Donnadogsoth

Hope by Friedrich Schiller translated by William F. Wertz All people discuss it and dream on end Of better days that are coming, After a golden and prosperous end They are seen chasing and running The world grows old and grows young in turn, Yet doth man for betterment hope eterne. ’Tis hope delivers him into life, Round the frolicsome boy doth it flutter, The youth is lured by its magic rife, It won’t be interred with the elder; Though he ends in the coffin his weary lope, Yet upon that coffin he plants—his hope. It is no empty, fawning deceit, Begot in the brain of a jester, Proclaimed aloud in the heart it is: We are born for that which is better! And what the innermost voice conveys, The hoping spirit ne’er that betrays.

Religious Affiliation, Atheism and Suicide

The mentality Islam breeds is one of barely restrained violence, to be unleashed against anyone transgressing its social norms. Nicolai Sennels: Psychology: Why Islam creates monsters "The cultural and psychological cocktail of anger, low self-esteem, victim mentality, a willingness to be blindly guided by outer authorities, and an aggressive and discriminatory view toward non-Muslims, forced upon Muslims through pain, intimidation and mind-numbing repetitions of the Quran’s almost countless verses promoting hate and violence against non-Muslims, is the reason why Islam creates monsters."

1. But, look on the bright side, in video 1 - 0:46 he said "have a good day" at the end. 2. "We don't care if you believe it or not"--I think this is telling of the entire Islamic religio-ideology. It is about total political and cultural control; it doesn't matter if you "believe"...all that matters is if you "submit." 3. The sharia maniacs are filming their own activities. That should speak chapters about their confidence. 4. Listen to how they talk: they've got their ideology down, they know exactly what to do and what to to say to shut down their weak-willed opponents. 5. They've even got the soundtrack to their own activities, the ha-ra-ma-a-a-a-h kind of music with the sounds of rifle-fire in the background--how much more militaristic can you get? Very inspiring to disaffected Moslem youth (there seem to be a lot of those around). Formal Moslem armies probably don't even listen to music this militaristic. This is ISIS music. Invader music. Where's our soundtrack? Where is our confident ideology? Where are our patrols who say "have a good day" after rousting bellicose heathens? Where are our videos documenting these things? Does this seem good, safe, sane, and proper to you? Imagine you're a child in London, or Berlin, or anywhere this fungal growth has fastened. You'll grow up thinking it's normal to have bellicose heathens patrolling and reserving certain sections of your city. Basically you will live with the Mafia, with the idea the Mafia is normal and "not so bad". And you'll have been trained to hate your parents and your race and your religion, so you see these well-collected, assertive, aggressive, puritanical, believing people and there's a certain attraction to that--maybe not enough to persuade you they're right enough to join them--you like a tipple after all--but enough to get you to say in your mind, "They have a right to be here, and that's okay, I guess" and then they take over more, and more, and get their own Sharia courts, and then there are more of them than there are of you, and you find that the entire City is now a Sharia zone, and you go, "Whoops". Really, that's the end of Christianity, the White race, and European culture, right there, six letters, one syllable, like a toddler dumping the jellybeans in the toilet. The only consolation will be that the feminists will be eaten alive by their new Moslem masters, but they'll keep kicking White Men in the head until the very last moment, finding some way to blame them rather than blaming the Moslems. We can never blame the Moslems, we can never blame Islam. We can only blame ourselves. In the end, we have--"Whoops!"--gotten what we deserve.

Yes, prophet Leonard Cohen had it right. He never spelled it out, but his line is true. There is love in a red fire alarm on an elementary school wall. There is love in a firewall under your steering wheel. There is love in the cartridges in a policeman's sidearm. There is love in the water and sewer systems connected to your house. There is love in a shovel. There is love in a pen. There is love in your barber's shears. There is love in John Glenn's heart. Without love, everything would fall apart. The cities would burn. Only bitter circumstance and curdled will will drive out love, and yet even there it cannot be driven out. It only changes colour, turns hard, sour, into anger, resentment, anxiety, fear, envy, apathy. It cannot die in life, but if you lose hope you will find your hope becomes hope that you will die and put paid to your bitter love. Genesis says we are made in the image of God. John tells us God is love. A simple syllogism tells us that we must be love. That is why we bother to get up in the morning. That is why we do not put a gun in our mouth. Humans are love, they are made in love's image, they love each other implicitly, even though the world's injustice and toil twists our love into veiled or naked expressions of hate. But without love there would be no hate, for hate is thwarted love. The ant hates the intruder, only because it loves its nest.

1. Why do you care about defending the truth value of truths (for >4,000 posts)? Don't you have better things to do? 2. If saying "2+2=4," will not solve all problems, and if we wish to solve all problems, then we will have to look beyond 2+2=4, will we not? And if that's that case, and "2+2=4" really equals "People do not exist in different, opposing moral categories," then we should look beyond that to other truths, should we not?

Do you accept your own capacity for error? You seem pretty doctrinaire, nay fanatical in your beliefs. You seem to think the heavenly NAP will solve all problems, dismissing the need for...well you know it, even if you don't get it.

The question, why is there anything rather than nothing, is answered here. Briefly: nothing cannot be predicated (e.g., “nothing exists,” “nothing endures,” etc.), nothing cannot be generated (where did it come from?), and nothing cannot be indicated (point to nothing). Therefore there must not be nothing æternally. 1.Why does the æternal substance which is not absolute nothing, yet is not contingent something, equate to the Creator of the Universe? 2.Why can't it simply be other than the Creator? 3.And why can't there be more than one of these substances? 1. a. As per Leibniz, it is the nature of existence that every existing thing has a soul. This must be so for soul is the only substance possible; all experiences are “parts” (in a loose sense of the word) of the respective experiencing souls like projections on a screen. So, without souls, nothing would exist. Nothing is impossible, as shown above, so there must be something, whether contingent or æternal. Since contingent things cannot self-subsist, their origin must lie in the latter. Thus the nature of the æternal must be that it has an experiencing soul. b. Such a substance would be unbounded by space and time and all limitations which are things we perceive in the contingent world. Thus there would be no reason for it, as a soul, not to be perfect as we understand the direction of soulful perfection we see with our cognitive powers: supreme intellect, supreme potency (will+power), and a supreme emotional state (agapic love). These things combine to produce what could only be called a God. c. God would become a Creator only out of love, specifically the wish to share his love with creations capable of knowing him. Therefore the Universe was created specifically for man, who is made in God's image. 2. An æternal substance can't be other than the Creator because of the implications of being an æternal substance, cf. 1. 3. All such substances would have the same qualities and therefore according to the principle of identity of indiscernibles would be the same thing.

I think you actually work at not having any idea what I'm talking about.

Improvement is that which increases human society's power to exist. Persistence is a swimmer in a cold and choppy ocean continuing to not drown minute by minute. Improvement is climbing aboard a boat. I don't think so. Tyler's father is a fantasy dad appropriate to Tyler to help explain Tyler's upbringing, in a way that complements Nada's (I mean Norton's) upbringing and absent father.

Second Bill of Rights

Cf. On Killing by Lt. Col. Grossman Killing someone implants a memory that is trying to turn you into a different person. Killing face to face is the most powerful form of this. Do this kind of thing enough and you won't remember your childhood, your dreams, your hopes, beauty, truth, goodness. You'll turn into a stone killer who has lost all colour to his life aside from concentrated alcohol and disgusting sex. Don't kill people if you don't want their ghosts to haunt you, if you don't want to kill a part of you you'll regret is gone, until you've even forgotten the regret.

Would that make masturbation equivalent to brushing your teeth?

Touché! But, of course, many men seem to like this "covering up" and so pay attention to the women who do it, at least to some degree. It can't be an entire industry devoted to female vanity, with no male input, can it?

...include the privilege for the race to continue to exist? If so, then aren't the White Nationalists right? If not, then isn't the concept of White Privilege meaningless?

Thanks, I've heard of the first two, never the last two. Here's one to consider as well.

Can you name any exemplars of master morality in the 116 years since Nietzsche died?

The direction of the lie is interesting: women, by wearing makeup, are signalling that they are impossibly youthful (i.e., porelessness and wrinkleless, unblemished skin), and, with the rest of traditionally feminine accoutrements, aroused, fertile, wealthy, and healthy. It's a commanding package, really. Men signal health, arousal, virility, wealth, and status, but signaling youth is not as important, so there's less need, beyond metrosexual fads, for men to make themselves up.

According to businesswire.com, "The global Cosmetic market was 460 billion USD in 2014 and is estimated to reach 675 billion USD by 2020 growing at a rate of 6.4%. Of the cosmetic products, Skin care has the highest market share while Oral Cosmetics would be the fasted [sic] growing market during the forecasted period." Nearly half a trillion dollars. Annually, this is significantly more than how much the worldwide narcotics trade is worth, less but in the ballpark of how much the US spends on defense, somewhat less than how much the advertising industry is worth, and less than a third the worldwide automotive industry. I wonder what feminists make out of this. Do they think the cosmetics industry should cease to exist because it is a manifestation of the female response to the male gaze? Or do they think that it should diminish as women become empowered? Or via the perversity principle should it increase as women because more empowered? Or should half of the industry shift to serving men because as we all know men and women are psychologically identical and therefore should act, and coif, and primp, identically?

Not, "how do we know Jesus was God," or even "how do we know Jesus existed," but simply, does the implied epistemology of Jesus' words conflict in any way with the epistemology of the philosophers before, during, or after his time? Is there any cross-over between the two? Jesus described things in very simple terms. A "rich man" and Lazarus. A fig tree that won't bear fruit. A woman at a well drawing water. A man left for dead in a ditch. From these simple images he created teaching analogies, or parables. But, there's never any doubt that rich men, fig trees, and ditches exist, somewhere, and could exist, in the configurations he gives. There's never any doubt that humans might behave as he shows them behaving. His parables are all supremely plausible. So there's no question of "what if the world is a dream?" or "a father would never do that to his son," or "quantum randomness explains the Big Bang" or any common philosophical objection to the reality Jesus assumes. The subtext to all of Jesus' parables is just, “get real”. We're dealing with reality here, not Platonic forms, or multiverses, or determinism. The point I'm making with all this is that Jesus taught things that were morally relevant, not things that were metaphysically relevant. This is why it's hard to paint Jesus as a philosopher. He already knew everything, and was just teaching what was the most important. The rest could be figured out later by theologians and philosophers after him. Can anyone gainsay this? Is there any objection a philosopher has made to Jesus' mode of knowing as applied to others (not mode of knowing applied to himself), that sticks? Or is it as I surmise: that Jesus is concerned about moral reality and the bare minimum of theology and philosophy needed to convey that successfully, and is not concerned with the fluffy, airy “deep” questions that make so many thinkers philosophical basket-bases?

I'm hoping Germany is like those Topsy-Turvey dolls that have two upper bodies attached at the waist, so that when one is up, the other is down and covered by a skirt. Easily enough the doll is flipped so that the hidden lower doll becomes up and the up becomes down.

Cf. link given above.

I've already proven it, dsayers, you are merely unwilling to consider the proof. You're caught in the web of materialism and bestial logicality, which leads to your own degradation. You're an existentialist, really, and you have an idol like all existentialists do, you spell it N-A-P. This is what the oligarchs want. How will you break the spell that covers the world? Do you want to? If so, why?

If man is made in God's image, man's mind contains the sum of all knowledge. The only self improvement that matters is that which leads to immortality, which for our civilised purposes means to contribute to the advancement of civilisation, which is accomplished through the obtainment of principled knowledge only humans can obtain. Secondary improvements like being able to lift more, metabolise healthier, sum faster, etc., are worthwhile here to the degree they contribute to the primary goal of survival and human happiness.

As Pierre Beaudry said, “...the ruses of the gods of Olympus were all invented to make man impotent in order to reduce demographic growth, that is, reduce relative human population density. Of course, such ruses did not reflect creativity, because they were all based on the false underlying assumption that human beings are incapable of becoming immortals....” Lyndon LaRouche speaks of how people need to engage in "epistemological warfare" to wrest back reality from the oligarchs who view, and successfully treat, common men as cattle. The successful revolt against Olympus, against human impotence, relies on counterspells which allow us to become Dr. Strange, and which spells must be founded, ultimately, on the proper conception of what man is. This is, specifically, a being made in the cognitive image of God. Denial of this nature, is itself a product of spellcraft. People who think they are animals are ensorcelled. Their creative powers are bound and chained. They do not recognise universal principles or if they do those are fallacious principles. Yet it is these principles that are the gems of power, and our civilisation has storehouses full of them, lying unlocked, but the enemy wizards have placed a spell of illusion on them to make them look locked, or invisible entirely. Help me break the spells, open the treasurehouses, distribute the gems to their rightful owners.