Atheism

[Harbal]

We must give credit where credit is due!

That's very generous of you, considering you are highly unlikely to ever be a beneficiary of the principle yourself.

Harbol and DontAskMe deserve accolades!

We have discussed the matter, and we would prefer marmalade, if that's okay with you.

I had this thought: If they were to mate, in some preposterous love-encounter, would Gary be the result of their blending?

No, Gary is already the result of someone else's blending.

Something I will have to think about deeply & seriously...

And then what?

[Dontaskme]

We must give credit where credit is due!

That's very generous of you, considering you are highly unlikely to ever be a beneficiary of the principle yourself.

Harbol and DontAskMe deserve accolades!

We have discussed the matter, and we would prefer marmalade, if that's okay with you.

I had this thought: If they were to mate, in some preposterous love-encounter, would Gary be the result of their blending?

No, Gary is already the result of someone else's blending.

Something I will have to think about deeply & seriously...

And then what?

[promethean75]

In this post I will pretend to be interested in making some profound philosophical point while being in fact only interested in posting more social media of himself.

there is an existential impracticality to Riding The Tiger... how one isn't able to reach that unachievable state of aristocratic excellence in the real world of laws and speed limits.

Evola's Tiger is like a bike that will never be able to do more than a third of what it's capable of doing without breaking the law and as such becomes a superfluous reserve of power that cannot be realized except conceptually.

kay except for the wrath of the tiger there isn't much instruction to be given lest one finds a horse. (for two points what is the quote that i just made a word play of and who said it?)

but u simply can't live like a solitary aristocrat who fights on tigerback to hold his spiritual center together while the reality of inferior democratic institutions debases everything of value and like an army of plebs destroys the world around him.

siriusly tho who reads Evola after twenty five? he's like the stan lee of philosophy and politics. it doesn't work like that anymore, AJ. u can't just be like nah i don't participate in such things becuz I'm a facist with superior intellect, body, soul and culture when somebody akses u if u wanna go to a party. u have to go and be mediocre (within reason). that's just part of life.

[FlashDangerpants]

Absolutely and dedicatedly incapable. If you owned that, if you admitted it, it would be a huge advance! But you will double- and tripe-down on your limited view and defend is 'like a junkyard dog'...

Uh huh. I don't share any interest in racial integrity, purity or any notion of ethnic duty whatsoever, I find all such ideas pointless and silly. That's why I think only buffoons believe in things like replacement theories.

The truth is that you do take the replacement theory for granted, you've made that much clear in other threads. This entails that you do hold the racial views that are required to imbue such racial theories with any sort of plausibility. You can take your own advice and admit if you want, but that doesn't seem like your style.

[Alexis Jacobi]

but u simply can't live like a solitary aristocrat who fights on tigerback to hold his spiritual center together while the reality of inferior democratic institutions debases everything of value and like an army of plebs destroys the world around him.

In fact -- and I say this because you seem at least to have recognized an ideal -- you have no choice. Or, to put it another way, if you do recognize An Ideal (and maybe you actually do not), you then have to answer, for yourself, how you will construct your life to live in relation to it or so to realize it.

But if, as you say, you really have no interest at all in the philosophical ideal, and are really only interested in whatever it is you do, then yes what you say makes sense. By not having much sense in it.

siriusly tho who reads Evola after twenty five? he's like the stan lee of philosophy and politics. it doesn't work like that anymore, AJ. u can't just be like nah i don't participate in such things becuz I'm a facist with superior intellect, body, soul and culture when somebody akses u if u wanna go to a party. u have to go and be mediocre (within reason). that's just part of life.

I do not know many who read Evola (or Guénon) when under 25 so I can't answer your question. If you mean to say that after a certain point everything he talks about is *puerile* (as Dubious believes) I'd have to say I do not agree. So your assertion is therefore undermined.

According to Evola he would not define a 'fascist' orientation as having validity. He'd see it as a far lower, and an unworthy, attainment or ideal. So I do not think the term 'fascist' can be applied to him (as Flash will state reflexively). Most people I am familiar with who have read people like Guénon and Evola, they all seem to use their ideas as a springboard for their own. And these people, for good or bad, with god results or questionable results, also read many authors who are excluded from the acceptable canons. And they seem to use these ideas also as a springboard for their own.

with superior intellect, body, soul and culture

What does this mean? What does 'superior' mean?

In my view, and reading what you write, I would describe you as someone without a commitment. Or, if you have a commitment I could not easily say what it is. Your drug use, of course, might have something to do with it. So you often end up with interesting ideas and perspectives but you seem committed ... to nothing that I can identify as an ideal. Saying this, and you reading it, will likely then result in some ironic statements and some humor. Fine. But some people do not find that enough or sufficient.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Absolutely and dedicatedly incapable. If you owned that, if you admitted it, it would be a huge advance! But you will double- and tripe-down on your limited view and defend is 'like a junkyard dog'...

Uh huh. I don't share any interest in racial integrity, purity or any notion of ethnic duty whatsoever, I find all such ideas pointless and silly. That's why I think only buffoons believe in things like replacement theories.

The truth is that you do take the replacement theory for granted, you've made that much clear in other threads. This entails that you do hold the racial views that are required to imbue such racial theories with any sort of plausibility. You can take your own advice and admit if you want, but that doesn't seem like your style.

Now, you are stuck on this. You began with this, you continued in it, and now you are doubling and tripling down on it.

You are a one-horse show.

You are in no sense interested in conversing what I think, or what *they* think, and why, you just want to make sets of declarations.

Have at it, man! Since this is what drives you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't share any interest in racial integrity, purity or any notion of ethnic duty whatsoever, I find all such ideas pointless and silly. That's why I think only buffoons believe in things like replacement theories.

It does not matter what you personally think, or what you personally have concluded, because you are not the topic. The topic is what people, other people, in different places, are thinking and do think. So, this involves a separation, at least intellectually and philosophically, to entertain ideas that you do not like, cannot accept, feel are *wrong*, and which you are opposed to.

What I do not share with you is your various sets of prejudice. And this barking, declarative but shallow stance that you have.

Your paragraph is simply an encapsulation of your own opposition to ideas, and people, you do not agree with. And you want to associate me with them so you can dismiss me without doing any (intellectual) work at all. And you define yourself as a 'righteous child' through your skewed attitude.

Very common today.

The truth is that you do take the replacement theory for granted, you've made that much clear in other threads. This entails that you do hold the racial views that are required to imbue such racial theories with any sort of plausibility. You can take your own advice and admit if you want, but that doesn't seem like your style.

What I think about it, you are not interested in knowing. It s not a topic that, for you, has any validity or could ever be validated. Once you understand that, and own it, then where you really stand, and what sort of *thinking* informs you, can then be seen.

You are not interested in any contradictory ideas or perspectives about *race* or anything else. These are categories in which you cannot venture.

You can take your own advice and admit if you want, but that doesn't seem like your style.

If I 'admit' to anything it is to being able to give myself the freedom to examine, first hand, any particular idea or theory. I think I have a stronger perspective than you do. Or one that is more flexible or perhaps simply broader than yours.

This is by choice on my part. Once, I was oriented more exclusively in one direction (more or less a typical liberalism if a descriptive word can be used) and then, reading contradicting material, my entire perspective changed. But, I have not concluded much really. This is both a strength and perhaps a weakness.

But I definitely resist and find fault with your *method*. As I say you merely bark.

[Dontaskme]

I had this thought: If they were to mate, in some preposterous love-encounter.

Ah, so it was you along who thought up the idea of a culture in the death throes of decadence. Own it, or shut up, foo!

You talk so much crap it's hard to tell one hole from the other.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You talk so much crap it's hard to tell one hole from the other.

But note: there is no talking, according to you, that is not eo ipso crap.

That is the sole assertion you communicate. There is no other.

You are one obsessed postmodern mind among stunningly obsessed company! Each with his own neurotic pattern.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't share any interest in racial integrity, purity or any notion of ethnic duty whatsoever, I find all such ideas pointless and silly. That's why I think only buffoons believe in things like replacement theories.

It does not matter what you personally think

Why did you edit out what I was replying to?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't share any interest in racial integrity, purity or any notion of ethnic duty whatsoever, I find all such ideas pointless and silly. That's why I think only buffoons believe in things like replacement theories.

It does not matter what you personally think

Why did you edit out what I was replying to?

You have been following the exchange, right? So why would I need to include that portion? Others, if they read at all closely, will do the same.

Was something lost as a result? Explain.

[FlashDangerpants]

It does not matter what you personally think

Why did you edit out what I was replying to?

You have been following the exchange, right? So why would I need to include that portion? Others, if they read at all closely, will do the same.

Was something lost as a result? Explain.

You recommended admitting to my limited vision, I did, that's what you got.

Now you can tell us your actual beliefs about holocaust denial or white replacement theory, or you can make self serving excuses for never doing so, but it's pointless to complain after making tht weak choice that it was unfair for others to draw conclusions based on your evasions.

[Gary Childress]

I take that's a "no", you're not going to answer my question?

You have so little clear idea why you thoroughly disgust me. You mindless, self-centered sick fuck. Get down here right now and I will tear you to utter shreds. It has become THAT SERIOUS!



(Said of course from a stance of love & kindness).

Why do I "disgust" you?

[Gary Childress]

All throughout what I have been writing, for months and months, has dealt in one way or another with my ideas about metaphysics. Did you not read?

Had you read and considered what I have said you’d know the answer.

Do you know, can you state — in paraphrase — why Dubious denies that the metaphysic is a ‘real’ category? Can you connect that denial with an atheist’s general stance?

I find you quite astute quite often, truth be told. You are much more thorough and have developed and structured presentations of your views, concerns, and preoccupations. For this reason I honestly think you could do your own research and you would not ask me a lazy man’s question.

You vould also examine any part of Evola’s thoughts on metaphysics and why the question is vital — for men living in ruins.

I take that's a "no", you're not going to answer my question?

Uwot has a way of describing philosophy as a story telling activity, it's a good enough way to think about it up to a point, after which it stops paying off. Jacobi's works are illustrative of this to an extent. Jacobi has a certain set of stories he likes, some are about racial integrity and duty to race, others are about heroism in the golden age before the downfall of man.

I'm not reading the rest of your post because I'm not as interested in whatever other conclusions you have, if that's what you have, however, I will agree that AJ is stuck on a certain set of stories and beliefs that seem to resonate most with him. THAT, is not necessarily his fault. He can only do what he is able to think and if he can't think of other things to do, then WE must HELP him. We ought not to abandon him. However, I will admit, you do your part by being who you are. You represet a part of the picture, a picture which I do not yet grasp completely. I will do my best to work with AJ, however, he gets mad with me at times and won't listen ot what I say or ask, so I'll just have to do what I can do.

You continue to do what you have to do. We'll all continue doing what we have to do until it either gets accomplished or it doesn't. If you want to know what picture I'm working toward, then its wholeness and unit for humanity. Humanity needs to be whole and unified in order to be the custodians of life on Earth. IF we cannot do that, then we LOOSE EVERYTHING. THAT IS NOT OK TO ME. I may never see wholeness and unity for humanity in my lifetime, however, I can only do what I can do. I will accept that. If you ask me why I'm doing that, then I couldn't tell you because I don't know if there is a God or something otherwise, or if we're just randomly bumping around in space and time or whatever. I only know what my mission is. If it's a "holy" mission, then good. If it is an "unholy" mission then that is bad. If it's an absurd mission, then that will mean I have failed.

WE MUST STOP THE WAR IN UKRAINE REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT TAKES TO STOP IT.

That is all that matters at this point in time.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why did you edit out what I was replying to?

You have been following the exchange, right? So why would I need to include that portion? Others, if they read at all closely, will do the same.

Was something lost as a result? Explain.

You recommended admitting to my limited vision, I did, that's what you got.

Now you can tell us your actual beliefs about holocaust denial or white replacement theory, or you can make self serving excuses for never doing so, but it's pointless to complain after making tht weak choice that it was unfair for others to draw conclusions based on your evasions.

Here you *come in for the kill*. You set this up from the beginning. I explained this clearly. You have illustrated precisely what I have been saying.

In my view there is something diseased in the way your mind works.