward society within. THEY ARE NOT in space at all! The crew inside just believes they left Earth decades ago. The experiment is meant to see how/if people could survive a generational space journey. When one of the people inside actually gets out, he feels betrayed and lied to that his way of life was all a sham. Almost like some kind of creepy Liberal intellectual awakening.
END OF SPOILER.
So I’m not so sure men should embrace this show. I thought it still had insidious, anti-male themes. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen it though. Maybe I’m just being negative.
Interesting counter review. Sounds like I’m going to have to seek the show out and find out for myself. I kind of suspected it fell more along the lines that you suggest than the other way around.
On the other hand, I find The Stepford Wives a charming tale of a wonderful utopia that I think all men should aspire towards, but then that’s probably just me. Most women I’ve expressed that opinion to seem to get rather…terse…when I bring it up.
You are right on with your review. I don’t know what the author of this article is smoking.. but he seemed to have missed the points you are making, i.e., that the patriarchal and traditional, male-dominated world is portrayed negatively.
I actually watched the whole mini-series and it got progressively worse. The show is really poor.. bad, wooden acting.. ridiculous plot.. and ends on a crazy, ridiculous cliffhanger. It’s mostly a soap that simply has an ostensible sci-fi setting but this isn’t good science fiction in the slightest.
I must admit I have not seen this show. Have not had the time lately but the Orion Project really never appealed to me. Six Hundred People is just too small a population to deal with to grow from. If there is a project from back then I wish had been put into action it is the L5 Project advocated by the late Professor Dr. Gerard K. O’Neill in his book The High Frontier in which we move our population off planet to live in man made self contained habitats is far more appealing. Mobile Suit Gundam is based on that idea.
Maybe if I have some free time and it comes around I will take the opportunity. Still it does offer some things to contemplate. I was born in 1964 so I know some of the world they’re talking about and it certainly worked unlike the present mess liberals have created and inflicted upon us all. Monarchy is definitely a bad idea for government one need only look over to Europe and its history on that any society run by elites in which people have to be born into them rather than earn their place by natural selection is destined to not just fail but totally collapse. The Proto-Democracies of the medieval cities where citizenship was restricted to the middle class, the Bergers (the craftsmen and merchants who lived within creating wealth and the economy while supporting local government with their taxes) and the Yeomanry outside who owned and operated farms that supplied cities with food and other produce.
Today, this would be a flawed mission concept. By the time we satisfied the diversity quota by selecting one representative for each of the LGBTQRPIDTARDKVZZZXHGEIUW!3D??>€#$tUBR etc.. alphabet soup, we wouldn’t have enough space left on a 600 person mission to include a breading pair mate for each of these retards.
Modern liberalism is not the empowerment of individuals to make the best of themselves as it was a couple generations ago but the total retardation of society so the dregs of society don’t feel bad about themselves. The only diversity society should embrace is Genetic the modern variety we can definitely do without. Government should empower individuals to make the best of themselves rather than empower its losers to hold us all back. Big Corrupt Government needs hordes of lazy immoral people who constantly need its protection and financial support to keep itself in power while Limited Government needs moral people who don’t need it to do anything but maintain stability and order so can only exist by promoting the moral and stifling the corrupt.
It wasn’t picked up for obvious reasons: too red pill for the average blue pill mind to understand.
Next season they will introduce “Descension” a story about a group of female scientists led by the brilliant Dr Progra Essive as they talk about repairing earth after global warming causes the spontaneous combustion of all the males on earth and leaves them dealing with the literal fallout from the patriarchy.
The premise: All the remaining females band together after all the men get burnt to death and usher in world peace by making the entire planet into a gun free zone. They then evolve into herculean lesbians (thanks to the extinction of rape culture) who can reproduce with each other at will and have the strength and IQ of ten Men but unfortunately the males left behind a fail safe program designed to launch a hidden nuclear weapon (designed like a penis) which is aimed at a volcano (which looks like a uterus) and causes it to spew tons of ash into the atmosphere creating a new ice age and making the ground uninhabitable. Now the females have to live on the sea and to make matters worse, the nuclear missile also create sea whirlpools which the females call “malestorms.” Only 1,000 females remain alive and they all decide to find the nearest safe space to create a bio dome to send their best and brightest so they can talk about how best to fix the atmosphere males messed up.
Expect it to have a 99% approval on rotten tomatoes and on metacritic. A saturn award is also likely.
Cast:
Lead scientist Dr Progra Essive. The greatest scientist that ever lived. Has a 10,000 IQ yet still can’t understand why she loves her (dead) ex boyfriend even though he raped her in the ass.
2nd scientist Lota Cuntage. Resents having to take orders from Progra but is still loyal to her. Has a 9,999 IQ. Her hobbies include working out mathematical equations and using her clit piercings as an abacus.
3rd scientist Dusty Minge. The youngest of the group, she is only 19 years old but already has solved the mysteries of life, including curing death and finding the mathematical formula to cure a hangover. She’s still working on solving the issue of menstruation, which has baffled her for years.
Security chief Imaneager Rugeater. Her friends call her “Ima.” Largest and strongest of the group so was naturally made the security chief. She can lift 800 pounds on her monstrous tits alone. Is secretly in love with Dr Progra but doesn’t know how to express it without sticking her tongue out and flicking it like a snake. In her off time she enjoys doing sudoku which the scientists have renamed “suedoku.”
Special guest appearance by Rush Limbaugh as the patriarchy monster and Barack Obama as Sheila.
Syfy has picked up the series for a 12 episode commitment.
Episode 1: “Testosterone Fallout”
Episode 2: “Sins of the Fathers”
Episode 3: “It’s the patriarchy’s fault part 1”
Episode 4: “It’s the patriarchy’s fault part 2”
Episode 5: “Building a better world one ovary at a time”
Episode 6: “How Progra got her groove back”
Episode 7: “The rape culture vulture”
Episode 8: “Thanks for the mammaries”
Episode 9: “Mother’s day is everyday”
Episode 10: “We need to talk about needing to talk”
Episode 11: “Where there’s a vagina, there’s a way”
Episode 12: “The matriarchy reloaded”
Brilliant!
You, sir, win the internet!
Clit piercings as an abacus made me laugh out loud.
I’d rather be in the space truck!
I’ll have to keep an eye out for this as I missed it when it first ran. Perhaps SyFy will run it again at some point.
I missed it, too. Bought DVD at Target for $17.99.
Reminds me of the fact that there is a plant vault somewhere (in Scandinavia, I think?) that stores seeds and genes (I think) of every plant they could get in the world.
When the classical societies (Rome, Persia, China) started to decline, barbaric societies from a somewhat-isolated, untamed wilderness came and destroyed them, thus wiping the slate somewhat and beginning the circle again. This ended by around 900 AD.
In this globalized world, can there even be such “human reserve” without something like Ascension? Third world, muslims, China, India, even Africa? Isolated wilderness people? Is the reserve spiritual and everywhere? It may be so bad that even what was once the reserve is now tainted? And if the reserve is tainted, can anything even be done?
You didn’t pay close enough attention to the series. They have not had contact with “earth” for decades, so they have no idea about any of the technological or social advances of esrth including,”civil rights” or a black president. The Black officer is indeed just a modern ploy for the series. They all have implanted birth control to prevent unapproved births. Tricia Helfer also points out that sex is the true currency on ths ship. The lower decks not the ghetto as everyone started equal, but the upper class created and reinforced their social division. There are interracial relationships as the black officer carried an extended affair with his boss’s white(ish) wife. While it is somewhat refreshing to see a stable society in fiction, it was all presented as being overtly wrong.
“Religion is often described as an example of the noble lie–what is more
important is not whether the One True God actually exists, what his name is, or what he calls his kingdom, but the fact that people believe in this story, with all its tales of morality and messages for living is of utmost importance. Basically, Voltaire’s “If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.””
This Volaire quote is interesting. The capitalization of the word “God” means he’s referencing the God of the Bible, Yahweh, instead of a generic god. The word “God” being mistranslated in the KJV has caused confusion to present day. Also, the generic meaning of the lower case, Hebrew word “god” (elohiym) is still mostly misunderstood today:
elohiym-. . . occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:–angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
A god is a “mighty one” and people have been inventing, electing, or subjugated by them (imaginary or human) since time immemorial. I agree partially in that religion has less to do with the mental assent of believing God, or a god, exists (I’m not saying it doesn’t matter at all), but the obedience to the law or “law” of said God or “god” is what matters. In fact, the Bible agrees with this and said so long before Voltaire was around:
Romans 3:31 NASB
“Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.”
Sovereignty is the crux of the matter. A “mighty one” establishing law is a claim to sovereignty. Every government in the world that is, was, or ever will be is theocentric in nature. It’s based on the moral law (or lack thereof) of a sovereign God or god. There’s no such thing as a secular government, be it on a fake spaceship, or anywhere else. Take the first century Roman rule, where people could worship whatever they wanted, as long as they obeyed Roman law:
Acts 17:6-7 NASB
“When they did not find them, they began dragging Jason and some brethren before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have upset the world have come here also; and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.””
The Christians actively disobeyed the “law” of the Roman sovereign god for another King. Mental assent had nothing to do with it. It’s the same today.
“Is life on Earth, with all its rape culture, war, intolerance, gay marriage, transgender, microaggressions, and immorality the “real” world, or is it a mere approximation of what humanity once was?”
Yes and yes. Culture is religion externalized. You cannot have a change in culture without a change in religion. The dominant religion in the USA is humanism and was accelerated in the sixties. The Christian influenced culture here, established by Christian settlers centuries ago, began a rapid decline during that time which continues present day. That includes the principles of patriarchy and sexual morality, which originate from the moral law of the Bible. They’ve been replaced by man’s depravity and the story always ends the same.
What God calls His kingdom is different than mental assent and of the utmost importance. A kingdom has a sovereign King, laws of the realm, subjects who obey those laws, and judgments against those who don’t. This template is true regardless the President, or congress, or “supreme” court, or dictator, etc., who’s the sovereign. As for me, I’ll take Yahwehs’ righteous laws on patriarchy, sexual morality, and everything else instead of man’s “laws” on anything because I love justice and freedom just like my American fore-bearers did:
Matt 11:29-30 NASB
“Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”
Who can know the true nature of reality? Whether stuck on a fake spaceship or in a world where we’re lied to at least as much if not more? The true nature of reality is important but what’s most important is how we live our lives. That is something each of us has power over, regardless the reality of our world, and a time proven way to effect change for the better:
Deuteronomy 29:29 NASB
“The secret things belong to Yahweh our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.”
The return of kings will finally be realized with a return to the KING of kings.
This will turn into an attack on the men, patriarchy and a validation of feminism.
Period shows like MAD men misrepresent the 1950s to make misrepresent the behaviour of men, to make them somewhat seem vile. The alpha males will seem vulgar and arrogant. The women treated unfairly.
This is an opportunity for liberal propaganda, a vindication of feminism.
The reality of the 1950s and 60s was that your dad might clip you over the ear for not standing up and acknowledging the girls when they entered a room. Women were treated deferentially and politely and in return they kept their part of the bargain.
Ever noticed how shows such as My 3 sons, the Watson’s that portrayed a wise, strong, but gentle father who was definitely male. No crazy psycho dads in sit in comedies.
Haven’t seen the show yet.
My guess is these traditional themes are being served up to be skewered, i.e. “Look at how neanderthal-ish it is to judge women by their ‘femininity’ and men by ‘masculinity’!”
Same thing happened in Mad Men.
The only plus I see is some viewers will love these themes despite the producers’ snark. Also like Mad Men.
Is this series satire? “Sexual Stewardess Corps”? This is fanfic tier. Since when was prostitution legal in 1960’s USA?
Mad Men in space? Cool.
I watched the pilot on Youtube. It’s fine. By the way, here’s a documentary about the real Orion Project : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEtaQpHBP4U