Stigma

about a year ago  The Thunderdome

@Chaddeus_Rex

So that’s a no then.

Your perception is nullified by your very own adoption of an ideology that lectured you on how to broaden your perception. You have bought into a new form of dogma and replaced the concept of God with the overman and you fail to see how you worship at a new altar.

Everything I need to transcend modernity and hedonism and become the superior man has been handed down to me through generations of successful ancestors, and I’m not going to turn my back on that in a pseudo-attempt to appear superior to manlets on the internet.

Have a good one, dude.

Chaddeus_Rex

about a year ago  The Thunderdome

@Stigma

Im not presenting my opinion as fact, because if you actually read Nietszche you would know that what I said was what he literally wrote in his works.

Your premise is wrong because it misuses the terms. If you misuse the terms they cease to have meaning. The terms were explicitly defined by their inventors (Nietszche and Evola) meaning that your argument doesnt make any sense.

One cannot conflate the idea of the Overman with Christian values because the Overman is defined IN OPPOSITION to Christianity. Furthermore, as Nietzsche shows Christianity and Christians cannot be viewed independently as the Christian Ressentiment created Christianity in an attempt to reverse the original definitions of "good" and "bad".

The Overman cannot be reached through different aspects of the soul (whatever that means), because it can only be reached through the Will to Power.

Finally, you cannot "agree" or "disagree" with Evola or Nietszche, because you do not have the authority to do so. Why? Because you have not read the material and have not understood it. How do I know? Because you demonstrate a gross misuse and misunderstanding of what the terms you are using mean (LOL @ thinking that the Will to Power can be achieved through the Slave morality of Christianity).

Read More

Stigma

about a year ago  The Thunderdome

@Chaddeus_Rex

You are presenting your opinion and ideology as fact, as if you impose the argument you are making as an inherent truth. I presented you with the counter-argument to what aspects of Christianity are corrupt, rather than the ideology itself, which you have rejected from a place of denial within your own ideology. How can we form a basic discourse around these matters when you can’t see out of your own trench?

You can’t keep relying on telling me what I have or haven’t read (as again, you present this as fact and you are quite incorrect) as a way to say ‘I won’ as it once again makes this discourse redundant as you stare at your feet in your own trench.

I presented you with the idea that the overman can be met from different aspects of the soul - which is the formulation of my argument - and you disagree (which is your right) but then you tell me the only reason I don’t agree is because I haven’t read the material. I have read the material, and I disagree. If we can move on from your infantile and incorrect point we might move this discussion along - if you cannot, please refrain from bothering any further.

Read More

Chaddeus_Rex

about a year ago  The Thunderdome

@Stigma

It seems you have not read Evola and Nietszche judging by your misunderstanding and broad use of terms.

Nietszche had a specific definition of the Overman. In Ecce Homo he states, "The word Übermensch [designates] a type of supreme achievement, as opposed to 'modern' men, 'good' men, Christians, and other nihilists ... ". The Overman is defined in Opposition to Christianity - as Nietszche views Christianity as a reversal of power structures, rather than pursuing strength and nobility (aristocratic warrior virtues) it teaches ressentiment against this as the weak and powerless have a venomous hatred against the strong and convince themselves they will vanquish the strong in the afterlife. According to Nietszches own definition of the Overman - Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha cannot be the Overman as they do not represent the Master Morality. Instead they seek to overturn the belief of the strong deciding and replace it with "the weak decide". In contrast, Socrates and Marcus Aurelius were both warriors who taught Master Morality and believed that "good lies with the strong".

Again you clearly have not read Nietszche - Christianity itself is a corrupt ideology - it was an attempted of revolt of the disenfranchised members of the Roman Empire who hated the nobility and strength that Rome propogated and instead said that all that is noble and good (strength and pursuing the Will to Power) is "evil" and all that is base and evil and craven (weakness and meekness) is "good" - this is known as ressentiment.

Go do your readings and stop trying to debate because you clearly gavent done your homework. Gaylubeoil has banned you for a reason it seems

Read More

Stigma

about a year ago  The Thunderdome

@Chaddeus_Rex

To be an 'Aristocrat of the soul' could be exampled by various icons who have developed themselves from within. Jesus, Ghandi, Buddha, Mohammed, Marcus Aurelius, Socrates - the list goes on. In their own ways, each of these individuals represent the overman in one form or another, and yet, each of them would hotly debate what tradition means to them. Tradition is too amorphous, too intangible to be a deciding factor in any kind of transcendental moment for the soul.

Our very needs as individuals are distilled through religious ideology via the Ten Commandments, as an example. I won't go through them all, but the need to live and continue living is met by 'Thou shalt not murder' and the need to commit and be committed to is met by 'Thou shalt not commit adultery.' The need for your own belongings to be yours and only yours is shared amongst the community by 'Thou shalt not steal.' The ideology itself is not corrupt, it is individuals who subvert and infect the ideology that twist it to their own will. The Church as an establishment is a disgrace to my religious ideology and has claimed for itself what we should give to others and ourselves. That is not the ideology, that is the poison spreading from within.

The Abrahamic idea of Good vs Bad is far from a rejection of power, it is a challenge to the ideologies followers to realise their own capacity for the strength to be good and the weakness to be bad. Navigating between the two is where you build your strength and integrity, developing yourself from within to find your route to becoming the overman. The polarity between good and bad is what keeps us from sleepwalking into nihilism and destruction of our souls.

Read More

Stigma

about a year ago  The Thunderdome

@LeashedDoggie

'I has nussing to say, goodbye!'

Lets say you did 'provide a frame' - I structured my reply around that frame so that you understand the point I am making via the way you structured your reply. That in itself isn't a complicated narrative to follow. Though, you seem to have become an armchair psychoanalyst in the interim between replies.

Here is the regressive nature I pointed out in another reply - when you run out of arguments or points to make, you make a penis joke which shows your capability to hold your own frame when you disagree with someone. Somehow, however, this makes you feel superior - maybe because you're virtue signalling yourself that 'I could engage with him, but I am going to pretend I am too good to do so.'

Then you arbitrarily decide where the conversation ends because you can't keep it up.

This place is barren, radicalised and about as mature as a kindergarten playground. It might help some of you to revisit the core tenets of TRP in the near future to reacquaint yourselves with reality. Or don't.

Read More

LeashedDoggie

about a year ago  The Thunderdome

@Stigma

I provided you with a frame.

You fully interpolated yourself onto that frame to the point you are now seeing it as a pillar (subconscious misnomer for penis). "muh shiny polished pillar is Christiain tradishun huehuehue"

The pseudo intellectual strawmen you threw at me which are basically even more of your personal challenges that you want other people to solve for you I will let you solve yourself for yourself through good intellectual labour.

This is the point where our dialogue ends.

Stigma

about a year ago  The Thunderdome

@LeashedDoggie

The problem I encounter with your text is that you start off by taking bits of it, attaching your assumptions to the bits of my text you have taken and then 404 into the same tasteless conclusion any other non-reader would default to.

Unfortunately, it is becoming apparent that I think you are guilty of this and you think I am guilty of this.

Instead, I insisted that learning about your tradition and history and your culture provides you with a solid basis, a starting point from where you can develop yourself. A beginning from where you can chart an ending, a goal.

My cultures tradition is Christianity, it is serving the court, the king, the church, the state, the country, the ideology, Him. I am aware of the limitations of this ideology and tradition, but I am also aware of the solid basis that this offers me as a man. This is a beginning from where I might chart my goal. As a tradition, Christianity is more than a system of religious belief.

There is no cycle of choosing a box for myself, this is my box. This is my tradition. This is the pillar on which my ancestors raised with their shoulders and passed on to me to hold up, that is my duty. Nihilism and other ideologies would move me from my duty left to me, and the pillar would fall - this is how and why modernity and loss of tradition has become so rampant. We have moved from our traditions and our duties.

You're trying to tell me that imbuing my Christianity with new ideas is weakening my ideology and tainting my tradition. I disagree, I know within myself and my convictions that it is strengthening myself and how I move through life. The onus would be on you to disprove that fact, instead of declaring the opposite as fact.

You argument then begins to devolve into what things mean to me, rather than what they mean to you, which is what I would rather find out, so I won't address those points.

Read More

LeashedDoggie

about a year ago  The Thunderdome

@Stigma

The problem that I encounter with this idea is the handing down of a doctrine, true or not, from generation to generation. Unquestioningly following the ideas of your ancestors, unmoved by the changing of the tides. 'We were always at war with Eurasia.' I do not deny the sense of purpose that tradition would allow for within your community, but I do have to question the lack of developmental thought.

The problem I encounter with your text is that you start off by taking bits of it, attaching your assumptions to the bits of my text you have taken and then 404 into the same tasteless conclusion any other non-reader would default to. Nowhere in my text did I claim you have to perceive your tradition as doctrine one has to unquestioningly abide to. Instead, I insisted that learning about your tradition and history and your culture provides you with a solid basis, a starting point from where you can develop yourself. A beginning from where you can chart an ending, a goal.

The saying goes that we have to "think outside the box". Your tradition is a high quality box forged through millenia of history of your own ancestors whose blood flows in your veins. As long as you have this stable box you are actually given the chance to birth the new and progress and move forward and develop yourself.

The moment you lose the box, or in the case of modernity are given a supermarket full of thinner boxes made out of cheap material, you will just be caught in a cycle of trying out different boxes so you can find the one you like.

Glo-Gang is like a 19th century coffee house in Vienna where people can come together and exchange ideas so they can develop them. You are treating it like a millenial cult of idol worshippers who follow prescriptions because you live your own life like the member of a millenial cult of idol worshippers following prescriptions and ironically cannot think outside your stupid paradigm. A European, an Asian or an African has millenia of history and tradition to work with and ground a sense of self. A deracinated neoAmerican does not have this luxury so in order to cope with his lack rejects the whole idea and happily joins the neoliberal playhouse of inclusion. The end of this game of dilluting cultures for their good parts being most probably the blade runner dystopia. When I was little and playing water colours I always wanted to put all the cool colours together and see what I get, I always got some shitty brown. This is the same situation.

To sum up, there is no uniformity in Glo Gang and the result is unending antagonizing and conflict which works to bring the group forward. You on the other hand, want once again this playhouse of "only the good stuff, the lessons" so you can built your Amazon carton box car and not pollute the environment with impurities.

If an old man took out a soap box and began to make a speech, and gathered an attentive audience who listened carefully, who then started to make racist and xenophobic statements, he begins to render his message alert through his more outspoken ignorance. The crowd begins to dissipate and his ideas fall onto deaf ears. The same lessons and achievements can be made without the need to segregate yourself from someone who is different.

Stop with your deracinated neoliberal drivel. Trump not only proved you wrong, he also ended up being a shill that perpetuates the system you so love.

Red pill for you is just a virtue signalling exchange value you use to pretend you are antagonizing the system so you don´t have to actually antagonize the system. Everything you typed so far I could have gotten it from million others and they wouldn´t be pretending to be red pill.

Read More

Stigma

about a year ago  The Thunderdome

@LeashedDoggie

Through tradition one gained knowledge of his or her values and goals and beliefs. On the one hand, these values and goals and beliefs were inflexible and rigid as a stone. On the other hand, once you were born into a tradition and arrested by it, you no longer needed to "worry about these things. You could move forward.

The problem that I encounter with this idea is the handing down of a doctrine, true or not, from generation to generation. Unquestioningly following the ideas of your ancestors, unmoved by the changing of the tides. 'We were always at war with Eurasia.' I do not deny the sense of purpose that tradition would allow for within your community, but I do have to question the lack of developmental thought.

Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Pokemon function as Ersatztraditionen, replacement traditions you act out with other people to feel like part of a community, but then you change over to the Avengers or Harry Potter.

On this point, we fundamentally agree. While I would still argue that this idea is closer to being a symptom of our consumer culture, I can see how the need/want for an ideology would fuel that consumerism. I would call these battery-pack traditions (non-rechargeable) that can be disposed of after use. The glaring point you seem to have looked over however, and I feel it needs to be pointed out, is Glogang fits firmly into this description, Glo's lessons the product (Star Wars) and his customers the lost consumers looking for an answer. If tradition has been replaced by disposable modernity, what tradition does Glogang follow? Greco-Roman Paganism is a nonsense answer, like if a woman told me she was a witch who had joined a local coven. They follow rules and traditions that don't have a wider applicable context outside of their in-group.

You think you can browse the Bible like a list of Amazon products and pick and choose yourself some Job and Jesus and ignore all the yucky parts.

The 'yucky' parts of the bible aren't to be ignored, but learnt from and developed upon. The concepts and stories from Abraham for example, are perhaps the most difficult to distill down into applicable lessons and it would be far easier to disregard them and say they don't matter. This isn't about making a shopping basket full of Christianity's 'Best of's', this is about divining what lessons will drive me forward to be the best man I can be, while understanding what drove the likes of Cain to succumb to his suffering so that I might not.

You mean to say that all these philosophers were raciss? Oh noes that's yucky, we dun want that.

If an old man took out a soap box and began to make a speech, and gathered an attentive audience who listened carefully, who then started to make racist and xenophobic statements, he begins to render his message alert through his more outspoken ignorance. The crowd begins to dissipate and his ideas fall onto deaf ears. The same lessons and achievements can be made without the need to segregate yourself from someone who is different.

Thank you for your well thought out response.

Read More
Load More