henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:10 am
ya know, Nick, I kinda got the feelin' you aren't actually readin' and respondin' to my posts
Henry, you wrote:
I believe America is in the process dying.
nah...there are too many Americas: this a a big piece of land...there's never been a seamless, cohesive American nation on it...instead there's somewhere between five and seven Americas and most aren't dyin'
what is dyin' is The United States of America...rather, that myth is dyin', cuz there's never been such an animal, not really
and what's dyin' is a particular iteration of The State (whether as unintended consequence or intended result is another topic entirely)
finally, what's dyin' is the illusion of Camelot and with it the idea we'll be saved
Is America dying as an impossible myth or was it the intent of some of the founding fathers?
“Preamble” of the Declaration of Independence"
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Is freedom and how it pertains to an after life just an illusion of Camelot? How can we answer this question?
promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:06 am
Christianity is dying because the world is growing up, and neither has that nonsense ever been a foundation for anything other than passifying people, making them a nervous, emotional wreck, and putting money into the pockets of parasites like that Osteen fuck.
Any normative behavior, culture, custom and practice that human beings have ever participated in, was already made possible and built in the human ethos through evolutionary means. Christianity has never done anything but proselytize - take possession of - everything good man already was or had the potential to be.... then claimed that man needed it to become or remain what it already was. It is the greatest hustle in the history of the erf.
There is a reason why these two parasites - Christianity and capitalism - have such a rich history together. They're like a dynamic duo of deception (henceforth the 'DDD').
...
What a crude intellect is good for.-- The Christian church is an encyclopaedia of prehistoric cults and conceptions of the most diverse origin, and that is why it is so capable of proselytizing: it always could, and it can still go wherever it pleases, and it always found, and always finds something similar to itself to which it can adapt itself and gradually impose upon it a Christian meaning. - Friedrich 'The Moustache' Nietzsche
Christianity is part of the perennial philsophy meaning it always was. You don't know what it is so attack man made Christendom. Think for a moment. If you are asleep in Plato's cave attached and reacting to to the shadows on the wall, how can a sleeping man appreciate Christianity which by definition requires conscious awakening the need for which existed since the fall of Man?
The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming if Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian. -ST. AUGUSTINE, Retractiones
If you don't know what Christianity is, all you are doing is fighting windmills
Holy shit dude you sound like a full blown crazy person. Like what are you even talking about with this 'always was' and 'plato's cave' and 'the fall of man'?
Is America dying as an impossible myth or was it the intent of some of the founding fathers?
as I say, America ain't dyin'
as for what is dyin' (naiveté, The State, the myth of united states): the Founders had the best of intentions, but I suspect not a one thought the experiment would last...they expected fragmentation, I think
Is freedom and how it pertains to an after life just an illusion of Camelot? How can we answer this question?
I can't speak on an afterlife, only this one: Camelot, the US as shining city on a hill, carried us far, but idealism is givin' way to what is and folks are havin' to decide which is more important, freedom or safety
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:17 pmReally strong men don't show off .
define: showin' off
In the case of men showing off is laddish, boastful, or macho behaviour and talk.
Maybe.
But I have not noted, among women, even ardent Feminists, much admiration for the feminized male. The guys who show up at their rallies in pink hats get the backs of the Feminists' hands -- and rightly so, since they're simpering, weak and manipulative kinds of men, living on the bottom rung of the testosterone scale.
It's surprising how much "laddish, boastful and macho" stuff women will not only accept but gravitate to, rather than end up with the simpering male.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:17 pmReally strong men don't show off .
define: showin' off
In the case of men showing off is laddish, boastful, or macho behaviour and talk.
Maybe.
But I have not noted, among women, even ardent Feminists, much admiration for the feminized male. The guys who show up at their rallies in pink hats get the backs of the Feminists' hands -- and rightly so, since they're simpering, weak and manipulative kinds of men, living on the bottom rung of the testosterone scale.
It's surprising how much "laddish, boastful and macho" stuff women will not only accept but gravitate to, rather than end up with the simpering male.
Strong people of any sex are neither showoffy nor weak.
In the case of men showing off is laddish, boastful, or macho behaviour and talk.
Maybe.
But I have not noted, among women, even ardent Feminists, much admiration for the feminized male. The guys who show up at their rallies in pink hats get the backs of the Feminists' hands -- and rightly so, since they're simpering, weak and manipulative kinds of men, living on the bottom rung of the testosterone scale.
It's surprising how much "laddish, boastful and macho" stuff women will not only accept but gravitate to, rather than end up with the simpering male.
Strong people of any sex are neither showoffy nor weak.
This is certainly true.
But it seems women will prefer the "showoffy" type to the weak one, every time.
And really, if we're honest, why shouldn't they? After all, a weak person has nothing to "show." At least the laddish, macho or boastful guy may have something to offer, something upon which his bravado is premised. The weak guy's just manifesting his nothingness. And who, in their right mind, would ever be attracted to that?
But there's an additional problem with the weak, unmasculine male that women all "get" intuitively. He's manipulative and lazy. He's lazy, because he is not making of himself anything about which he could even potentially boast, or presenting any offer of advantage to a woman; and he's manipulative, because sucking up, agreeing, going along and playing "Feminist" is simply his attempt to "get girls."
Who wouldn't despise a creeping slug like that?
The Feminist may want to see herself as Eowyn of Rohan...but if she is, she instantly recognizes the weak, simpering male as Grima Wormtongue.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:53 pm
Nick,
Is America dying as an impossible myth or was it the intent of some of the founding fathers?
as I say, America ain't dyin'
as for what is dyin' (naiveté, The State, the myth of united states): the Founders had the best of intentions, but I suspect not a one thought the experiment would last...they expected fragmentation, I think
Is freedom and how it pertains to an after life just an illusion of Camelot? How can we answer this question?
I can't speak on an afterlife, only this one: Camelot, the US as shining city on a hill, carried us far, but idealism is givin' way to what is and folks are havin' to decide which is more important, freedom or safety
you can have either, but you can't have both
I can't speak on an afterlife, only this one: Camelot, the US as shining city on a hill, carried us far, but idealism is givin' way to what is and folks are havin' to decide which is more important, freedom or safety
I must disagree with you here. Society is capable of both safety and freedom if it defends the principles like equality under the law and a strong military to defend America. The question here is why a large percentage of a society rejects the potential for freedom? Years ago I believed that freedom as defined by the founding fathers was possible through education. I see that it is not. The human condition prevents it. America is a noble experiment but water seeks its own level and for society it is some form of statist slavery.
Of course there are revolutions with the goal of freedom but since we are as we are, everything remains as it is. It results in slavery. This was hard for me to swallow since I felt my grandfather's escape from communism in Russia into a free America had merit and the principles and values making freedom possible were natural. I was wrong. I underestimated the reality of the human condition. Nothing stays the same. Life including culture or the Great Beast is either evolving or involving: returning to its essence. It is only through individuals where with the help of grace, evolution of human being or human values makes return to its origin before the fall possible.
Ben Franklin replied to a woman asking what kind of government you have created: “a Republic, if you can keep it.” He added when she asked: “And why not keep it?”? “Because the people, on tasting the dish, are always disposed to eat more of it than does them good.”
The human condition makes it impossible to maintain freedom. We lack the human potential for objective conscience and have as a whole denied its awakening source. The natural result isn't freedom, it is statist slavery. This is the normal result of the battle for rights. Of course without the growing wakened sense of obligations, the battle for rights must lead to slavery.
America is fragmented and some believe freedom will continue to exist within fragmentation. We forget that freedom is the enemy of the growing secular government and all thoughts defending freedom must be cancelled. Freedom has a very powerful enemy as culture continues to decline into further fragments and away from the wholeness the essence of Christianity reminds us of..
"even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil
We've read many threads on rights but how many on acquiring the sense of obligations necessary to sustain rights and to make freedom possible? It is not wanted and some curious souls seek to understand why the obvious or the intent for freedom must be hated and the questioners must be crushed.
Society is capable of both safety and freedom if it defends the principles like equality under the law and a strong military to defend America.
defended borders and recognition of a person's right to his life, liberty, and property is less about safety and more about liberty
The question here is why a large percentage of a society rejects the potential for freedom?
I don't believe this is the case: I'm out & about daily, rubbin' shoulders with all kinds of folks...i see no large scale abdication of self-direction, self-responsibility, or self-reliance, even after decades of the most intense domestication efforts, most folks remain free
and: there is no potential for freedom...bein' free is natural, normal, and inherent
water seeks its own level and for society it is some form of statist slavery.
well, yeah, that's what the statists, globalists, commies, socialists, marxists, and other slaver-types want us to believe
but: they're all lyin' crapsacks
Of course there are revolutions with the goal of freedom but since we are as we are, everything remains as it is. It results in slavery.
beware revolution: generally it's just an excuse to swap out bosses
Ben Franklin replied to a woman asking what kind of government you have created: “a Republic, if you can keep it.” He added when she asked: “And why not keep it?”? “Because the people, on tasting the dish, are always disposed to eat more of it than does them good.”
the problem with republicanism is representatives and legislators
we didn't need 3 branches...we need no branches
The human condition makes it impossible to maintain freedom. We lack the human potential for objective conscience and have as a whole denied its awakening source. The natural result isn't freedom, it is statist slavery. This is the normal result of the battle for rights. Of course without the growing wakened sense of obligations, the battle for rights must lead to slavery.
I'm sorry, Nick, but that there sounds exactly like what slaver-types want us to believe
We forget that freedom is the enemy of the growing secular government and all thoughts defending freedom must be cancelled. Freedom has a very powerful enemy as culture continues to decline into further fragments and away from the wholeness the essence of Christianity reminds us of.
nah, we ain't forgot...we're slow to anger; we're mindful that once a certain road is taken it's irrevocable; we hope the other side comes to its senses and we hesitate as we hope; no one craves what's comin', but more and more folks see it is comin'
"even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil
tyrants die just like free men: Weil is wrong
We've read many threads on rights but how many on acquiring the sense of obligations necessary to sustain rights and to make freedom possible?
for me, in any in-forum conversation or debate, liberty, rights, responsibility, obligation, these are all part & parcel of each other
...freedom must be hated and the questioners must be crushed.
well, this forum overflows with slaver wannabe garbage people (and nutjobs who think wearin' the leash themselves is some kind of fashion statement)...I wouldn't, if I were you, measure man by the goings on here or places like this, on-line or real life
"this forum overflows with slaver wannabe garbage people (and nutjobs who think wearin' the leash themselves is some kind of fashion statement)...I wouldn't, if I were you, measure man by the goings on here or places like this, on-line or real life"
I have been collecting ironies as a participant of various philosophy fora for twenty years, and of all the small minded, irrelevant garden variety philosophy tourists and wanna be intellectuals I've encountered, the anti-marxists are my favorite... and I'll tell ya why. I have never heard so much noise being made about nuthin but the substance of one's own terminal confusion and personal undeserved hubris, regarding any other subject, in my life... save perhaps religion.
But that's not the irony. The irony is that without exception, every rugged individualist I've ever encountered who complains so much about the very concept of government, I was certain would be broke, dead, or both, without it.
And you are quite right about 'garbage people', as you call them... only it's not an obvious thing at first glance. I speak from experience when I say it takes years to begin to understand just how empty, superficial, weak and desperate to believe they are something they are not, these zeros truly are.
But the real kicker is I cannot blame them for what they are, because there is no freewill. And so it becomes a kind of mildly nauseating comedy to watch it all play out.
But perhaps the greatest of the ironies is that it is the very thing they defend, that has designed them to be the irrelevant garbage that they have become.... while that which they oppose, would have quite possibly made something good and useful out of them.
If there wuz a god, I would share this joke with him. But there isn't, so I am fated to laugh alone at this disgusting malady in maddening isolation for what will seem an eternity.
