PROGRESSIVISM IS A RELIGION, AND TRUTH BLASPHEMY
by Vivek Na
Liberals use this kind of rhetoric – “no right thinking individual would say that”. Or “That doesn’t sound right” – meaning you’re committing blasphemy according to their constructed sense of right and wrong, ergo, you’re a heretic who should be metaphorically exiled or pilloried.
–Curt:–
You know, we ought to use that more often: “So you mean it’s blasphemous in your religion, right?”
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 11:44:00 UTC
—“A religion that doesnt “ought” and “oughtnt” isn’t a religion”—Vivek Na
—“A religion that does “is” and “isn’t” isn’t a religion.”— 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 11:29:00 UTC
ABRAHAMISM: THE RELIGIONS OF THE ENEMY.
by Alex Macleod
–“You cannot have an enemy be the core of your culture.”–
To put it very simplistically isn’t that what Judaism (goyim), Mohamedism (unbelievers) and Christianity (the devil) have?
(Curt: Exactly. The abrahamic religions are the semitic pastoralist revolt against the agrarian metal workers. Thus explains the invention of organized religion as a resistance movement against transcendence [property].)
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 10:01:00 UTC
THE NEEDS OF THE WEAK, THE WILL OF THE STRONG
Moritz brings up yet again that many young men want a new religion. And their criteria for a philosophy, is simply an inspirational theology. And I’m fully aware of this criticism. Propertarianism is structured as a philosophy out of utility – the utility of falsifying rationalist philosophy. But what I’m writing is LAW. Uniting science (physics, economics, sociology, psychology, metaphysics), and law into a single commensurable language across all disciplines providing a means by which we can suppress falsehoods, and particularly the abrahamic falsehoods (pilpul/critique) and the modern versions of them (postmodernism/marxism).
And with that law providing a constitution that makes it possible to restore the specific uniqueness of the west, and our ability to drag ourselves, and humanity, kicking and screaming into transcendence: evolutionary progress.
There is no reason for you to like the law. On the explanatory power and commensurability and decidability it provides.
It slaughters all your sacred cows.
But then again, why do you need falsehoods?
My position is that the weak of body, spirit, and mind, need them and the strong of body, spirit, and mind do not.
Those who are weak will never judge, never govern, never rule. They are only important in that they will fight for the material incentives provided by defeat of the parasites and the rescue of our civilization – or not.
Very few of us our needed.
The weak can stay home.
Meaning – if you need a cult, you and your genes are a part of the problem, and of no value to the solution.
The meek won’t inherit the earth. They will only live with the permissions give to them by those that do.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 19:22:00 UTC
PASTORLAISM = COSMOPOLITANISM = UNIVERSALISM = ABRAHAMISM
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 12:26:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1005425879336538112
DRAGGING OTHERS DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL
—“Religion is a guilt economy. Look at the Left. They’ve even got Original Sin (white privilege). Contemporary politics is just a way for people to answer for the guilt they feel about their own flaws by shaming others into feeling guilty. Its just some religions say greed is a sin where others say being white is a sin.”— Dann Hopkins
—“They even have their end of days prophecy in climate change.”–John Clayton
(brilliant)
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 10:36:00 UTC
PASTORLAISM = COSMOPOLITANISM = UNIVERSALISM = ABRAHAMISM
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 08:26:00 UTC
I don’t know why that would be true. It’s sacrificing LIES and FALSEHOODS as a means of group cohesion. And if one must rely on such lies then what does that say about the group’s evolutionary strategy other than that it’s a group that needs to be exterminated.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 12:10:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004697057326747649
Reply addressees: @klivanophoros
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004524461331230720
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004524461331230720
(It’s just self inducing endorphins – and another form of drug use as escapism. That doesn’t mean the religious “Spiritual” is not a psychological need to relieve the stress of ongoing computation with fragmentary knowledge. ) Yeah, but what if that experience is in fact what you want to consume? And what if consuming that experience both does no harm (directly or indirectly), creates no risk (directly or indirectly) and does you good? Or conversely, what if that is ‘the best that many can hope for’, because the rational requires more agency than they possess? So I think these people fall into camps: 1 – Pedagogical utility of intuitionistic expressions. (good) 2 – Political and Social Necessity: Mindfulness (good) 3 – Cognitive Therapy. (good) 4 – Action Avoidance (bad) 5 – Escapism (bad) Some of us are judges, and most of us need mindfulness, but some of us need to be therapists and some of us need therapy. I don’t necessarily like the ‘Transcendent’ because as far as I know that’s just searching for a manual means of producing endorphins that compensate for weaknesses of social, sexual, economic, and political market value. Just as alcohol and drugs are artificial means of self medication. And just as you see all forms of drug users excusing their dependencies, you see the ‘transcendent’ justifying their dependencies. Hence why I advocate stoicism because it is self improvement not self medication.
(It’s just self inducing endorphins – and another form of drug use as escapism. That doesn’t mean the religious “Spiritual” is not a psychological need to relieve the stress of ongoing computation with fragmentary knowledge. ) Yeah, but what if that experience is in fact what you want to consume? And what if consuming that experience both does no harm (directly or indirectly), creates no risk (directly or indirectly) and does you good? Or conversely, what if that is ‘the best that many can hope for’, because the rational requires more agency than they possess? So I think these people fall into camps: 1 – Pedagogical utility of intuitionistic expressions. (good) 2 – Political and Social Necessity: Mindfulness (good) 3 – Cognitive Therapy. (good) 4 – Action Avoidance (bad) 5 – Escapism (bad) Some of us are judges, and most of us need mindfulness, but some of us need to be therapists and some of us need therapy. I don’t necessarily like the ‘Transcendent’ because as far as I know that’s just searching for a manual means of producing endorphins that compensate for weaknesses of social, sexual, economic, and political market value. Just as alcohol and drugs are artificial means of self medication. And just as you see all forms of drug users excusing their dependencies, you see the ‘transcendent’ justifying their dependencies. Hence why I advocate stoicism because it is self improvement not self medication.