Zionist feminisation of society

[Katy]

No, Katy. If it is true that the people get the government they deserve, then every time you open your mouth, you’re a politician.

I don’t believe--though I might be mistaken--Kelly was talking about a career choice.

.

Well I wasn't necessarily talking about a career either; just activism can be bad. But, even politics in smaller groups tends to be backstabbing and gossiping and pretty uncivlized, anyway.

[Leyla Shen]

!

Please don't take that exclamation mark personally. It's more of a general statement.

.

[Dan Rowden]

So, Leyla, what is Kelly saying, because I don't think I quite get it either.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I define politics as generating wisdom.

Well, it would be nice if it did, but it is notoriously difficult to legislate common sense... and even more difficult to do so if the politicians don't have any themselves.

Politics is always based on judgments and values,

Sweetie, if you believe that you've isolated yourself a bit too much...

so why not go to the source? Why not connect with reality?

It would be nice if politicians did connect with reality, at least evey now and then.

Dan speaks often of the current world war. I admit i can't see why he does this, since war is a simple thing. I asked him questions to see why he disassociates society and wisdom. How can wisdom continue when all social policies unconsciously destroy everything that creates it?

It would be nice if someone wise enough to see what social policies are needed to help promote wisdom, but I think Dan's point is that such a person is unlikely to get elected.

There are a very few decent people in politics, but there is so much corruption that such people can't get much done, what they do get done often gets turned on its ear, and some of the decent people get at least somewhat corrupted out of attrition.

Do you put so much effort into understanding the degrees of insanity of participants in world wars because politics and wisdom are identical at base?

Yes, because i am interested to know which seed bears fruit.

Wisdom bears good fruit, but the current state of politics eats the fruit.

Would you agree that the greatest efforts towards enlightenment (judging the strength of insanity, AND willing and support the overpowering of the greatest insanity) are political?

Yes, because politics is "how humans ought to live" or "what ought to live", and enlightenment destroys ignorance and wills Truth-awareness.

Again, politics should be like that.

Why would you not interact in a "worldly" political realm?

If no seeds bore fruit there. But the ground is so barren, that one can really start bloody anywhere! "Look! A human on tv" --- the barrenness is the effect of "humans" who haven't pushed themselves to grow stronger. Procrastinating and making excuses.

Yes, any striving for the cause of wisdom is worthwhile, and so many areas are in need that it could, at first glance, seem that one could start anywhere - but as Sue pointed out with the "human on TV" blurb, the human trying to speak of something deeper was instantly silenced. It is much the same with politics, - wisdom would be silenced.

The next thing one has to understand is that most people are just not going to understand a deep concept. They might catch the surface of it, but will often turn it around into something ugly.

Where would you best be able to influence people's decisions about "what has the right to live"?

Grounded in Reality, from which can flow an ongoing, persistent influence, in person and in writing. A city is best, because cities tear away the contented masks of contented country animals, showing up the ego in high definition.

If you can do it, go for it. Give it a try. Before you wear yourself out, though, just visit a community meeting of some kind, and see first hand the intelligence level you will be dealing with.

What do you consider the greatest power one ought to be actively fighting, and what path have you chosen to do it?

Ignorance.

The path i've chosen is to keep steering to perfection, and to keep helping the law of mediocrity see that living by reason is a reality, not idealism, regardless of how much i'm accused of egotism and stupidity.

You're not egotistical or stupid. You're more down on yourself than egotistical, and a little optimistic about the state of others perhaps, but if you can get out with the masses of messes and steer them a little better, more power to you.

Kelly, if you want to join in any kind of political endeavor, I encourage you, both for them and for you. Any voice of reason they hear might trigger something good, and the more you see of how people in politics are, the more food for thought it will give you about how people are thinking (and I mean more than "they are thinking unintelligently" - I mean the actual mechanics of their thoughts.

[Leyla Shen]

Dan, this is my reply:

It’s amazing how threads are treated as independent. What is this proclivity to see their meaning as separate--disconnected? Is it the same proclivity to divide conclusively philosophy from all aspects of life as one attempts to divide the soul from the human being?

One topic discusses politics, another postmodernism and another involves Kierkegaard’s man of God. As if these things are not the very same topic of truth.

Who does not already “know” that politicians are backstabbers and gossipers, that politics fucks itself from the bottom up and vice versa. Yeah, let’s sit down and have a cuppa whilst we discuss such grand revelations.

Who cannot offer such bland, mundane and POSTMODERN interpretations of the things about them? Like their words, their souls are empty--all meaning is equal, all “politics” is nothing, therefore one argument is as good as another rendering them all meaningless. A “study of narrative” behind which there is NO POINT! They do not see a connection between politics, philosophy and truth.

Yet, despite this, they speak and dare to conceive an opinion that counts as or MEANS something.

To them, therefore, truth is nothing and lies are everything, mind-numbingly trapped in isolated circles of logic that lead to nothing. It is NEVER the words or structure that have the power, but the truth in them. Truth has no inherent structure. You either see it, or you ramble on for a lifetime in search of what has always been right there in front of your face. It is this way that the postmodernists’ arguments blow away under even the gentlest breeze of truth and the man of God‘s arguments stand for all time despite their structure and attempts to knock them down.

When the man of God offers a single paragraph, it cuts straight to the core of truth. Every word becomes indispensable. He has no room and no time for small-talk but transforms it utterly instead. And, otherwise, there is not a single word worth uttering. Unless, that is, you are one of “today’s politicians” -- just like the postmodernist’s attempt to transform meaning into some stupid, meaningless catch-phrase like “God is love.” As if the man of God did not know the meaning and extent of things and the postmodernist does. With the postmodernist, every word is dispensable since everything is, in the end, utterly meaningless to them and held together by the same "law" of meaninglessness.

Perhaps you could answer my previous questions, I am interested in what you have to say:

How can you make a judgment about how you will be affected without making a truth-judgment about the things affecting?

~

Elizabeth, do us a favour and cut the condescending “Sweetie” shit.

.

[Dan Rowden]

I think one should be politically aware to the degree that one needs to be. This is why I care about the truth of 9/11 for example. I don't want to find myself being naive about the reason that the world is changing, why my own society is changing for the worse, because if I am naive about it I can't make any meaningful predictions about where things are going. I won't know how much of that change is acceptable or otherwise. I certainly advocate political awareness to a point, but actual engagement within the structure of it is not something I would countenance.

I have no idea if that goes anywhere in terms of answering your question.

[Leyla Shen]

You said to Kelly that you weren’t sure why she associated wisdom and politics. Personally, I thought her reasons were clear. It appears to me that you chose to ignore her reply to Sue's question.

Kelly defined politics as “the generation of wisdom.” She did not say that the current state of politics was so and at no point did she propose taking up a position as a politician in any way beyond influencing people’s decisions about what “has the right to live.” In fact, she stated such a position as the position:

Grounded in Reality, from which can flow an ongoing, persistent influence, in person and in writing. A city is best, because cities tear away the contented masks of contented country animals, showing up the ego in high definition.

Is this not precisely what every great philosopher, from Jesus through Kierkegaard, you value has ultimately done in some measure?

That others are doing it with an opposite effect is irrelevant to her point, I think.

.

[Iolaus]

Dan are you changing your icon? I hope so, it always looks to me like a man and a woman on a long, romantic walk in the woods.

[Dan Rowden]

It's supposed to be two guys walking through a misty forest discussing philosophy, but if it's being interpreted as you have it may be time for a change.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Honestly Dan, that's what I thought it was at first, too.

[Dan Rowden]

Well, in that case I better change it. Anyway, getting back to the issue of politics and wisdom: All human interaction has a dimension of the political to it. Politics should be about what is best for humanity and therefore favourable to wisdom, but it isn't because human nature, as things stand, is not like that. It would be 100% impossible for a wise person to get directly involved in politics; hell, it would be almost impossible for a wise person to get involved in relatively mundane community activities. The best I can hope for is some measure of potential indirect influence. I still call talk radio programs and occasonally write to newspapers and even local politicians just for the sake of putting the seeds of a thought out there which may take root at some time. I'm not sure what else there is one can do in a world so deeply unconscious.....

[Carl G]

Nice change of avatar, Dan!

Now it's a man and woman carrying an infinity sign.

[Dan Rowden]

Hahaha! Notice it was only the ladies who saw the other one that way? Go figure.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Or was it only the ladies that said anything?

[Dan Rowden]

Well, that's possible, but then, ladies are always saying something. They have to fit those 20,000 words in somehow :)

[Katy]

Honestly Dan, that's what I thought it was at first, too.

Haha. I was just completely confused by it. It never seemed romantic to me - actually it seemed sort of scary a place I would expect to be alone. And the second figure confused the heck out of me. But I never thought it was more than friends.

Then again, Dan's avatar has always reminded me of my relationship with my friend Wilo; we spent hours and hours walking around places I'd never dare to be alone after dark talking about anything from the technical advantages to being a left handed female in sword fighting to, well, babbling, or being silent.



Oh well the new one reminds me of an old 80s cartoon show Schoohouse Rock where they're talking about the number 8 and then two characters turn it sideways and sing in this high pitched silly voice "turn it on its side and it becomes infiinityyyyyyyyyyyyyy" Then again, probably very few people remember that there were any made aside from "I'm just a bill" outisde of my social group??

[Kelly Jones]

So, Leyla, what is Kelly saying, because I don't think I quite get it either.

Saying, or asking: what's spiritual activism?

So far as i know, trying to validate truths on the basis of their possible psychological effects (e.g. "good works"), rather than pure logic, is the way of political correctness as it is now. That seems to be the opposite direction to spiritual activism. Do you agree?

Politics should be about what is best for humanity and therefore favourable to wisdom, but it isn't because human nature, as things stand, is not like that. It would be 100% impossible for a wise person to get directly involved in politics; hell, it would be almost impossible for a wise person to get involved in relatively mundane community activities. The best I can hope for is some measure of potential indirect influence. I still call talk radio programs and occasonally write to newspapers and even local politicians just for the sake of putting the seeds of a thought out there which may take root at some time. I'm not sure what else there is one can do in a world so deeply unconscious.....

An intellectual problem can only be fixed intellectually. So, i suppose "indirect influence" is the only approach "in a world so deeply unconscious".

Perhaps i'm approaching this topic wrongly: from the idea of how to bear fruit before the plant has reached its first season. So, i could probably answer these questions if i let myself grow down into the deeps.

Well, i'll ask anyway.

How would you contradict the future policy that humans ought to become extinct because "natural forces" are deciding for them?

Why was your local philosophy group ultimately meaningless/useless?

How would you prepare for the community-oriented crazy cage-dwellers' future laws on anti-discrimination, anti-free-speech, anti-masculinity, anti-philosophy-boards?

Would you be willing to create BrainGate podcasts? (wireless signals that control brainwaves, currently used in disabled people's brains to control wheelchairs) - since many future people will love the mindless drifting of BrainGate media, and will probably not be open to communication in any other way ?


.[edited: 1. blather out]
.[edited: 2. simple meaning in]

[Kelly Jones]

I define politics as generating wisdom.

Well, it would be nice if it did, but it is notoriously difficult to legislate common sense... and even more difficult to do so if the politicians don't have any themselves.

Common sense is always legislated. That's what the problem is: it's not individualistic reason.

A possible step towards individualistic rationality becoming common, might be to legislate parenting as part of the school curriculum, to be taught before, and with, sex education.

Politics is always based on judgments and values,

Sweetie, if you believe that you've isolated yourself a bit too much...

It doesn't matter how servile a politician is, the policies that are acted out are still based on his or her judgments and values.

It would be nice if someone wise enough to see what social policies are needed to help promote wisdom, but I think Dan's point is that such a person is unlikely to get elected.

I see that Dan has nominated himself as a propagater of wisdom.

I also see that, every time my expressions are in concord with his, i vote for wisdom. He's included in my vote, as well as everyone else who speaks the truth about Nature.

There are a very few decent people in politics, but there is so much corruption that such people can't get much done, what they do get done often gets turned on its ear, and some of the decent people get at least somewhat corrupted out of attrition.

One might become a tame goose anywhere, and lose the ability to fly.

Wisdom bears good fruit, but the current state of politics eats the fruit.

Women are intellectual vaccuums, so i'm not sure if that intellectual problem can be fixed.

How do you turn a eunuch into a man? I don't know.

as Sue pointed out with the "human on TV" blurb, the human trying to speak of something deeper was instantly silenced. It is much the same with politics, - wisdom would be silenced.

How would you get silence to stop talking?

The next thing one has to understand is that most people are just not going to understand a deep concept. They might catch the surface of it, but will often turn it around into something ugly.

How would you get a person to trust his own thoughts?

see first hand the intelligence level you will be dealing with

One starts at the beginning.

Kelly, if you want to join in any kind of political endeavor, I encourage you, both for them and for you. Any voice of reason they hear might trigger something good, and the more you see of how people in politics are, the more food for thought it will give you about how people are thinking (and I mean more than "they are thinking unintelligently" - I mean the actual mechanics of their thoughts.

I think you've mistaken my intention, Elisabeth. I'm not a "Neil" (7Up)! I was a bit fired up earlier, now am more down-to-earth.

.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Common sense is always legislated. That's what the problem is: it's not individualistic reason.

When legislators try to legislate common sense, practical application tends to generate a lot of non-sense. For example, classroom overcrowding to the point that effective teaching and classroom control just wasn't happening (we're talking like 40 4th-graders to one teacher sometimes). Common sense indicated that smaller class sizes would help, so they decided to legislate smaller classes. Suddenly there was a teacher shortage, so to comply with legislation, they lower the standards for teachers. It is being found that sub-qualified teacher provide sub-quality education (common sense would have told them that, but it seems they didn't think that one through very well before legislating their first bit of common sense).
see charts on pages 9-11

as Sue pointed out with the "human on TV" blurb, the human trying to speak of something deeper was instantly silenced. It is much the same with politics, - wisdom would be silenced.

How would you get silence to stop talking?

I don't follow what you're asking; I said wisdom gets silenced, I didn't say that silence talks too much.

A possible step towards individualistic rationality becoming common, might be to legislate parenting as part of the school curriculum, to be taught before, and with, sex education.

That sounds good... as long as they think that one through.

It doesn't matter how servile a politician is, the policies that are acted out are still based on his or her judgments and values.

I think you are giving a broader definition to "judgment" than I am. I consider that a person must be able to think clearly and thoroughly to be able to have judgment, and have the greater good in mind to have good judgment.

For example, politicians might value their contribution money more than having those who damaged the everglades pay more for cleaning it up. It is therefore his "judgment" that the taxpayers should foot the bill so that his contributors will be able to give his party more money. To me, that does not indicate judgement as I meant the term - it indicates mindless greed.

The next thing one has to understand is that most people are just not going to understand a deep concept. They might catch the surface of it, but will often turn it around into something ugly.

How would you get a person to trust his own thoughts?

That's not the problem I was referring to. The problem I meant is actually worse - people do trust their own "thoughts" over and above reason. Many people get half a thought in their heads and just run with it - like the class size problem above.


In another thread,

I define politics as generating wisdom.

If you think this is a "shallow half-thought", why don't you explain why, in the "Zionist femininization of society" thread?

I believe I already addressed that in an earlier post in this thread - politics should generate wisdom, but it does not in actuality do so.

edit - removed duplicated quotes

[Kelly Jones]

Common sense is always legislated. That's what the problem is: it's not individualistic reason.

When legislators try to legislate common sense, practical application tends to generate a lot of non-sense. For example, classroom overcrowding to the point that effective teaching and classroom control just wasn't happening (we're talking like 40 4th-graders to one teacher sometimes). Common sense indicated that smaller class sizes would help, so they decided to legislate smaller classes. Suddenly there was a teacher shortage, so to comply with legislation, they lower the standards for teachers. It is being found that sub-qualified teacher provide sub-quality education (common sense would have told them that, but it seems they didn't think that one through very well before legislating their first bit of common sense).

That's common sense being applied: lack of individualistic reason. A rational individual has no reason not to consider the likely possibilities and consequences of his actions, rather than leaving things to chance.

as Sue pointed out with the "human on TV" blurb, the human trying to speak of something deeper was instantly silenced. It is much the same with politics, - wisdom would be silenced.

How would you get silence to stop talking?

I don't follow what you're asking; I said wisdom gets silenced, I didn't say that silence talks too much.

The reason common sense gets legislated is because it's deafening. No individualistic reason is heard, so there is silence.

So i asked you: how would you get silence to stop talking?

A possible step towards individualistic rationality becoming common, might be to legislate parenting as part of the school curriculum, to be taught before, and with, sex education.

That sounds good... as long as they think that one through.

Here are the basics for the test given before the "parenting course" (a fail means the student is not allowed to have reproductive sex, or to parent):

You are not parenting material if you:

- don't like to reason and think
- become frustrated by noise
- are hot-blooded, and hyperactive
- are captivated by sexual attractions
- like to bond emotionally with children
- like to dominate weak people
- have low self-esteem
- use force and violence for discipline, instead of reasoning
- are sexually attracted to children
- don't know what to do about global warming
- don't like children
- don't like quiet time
- want your child to be a copy of yourself and your beliefs
- want your child to be a type of cute and surprising entertainment
- can't keep promises, or follow through on your plans
- haven't learnt to manage your finances
- are not free of diseases and drug addictions
- are not healthy and fit
- are insane (obvious mental disorders and illnesses)
- are emotionally dependent on family and friends
- cannot imagine yourself coping with a child as a single parent
- cannot imagine caring for a disabled child for its lifespan
- cannot hold two full-time or three part-time jobs as a single person
- believe that "blood is thicker than water" (that family should stick together through all crises)
- expect your child should care for you when you are ill or old
- expect your child to "carry the family line"
- think that tv and computers provide suitable supervision, company, or education for children
- don't like faeces, dirt, bacteria, insects, blood, or people in general
- don't like discussing things openly, rationally and deeply

It doesn't matter how servile a politician is, the policies that are acted out are still based on his or her judgments and values.

I think you are giving a broader definition to "judgment" than I am. I consider that a person must be able to think clearly and thoroughly to be able to have judgment, and have the greater good in mind to have good judgment.

I think judgment is very simple: just identifying something as it is. It's an inevitable part of consciousness.

If a person likes the feeling of identifying things just as they are, then they also value judgment (so they have reliable judgment). If a person doesn't like being truthful, because perhaps it seems that lying is more interesting, then they value lying more.

The more a person likes being truthful, the clearer their thinking. Eventually they might consider what's the greatest good (the most reliable).

The next thing one has to understand is that most people are just not going to understand a deep concept. They might catch the surface of it, but will often turn it around into something ugly.

How would you get a person to trust his own thoughts?

That's not the problem I was referring to. The problem I meant is actually worse - people do trust their own "thoughts" over and above reason. Many people get half a thought in their heads and just run with it - like the class size problem above.

That's the same as common sense, ie. lack of individualistic reason. Common sense says, "Trust in the shoddy and careless way that "all the others" do things; don't be obsessive about investigating things yourself".

In another thread,

I define politics as generating wisdom.

If you think this is a "shallow half-thought", why don't you explain why, in the "Zionist femininization of society" thread?

I believe I already addressed that in an earlier post in this thread - politics should generate wisdom, but it does not in actuality do so.

So far, you haven't actually said anything in this post. I look forward to better stuff from you.



.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

That's common sense being applied: lack of individualistic reason. A rational individual has no reason not to consider the likely possibilities and consequences of his actions, rather than leaving things to chance.

Although your appearant definition of common sense is more literal than the actual definition of common sense, know that I use terms by their usual definitions.

as Sue pointed out with the "human on TV" blurb, the human trying to speak of something deeper was instantly silenced. It is much the same with politics, - wisdom would be silenced.

How would you get silence to stop talking?

I don't follow what you're asking; I said wisdom gets silenced, I didn't say that silence talks too much.

The reason common sense gets legislated is because it's deafening. No individualistic reason is heard, so there is silence.

That's common sense being applied: lack of individualistic reason.

All these flip-flop definitions are confusing the issue. Lack of ability to hear is deafness, not silence. I take it you mean that individualistic reason equates with selfishness.

So i asked you: how would you get silence to stop talking?

Selfishness is a childish trait, and getting people to grow up, or become wise, would take volumes to explain. Keep reading philosophy and psychology, and perhaps you will glean some more insight.

(a fail means the student is not allowed to have reproductive sex, or to parent):

How do you expect to enforce that failing students not have reproductive sex?

You are not parenting material if you:
...
- believe that "blood is thicker than water" (that family should stick together through all crises)

Doesn't this contradict your statement about a disabled child?

...
- don't like faeces, dirt, bacteria, insects,

You want parents to like these things? I'd rather parents want these things cleaned up.

How about things like "spanking a child and yelling at them to quit crying is an ineffective method of getting a child to stop crying" of basics of physical care?

I think judgment is very simple: just identifying something as it is. It's an inevitable part of consciousness.

If a person likes the feeling of identifying things just as they are, then they also value judgment (so they have reliable judgment). If a person doesn't like being truthful, because perhaps it seems that lying is more interesting, then they value lying more.

The more a person likes being truthful, the clearer their thinking. Eventually they might consider what's the greatest good (the most reliable).

Yes, and the challenge we face today is in promoting that.

So far, you haven't actually said anything in this post. I look forward to better stuff from you.

If you believe that I have said nothing (meaning not addressed the holes in your logic) then you are deaf to what I have said.

[Tim]

Ladies, please! Richard had a point that feminism is trying to suppress. Here's some more evidence:

http://www.nsm88.com/fliers/flier%20911.html

A man makes a point, and you ladies: ExpectantlyIronic, Kelly, Katy, Iolus, Elizabeth, Leyla, and Sue all but in on what Richard, Kevin, Dan and Ryan are trying to discuss. We're even outnumbered on a forum for men! Let's get back on topic please.

[DHodges]

http://www.nsm88.com/fliers/flier%20911.html

Tim, do you think of yourself as a nazi?

[Faust]

http://www.nsm88.com/fliers/flier%20911.html

Tim, do you think of yourself as a nazi?

Hodges, are you a gullible Goyim?

[DHodges]

Hodges, are you a gullible Goyim?

Indeed!