-Another Orb sent down to us-
_WE ARE ORCS_
So I take it you don’t appreciate orbs
“WE ARE NIGGERS”
Yes, I see that.
-Another Orb sent down to us-
_WE ARE ORCS_
So I take it you don’t appreciate orbs
“WE ARE NIGGERS”
Yes, I see that.
They see philosophers killed, philosophers suffering, while trying to help the world, and they still do nothing, and only want us dead.
Here we see Lucifer selling toxins to keep the final realized conclusion in consciousness.
“Keep everyone mentally retarded because that’s the only way no one will ever recognize me as the Kike that I am.”
-Jewess takes the stage-
“We’ll be hiding that. Not because I’m similar to a black nigger.
Because of … some. other reason?”
You can call me Nick if you want honesty. Why do you hide that jews are similar to africans? Is there something the jews find that doesn’t make them feel proud?
Well, for whatever this “radio range”, you should trust in me, because I have .. who cares, just trust me.
Jews are not being honest with you, will shoot you, if you disagree with them.
Do you want to hear a wild idea? Myanmar. If we want Aryans to survive, the last Buddhist country is a good idea to me.
My Aryan Queen. And my aryan brother.
I do think my last opinion of this is that Myanmar is a way to escape from the jewish niggers.
Mister–Sir, I would call him Sir–Wyndham Lewis, is here in his late short stories satirizing the bombing of the English parliament, and how to break in with your bomb so you can plant it optimally- is that not a funny joke? Does that warrant federal agents reading this book of short stories of poor old Sir Lewis going blind and sipping champagne expressly delivered by T. S. Eliot?
Is this what the British say- “That’s a riot”? To me, that’s a riot.
At the end of his life, he wants to kill them.
I guess you could say I have a bias about authors and their “last testaments”. I just think this late book of stories by Lewis tells you something about his mature, well-thought observations of reality over many decades.
“the accent is good” – that is why I posted the quote, foremost.
How do you slip in the “parliament” to plant a bomb?
That’s the “allegory” of this story. As Lewis himself says, the formal parliament is not worth talking to.
Well, being similar in nature to Lewis, I’d say that being someone of your generation and knowing a lot about the past is one way to do this.
Note- the reason people ever read me is because they relate to me. I’m literally a fucking millennial. They can’t deny it.
I talk FOR them.
They’re the same as me.
I am 31 years old. If you are ten years older or ten years younger then you probably relate to things I say, even if you don’t want to admit it, for fear of “punishment”.
With that said, there are lots of millennials, and most of them don’t know much about the past ages of human history.
So you need both. You can talk to your time, and also not be one with your time.
So this isn’t a Ted K kinda thing here. His bombings prove that he didn’t have a relation with his generation. That was desperate to bomb them.
We more moderate “bombers” distance ourselves from our generation without physically bombing it.
By quoting Sir Lewis!
An aristocrat he snuck his way into the English parliament, or congress.
Because his “accent was good”.
I try not to gossip, but I also like to share things that make me laugh, since laughter is in scarce abundance these days- and I just had the thought that Shakespeare is closer to Jane Austen than he is to Aristotle.
I don’t know, that’s just a “stab in the gut” if you ask me- and I think it’s very true.
Euphemistically, we’ll just call it popular consumption vs. not.
Art is mostly for people who cannot escape the world of emotion.
I call the alternative to these, “spergs” usually, just to be modest. But these are people who are not trapped in the world of emotion, inescapably.
Shakespeare and Austen are voices for the “breeders and feeders” world.
Not to be rude–because if you know my last name and how I’m such a generic person of the Anglosphere myself–if you ever truly look into the face of a “prole”, or listen to the sound of their voice, you will see what I mean about breeders and feeders. Everything they say and everything they do in life is gauged toward food and sex.
Listen to their voices closely, and you will see.
They’re not “built” to be anything beyond that.
They’re looking for the pleasures of eating, pleasures of fucking, and with more “refined” ones, the pleasures of status.
That is their world. And for the most part, Shakespeare and Austen are the voices of the worldly ones.
This is the English “pride and joy” we’re speaking of here, the apple in the eye. Poets of worldliness.
You think they ever gave a rip about Bacon?
No, “the people’s poets” are their favorites.
Aristotle is not rocket science. People are intimidated by his name. Just force yourself to read him for 2 hours–DO IT–and then read anyone else in history, and you will see there’s been a significant drop since his time.
The progs want you to think that comparing Shakespeare with Austen is a compliment…
No, there’s a Chain of Being. And if you’re compared with Austen it could very well be an insult.
I like how this 9500 page complete works of Aristotle book is set up
Starts with logic, because you can’t “think” about anything without logic. It’s the prerequisite OF prerequisites.
In the light of this ordering, today’s physicists just memorize dogmas (assuming they don’t take courses in inductive and deductive logic). I don’t count pure math as that either, because you can’t reason about what physics itself is with pure math- that’s called the philosophy of physics, or the logic of physics, since, as we see above, ur-philosophy began with logic.
Kind of funny really how redundant the word “philosophy” is. Love of logic? Why not just call it logic? No, no, we love logic so much we just have to say we love logic, it can’t only be logic.
It makes sense though, if you remember my writings on eros. Philosophy is eros about logos. Typical physicists tend to have only a “lust” for logos. REAL eros for logos is philosophy.
Alright, let’s see what’s next in this collection
Christ, Aristotle, are you obsessed with animals or something!
Oh man, I’m realizing I’m similar in talking about “rabble” and such all the time. The physics of the rabble. No one explains Aristotle’s physics better than Heidegger- I urgently urge you to re-read my little sum-up of his writings on that. Ur-physics is not what you think it is.
They all just want you to “die like a dog” if you attain to certain levels of awareness, it’s too hilarious.
You let me die too many times, so why would I think you care about the eros for logos?
Eh, my monocle is only worn for show–it’s clear–and maybe you have 20/20 vision too, and don’t wear yours because you know what happens when you wear it in public.
What you don’t understand is that SO MUCH knowledge, so much logos, is uploaded into your brain when you experience the physics of the rabble’s reaction to you wearing it. You don’t even know the half of what is uploaded into your brain about physics.
The ones who don’t wear it are seen to be part of “them”
They’re not just pretending, or playing a role. You can trust me about this observation or not. I earned it through hard suffering. They’re not pretending. They’re part of them.
“So what ‘friends’ do you think you’re speaking to then?” I don’t think I’m speaking to friends!
This is, as always, a loogey I hock in the face of a bolshevik through my cell bars. Enjoy.
So, continuing to take a look at this collection-
That’s how it ends.
It’s built on logic and physics.
The rules of reasoning, first. Then, the rules of the cosmos. Then, the rules of the outward humans, and the outward animals.
From there we move to the “ensouled” ones and study the logic and physics of the inner-self.
There’s no “guru” that’s ever going to beat Aristotle. His system is pristine and breathtaking.
Okay, Heidegger on Aristotle’s Rhetoric is better than Aristotle’s Rhetoric. There ARE some exceptions like this.
Aristotle can’t talk about God or the divine like Aquinas does. Aristotle was steeped in that pagan, olympic stupidity- he couldn’t help it.
By the way, both Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, and the Jews, formulated “monotheism”. Aristotle was just too close to the source to be able to do what Aquinas did. Aquinas lived over a millenium and a half after monotheism was introduced. Technically, monotheism (worship of the One) began with Parmenides, who was writing about a century before Aristotle was born. Aristotle is one with the Parmenidean current, he’s just not on the level of Aquinas in this department.
Carrying on though, what else do I find interesting about the way that collection is arranged?
Let’s look at the last part again
All the people in numbnuts “normie” world are always talking about ethics and politics and art. Do they ever study logic or physics or biology or any of that?
So we see from this Greek that they begin the “series” in the sixth installment. They don’t know what the “plot” is. They missed the first five seasons!
Now they want to tell us what they think about ethics and politics, season 6, after not watching the first 5 seasons.
Huh, you kind of have to doubt their opinion, they seem rather ignorant about this show we call human existence.
Beat the fourth Uncharted, and I do have to say it is better than Treasure Island. “I bet that’s not the only thing you ‘beat’.” What’s it to you?
I went on to sample the most widely acclaimed game from this studio though and it seems made for retards. Every level I’m just hoping it’s over soon. This is Last of Us.
This is a “populist” game, that’s why it’s so popular. Oh does that infuriate certain of my blessed readers?
Games that continue to stick out to me are the BioShock series (beginning with System Shock 2), L.A. Noire, and the “pirate game” Black Flag.
I will keep updating you about this, because I see this as the future of Art.
The dam was broken and all the stagnant garbage water flowed through- that’s the state of video games today.
The state of many things today.
“Why don’t you try to help the one you find ‘special’ to navigate that?” She has millions of dollars, it isn’t my responsibility
ANY of the stupid hoes could found a non-institutional academy that isn’t affiliated with any of this.
But they’re stupid hoes, so they won’t do anything productive.
“You’re the male version of a gold-digger.” Not at all. I’m the true version of a Marine if anything.
The stupid hoes acquired their money through misdeeds so they should pay it back by attempting projects that are against all odds.
No one is ever going to hold them accountable, so they don’t care. Anyone who knows they’re on a kike-level of immorality will be ushered away from public discourse.
Ah, so the best kind
The hero of Stendhal’s novel “The Red and the Black” Julien Sorel, after reading the writings of the English philosopher [Hobbes], said bitterly: “This philosophy, perhaps correct, inspires a desire to die.”
I take it as symptomatic that the two most towering titans of political philosophy of the 20th century, Strauss and Schmitt, both wrote a standalone text on Hobbes. This is the only figure that both of them wrote a whole book on.
Hobbes published his magnum opus only about a couple years after Charles I was executed. He was on the side of the royalists. Locke was about 20 years old when Hobbes wrote this. The American Founders took the Saxon Roundhead path of Locke in formulating the Constitution, Declaration, and etc.–and here we are.
Hobbes was the first “political scientist” proper, in the technical sense of being an avid follower of the chief theoretician of the Scientific Revolution, Bacon. He saw the knowledge of politics as part of the nature that needed to be dominated.
Hobbes was also one of these people I’m fond of speaking of who had a close connection with antiquity- when he was 14 he translated Euripides from Greek to Latin. When you acquire a somewhat clear view of the ancients, the ideas that Americans tend to believe cease to appear so bulletproof. I remember learning Locke in MIDDLE SCHOOL. Of course they never called it “Lockean”–the teachers themselves probably weren’t even aware–but any of the talk about “separation of powers” derives from Locke. He is the theorist behind why we have a senate and a house of representatives. The telos of Locke is to be ruled by mudpeople. If our Founders had gone with Hobbes instead America would not have this problem today.
If you are squeamish about racism and sexism, just think of it as white plebs in power. That’s part of it anyway. All part of the same mud swirl of anti-reason and brainlessness.
If we wanted to, we could keep turning back the clock even further-
Hobbes lived in a transitional era, and in his views aristocratic, bourgeois and popular elements were closely intertwined.
We’ve seen that this is also true of Shakespeare, who died when Hobbes was 28.
Bourgeois and popular elements are completely lacking in someone like Aristotle.
Like I’ve said, one of my prominent “personas” is of an Englishman- and we’re just very self-deprecating. I’ll burn England to the ground and it will be funny to me.
My point here is that we Americans of today are the “clones” of the old English in significant ways, and they had their high points and their low points–and we can choose to emulate one or the other.
Try reading Aristotle’s Politics and Hobbes’s Leviathan back to back- I find that there is a higher level of realism in Aristotle- so much so that it might make you puke.
Aristotle is more timeless than this
most of the analyzed [scholars] seemed to be distinguished by their desire to connect Hobbes with his era
Scholars are always trying to do this with Aristotle, but I argue that this is largely coping. Our academics are cladistic Lockeans, and Locke was farther from realism than Hobbes.
“Aristotle was a man of his time.” No, he was just right, and you can’t accept it.
They’re the very “slave natures” that he discusses, so I wonder why they can’t accept that he’s right?
“I knew you were going to circle back to that! I hate you!” So sawwwwwwy.
Anyway, something dark to understand about the political context of Hobbes’s England is that… Charles kind of ummm deserved it? So really it was a lose/lose for the English. And now, for the whole world.
The King was bad, the Revolution was bad. Charles was a sham-king as Carlyle calls them. And Cromwell’s revolution was a sham-revolution.
Now today we have a congress of shams and sham-jewry ruling a citizenry that is in an eternal sham-revolution.
This didn’t start with our “Founders”- they didn’t “found” anything in a sense, since they didn’t innovate much from what already had taken place in England.
Carrying on though, Hobbes always reminds me of George Costanza saying “You know we’re living in a SOCIETY!” So if you enjoy learning what society really is you’d appreciate Hobbes.
A Russian sees why I choose to speak of Hobbes
the chronology of the English Renaissance. Let us only note that it was wholly “late” and its highest ascent – Shakespeare, Bacon and Hobbes – act as “epigons” against the background of pan-European intellectual shifts.
Artist, scientist, philosopher, boom boom boom. You need all three for a genuine Renaissance.
Not like Lockean Americans care anything about that!
Ah man, now I’m imagining an artist-version of Elista… I doubt one exists. The Bolsheviks made sure to wipe out any possibility of this.
Here is why I find Hobbes important for “us” though
He justifies the pathos of distance necessary for optimal performance in the royal art.
Fixing the country would require a ruler who was not influenced by the degenerate masses in any way.
Do I expect this to happen? Hell no, you know I’m a total pessimist. I only formulate IDEALS here, and show you who the best formulators of them are.
The last decade of observing (and being part of) contemporary politics has led me to conclude that living quietly away from it all is probably preferable to diving right into the maelstrom. The forces we see in motion today more and more seem to follow laws of necessity put in place many centuries ago. Still, we can dream, we can formulate ideals.
I just think we belong together…
You could never truly be happy without–excuse my french–my “seed” swimming around inside you.
“The idea of you feigning contentment”
Mr. Dugin, HERR Dugin, Air Dugin, if you catch the basketball reference here that we do in America
Notice the archetype you match with here
Don’t think my memory escapes me, I know well that you see Aristotle as a type of evil revolving around Plato.
I feel I am addressing “the Byzantines” at large when I speak to you, am I wrong?
So what does that leave us “in the civilized world”? Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans.
Satan has crept into all four of them… I would have to say.
Or Satan was hidden at the root of all four of them.
If Russia is conquered your men will be murdered and your women will be raped, such is the reality of war.
So we should determine the dynamics of these faiths to prevent that.
The Greco-Roman spirit did not cease in antiquity. It was followed in NW Europe, if to devastating results.
The Slavic peoples were not as inclined toward the ancient world.
This explains why “WASPish-spirited” America hates Russia.
I myself do not hate Russia because I see that they are more similar to the Old Ideal than America is now.
Something to ask yourself, Herr Dugin- why does this further-western strain of the kike virus despise the Russians so much?
It’s because the Tsars went away some 250 years after the English kings were beheaded.
The regime makes the man.
In a democratic, rabble-controlled regime you will only produce worthless niggers, as is the case of England and the US the last couple few hundred years.
My much-esteemed, white-haired Aleksandr Gelyevich, what is pertinent to you during this chaos-engulfing time, is to apply your powers of intellect to the English Revolution. What is happening in Ukraine? Who cares? It all goes back to Cromwell and Charles, and the Normans and Saxons. Only YOU have the mind to write such a history.
A Philosopher’s role isn’t to be a journalist, so I expect this angelic nature to unfold from such a Byzantine as Dugin.
Why if it isn’t one of my dear “shithole-country deservers” (whom I usually refer to as my “readers”)
Yes, “meanness” and Geburah are overlapping.
Why when I finally more or less ghost this place people start talking to me?
If I made a documentary about my time on the internet no one would believe it who hasn’t closely followed me the last 7 years or so.
Unspoken agreement to redact, as if in a harmony that is psychic. (Millions of people on an unspoken wave-length at once.) Among other things.
Waaal you know, this is the New Age, and reincarnations from the old times are perceived as lower than a beast.
Chomping on roasted human hamhocks, held by the bone, rude spit flecks flying all over amid boisterous mockery, must not be something that is approved of these days.
So, people don’t usually talk to me directly so I meditate on what they say more than most things, and you’re probably right that I’m mean, not in a wholly good way.
The various shades of golem that visit here have a type of stockholm syndrome and ideally they’d be treated more gently as if one were treating a child or teenager.
The only bioleninist I have any respect for is women, and I’ve been beginning to accept that the relation between the sexes necessarily involves deception and concealment.
It was just my “Enlightenment cladistics” showing to have talked to them the same way I’d talk to a (Norman) male.
They probably DID feel at times as if they were in an Islamic country. That’s because Muslims tend to have a more realistic understanding of the relation between the sexes than the west does. Not saying they’re perfect, it’s just closer to realistic in my opinion.
For instance, we have the impulse-control to not need the use of hijabs, and so more beauty is able to be seen in public here. And the women are less slavelike here than the dunecoon version and more catty, because we can tolerate higher levels of cattiness (and so less personal dogmatism). But the downside is that no hijab leads to encroaching whoredom and cattiness quickly lapses into shrewery.
Oh shit, I’m doing it again- see, the above is not an example of the “concealment” I endorsed above. This is a conversation that should only be had with (non-jewish) men (which is a redundancy).
Men have virtue, jews do not have virtue- so follow the syllogism.
Yeah but you’re right that I’m a “meanie”, and so I’m trying to reform my ways of brutality and respect women more, so I’ve been checking out Jane Austen’s lesser-known novels. It’s tough to disrespect women when you read Austen, because throughout it’s palpable she’s a better writer than you’ll ever be.
Still, I have many critiques of her.
Probably the greatest woman in history though, if you ask me.
There are different standards to judge this by.
Well she’s not the prettiest
Off-the-reservationly speaking, isn’t that the central criteria for judging a woman, even in our enlightened age?
She’s usually spoken of as a “woman novelist”. On the other hand, Uncle Ez recommends her as one of the best novelists and doesn’t even mention that she’s a woman. And I think I agree with his temperament to do that.
Something I read Wyndham saying the other day has stuck in my mind- that women are “sexual phenomena”. This is one of those things which, when you see it, you can’t UNSEE it.
DOES Austen escape this charge? No, I don’t think she does.
While she WAS part of a what we call “prudish” time, her novels revolve around courtship, so sex is implied.
While a man writes a treatise on epistemology, virtually every woman brings “pairing” into her thoughts.
While this is probably seen as insulting, I really am trying to help women “emancipate themselves” from the shackle of being the Robin to Batman. Ironically, that’s because I’d think they’d be sexier that way. So there truly IS NO escape for them, in a sense.
To put in a crude way, women are the ones who are fucked.
If that was me, I would not want to be that.
So I concede that I am following the enlightenment-era Kant in this. Though this was in the European air even before Socrates.
Why do you think every single culture in history has had men and women and not just one gender? It must be because they liked the arrangement.
I personally don’t like “dumb cunts” very much, which is why I’m spotlighting Austen here. So I think there’s some kind of wiggle room in between this “iron law” of the division of the sexes.
Austen reveals a lot about the primitive unconscious of woman, I think.
She’s totally status-obsessed, all thoughts revolving around marrying-up and marrying-down.
It’s a common misconception to say her novels are about the romances of the aristocracy. They’re mostly about the “landed lords” who are a few ranks below the monarchy, and a couple below the aristocracy- they just seem like aristocrats in our time, because we live after a few Regressions of the Castes since then.
Similar to Byron, she’s a Napoleonic Age writer. She was born a year before the American Revolution. She herself was born into a family of lesser landed lords, which probably explains her acute (and cute) obsessions.
The novel that probably inspired her the most was Richardson’s Pamela, which is about a servant girl who tries to resist her master’s flirtations and eventually marries him.
So, from off the reservation, she clearly IS a “woman novelist”.
Women are part of life though, it seems to be an iron law of sorts that they are.
So in that sense she’s not merely a woman novelist.
The King of England of her time even requested from her that she dedicate her next novel to him. He was an avid reader of hers. So she ascended the castes in a spiritual sense, if not in a physical sense (she died a spinster without children).
That book she dedicated to him was Emma, the only one of her novels titled after a female character, so we can assume that it’s more about a woman’s perspective, less than a woman in a man’s world perspective. (In letters we see that she hated that King.)
In fact, a prominent theme throughout her novels is the critique of the higher-classes of 19th century England.
Let’s not get carried away though- what does it tell you that a “nazi monster” like me admires her?
Certainly she’s “artificially boosted” higher into the canon because of the sheer fact that she’s a woman. On the other hand! she’d be talked about a lot more if she weren’t such a “Neoplatonist”.
I’m not a Nazi, I’m a Neoplatonist. Please jot that down somewhere.
Up and down, high and low, better and worse, noble and base- these are things I ardently believe in and perceive in reality.
So Austen’s caste-obsessions render her an “Atlantean” of my pantheon.
No, she’s not the prettiest, and no, she couldn’t pass the BECHDEL TEST to save her life! but I see her as one of the “noblest” women to have lived.
Why is that? Because she’s a good writer.
You can have pretty eyes and be a bad writer. Being a good writer is a higher form of having pretty eyes.
This is why I don’t think much of supermodels or actresses as the “alpha females” of culture (as the multitude does for the most part). No, you need to show that you possess a subjectivity, and can’t just read lines someone else wrote for you or flash your cleavage.
Every woman in history is a “basic bitch” compared to Jane Austen. I was learning about her close relationship with her sister earlier, and thinking “Damn, it would be so eugenic to even (no, not “breed”, calling it breeding is “creepy”) TALK with her sister.
To give you a picture of “hellworld” today, Austen fantasized about ascending to a caste that was two removes from the typical kike. The lesser landed gentry she was part of saw themselves as above the “merchants”. This is when the English were still sane. Though, we see in her contempoary Byron the symptoms of frivolity setting in.
While I’m on Skid Row myself, and some would probably argue that I can’t fathom the true nature of Austen for that reason, it is my perspective that people who understand the old aristocrats and dare to show that they do in public are systematically pushed down to this level, and it’s a sign that we are what we are that we voluntarily take on such a burden.
Anyway, speaking in 2023-terms, I mostly see Austen as representing a noble alternative to millennial hook-up culture.
The “caste-system” never went away, it was just rearranged to be somewhat upside-down. In Austen you see beautifully crafted portraits of true gentlemen and fine ladies. And you can use this as a contrast to know the plastic and artificial posers for lack of a better word, in our time.
As for the decadence of Austen’s England- my highest suggestion to women is to… read the ancient Greeks. Start from the beginning with the Iliad (which is pretty slow), only because it allows you to better appreciate the Odyssey. To grasp the whole mythoplex of the Greeks you need to read the Iliad. From there, the Tragedies, the Comedies, Plato, and Aristotle. Austen herself was between the Neoclassical and Romantic periods of literature, so you see strong traces of the Greeks in her too. Just if you want a well-rounded, lady’s education.
See, I’m not a “meanie”, fuck off.