Search the Community

I was watching a video this morning. It was the live stream between millennium woes and Faith Goldy. They were talking about identity politic and preserving the western world. They also talked about preserving the white race. This reminded me of this issue that I have been thinking about for a while. I was thinking of how to preserve the west, where will my children grow and under what system, I was thinking of freedom and migration. So if you want, sit down and listen to what I have to say for a while =). Let me start with my political history. When I was young, I was indoctrinated by the communist party. This indoctrination would, in the long run, changed me into a certified sociopath. By looking at what we were proposing and the real world, I realized that this political system was complete crap and I left it (no pun intended). Then for many years, I believed that politic was complete bullshit; that it did not work; that no government had any possibility of working and that it was a waste of time. Then came the migrant crisis and Brexit. I really believe in Nigel Farage. I started to advocate strongly on the net for his cause. I read all I could about conservatism and Churchill. I made hundreds if not thousands of debates online to promote Brexit. Then came Trump. GOD I LOVE THIS MAN =). I started advocating for him and felt a huge sentiment of accomplishment when he won the election. I then joined the Canadian conservative party. Met some pretty good people. But when I saw the results of the leadership race, I lost faith in them. I then came across books about libertarianism. I read some John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, David Boaz, Thomas Paine, learned more about Jefferson and so on. As a scientist, I have to try to drill has many holes in a hypothesis and then see if it still floats. If it does, I must accept it until some other hypothesis disproves it. And so far, I have not found a single situation that cannot be solved with the libertarian way of thinking. Now I look back at conservatism with a libertarian lens and I now realize that there is something terribly wrong with the conservative principals. If you want to preserve this society, you will have no other choice but to impose legislation, enforced by the power of the state, to prevent any change. You will try to prevent any change in culture, any change in demographic. You will create a huge coercive force and your civilization will die out because people wont want to invest themselves in such an oppressive regime. The right is the same thing as the left. They will both use the state to impose their will on the people. To find a solution, we have to go off the beaten path. Stefan is right when he says that the real enemy is the welfare state. But even if we build a wall and stop migrants from coming in, men are still oppressed inside our borders. Men are treated as disposable commodities that are made to be used, despised and discarded. Every minute, we men, spend under this oppression is unacceptable. But if we stop 3rd world migration, rebuild the economy and save our culture, the very next morning men will still be exploited. T he real solution is to bring the entire house of cards down. As quickly and dramatically as possible so that no government could adapt. Before we do that, we need to stock up on goods, gold, weapons, commodities. We need to build communities and so on. We need to preserve the seed with which to rebuild after the collapse. We could expect a decade or so of chaos, but afterward we can build a system based on merits, free market, non aggression and so on. And it is not hard to bring this house of card down. we only have to stop pushing against the storm and start pushing in the other direction. We could create 50 millions genders: fish gender, pokemon gender... Demand for the most absurd classes be thought in academia. Why arent they teaching Kpop dancing in University RACISM!!! why are they not teaching navajo literature RACISM!!!! call the SJW racist because they do not acknowledge your frog gender. Ask for the most absurd project. Like a bridge that leads from Greece to Egypt. And every time the government tried to back out of it: RACISM!!!!! The western government have removed every mechanisms to fight back against those accusations. So they will have no choice but to comply. And dont worry, once this socialist gynocentric world goes off in flames. We will feel relieved and free for the first time in our lives.

I have recently had the great joy of watching, and pondering, a lecture by Swami Sarvapriyananda about an understanding of the "self", according to the Vedanta - a philosophical stream in the Hinduist religious tradition, based on philosophical teachings and texts. I am not, myself, a Hindu, Vedanti, or religious person. A [ridiculously short] summary of his arguments, from my understanding, is: 1) The knower and the known are separate. I am aware of my experiences, but I am not them [strictly], because I observe them. 2) The knower, in this case - my consciousness (self), is unknown. We have no means of observing it, separately, neither practically nor logically. I am the knower, so I can only experience myself, but not observe myself as an object. 3) The knower, this witness to experiences, is the same thing in all living beings and existence. Instead of turning us into metaphysical abstracts, this conclusion actually infers that we are all the projections of the same core thing, like many dreams inside one mind, and thus everything is undivided in nature. 4) Realizing this knowledge, both intellectually and experientially, means we can act out of wisdom, rather than out of ignorance. We don't mistake experiences to be our entire identity; I am not [only] my feelings. What do you guys and gals think about this? Disclaimer: I actually watched his much longer double lecture (Part 1, Part 2) about this, before this short video. There he goers into much detail, with examples on the board (written), so I highly recommend it, if you find these notions worth thinking about.

My thoughts are that it is the job of parents to shape the identity of there children and if that is the case then the family truly is the biggest influence on a persons identity. If a carer is not active in the persons childhood then culture and peers will shape the persons identity. Culture is a constant, so if parents decide to not be active then generally depending on where they are situated they will be blended into that. What are some ideas? I am doing an essay tomorrow for English about this. Some of my ideas and questions: Is identity formed only in childhood? If the parents are not active and culture creates the identity of the child is family still the biggest influence because it was there decision to not be active? Without relationships, identity doesn't exist What is learned from family? Such as empathy etc... Are factors like language and knowledge from the outside world for work or whatever important concerning our identity? Thank you so much! Sorry, is it possible to move this to self knowledge?

On the podcast I heard: http://www.fdrpodcast.com/ Which is wrong. It's actually: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/ It's an easy mistake, so you'd probably take interest in having the former domain, as well, to direct to your new application. Cheers.

Howdy, everyone! Just wanted to introduce myself and two of my major philosophical interests, hoping to get some feedback and discussion going. I'm on the west coast of Canada, have formally studied philosophy in university as an undergraduate (Minor in Philosophy - diverse coursework in the philosophy of: ancient Greeks, Medievals, ethics, politics, religion/metaphysics, art/literature), and am a Roman Catholic. Two of my major interests, at present are explored in these posts by me on my writings blog: "The Gay Identity Today" - basically, that most people get the concept of "gay" wrong, classifying it in the same character trait categories as gender or race... it is different, there are psycho-sexual issues, cultural identity-issues, and political issues at play, and that changes the discussion in a big way. "Exploring the Legitimacy of Society, Alternate Societies, Religions, Cults, and Antagonistic Subcultures –draft–" -- my brain-storming page, a post-in-progress, but basically I am trying to explore the difference between primary society (i.e. - the state) and alternative societies (e.g. - the mafia, religions, cult communities, etc.) and the compared moral legitimacy of them. Philosophically, I am also interested in and trying to explore the topics of: morality's role in state legislation (e.g. - should all vices be criminalized?), the myth of the secular and religion vs. ideology, Canadian politics, global politics, business, culture (the non-formal public sphere), and society (the formal/political/legal public sphere). One major issue that I think affects modern morality discourses today is the use of the Rights framework, and I think it is a horrible language for talking about morality, because it is a haphazard and incomplete moral theory... I explored this topic here: "The Errors of 'Rights' and Political Religions" Anyway, that's a good start for what I am interested to engage with here... feel free to message me, or suggest threads that I should check-out... if you're on the west-coast, let's grab a coffee and pick a topic! Cheers!

I don't know if any of you watch "Misfits," but I just made a video where I analyze Rudy, a character who displays the complexity and multiplicity of human personality.