Words

The absence of absolute is at the root of nihilism.

It’s definition as the belief in a universe with no meaning, no god, no purpose, no universal morality begins with the assumption that these concepts ‘do’ in fact already exist outside the human mind, or that they ‘ought to’ exist, in a perfect world.
Nihilism, therefore, begins with a negative description of a world lacking what the human mind most deserves and seeks for - demands to be given, pre-made.
The world, as it is, lacking all these concepts it demands and thinks that it deserves, in a positive.
it is so because it makes life, and the evolution of a human what would then negate it, possible.

Nihilism is based on the confrontational relationship of an emerging unity, an ordering, and a universe of increasing chaos/randomness.
Coming to terms with this has been described as a overcoming of resentiment.

Starting with a common definition of 'absolute we can conclude that ti exists in the mnid as a concept, an idea, and ideal, but not outside the mind as anything real, tangible.

The ‘absolute’ as a another way of describing, the ‘whole’, the ‘complete’ the ‘singular’, the ‘immutable’, the ‘perfect’, the ‘independent’, the ‘beginning’ and ‘end’, the ‘telos’, final, certain, indivisible…and so on, is a human abstraction.

The sentences:
“Truth is there is no absolute truth” & “There are absolutely no absolutes” are based on a linguistic method that is contradicted by the real world, creating a paradox.
When words are taken literally and not as approximation, as symbols, as representations, the world, as it is, as fluid, contradicts the way the human conceptualizes it, reduces it to simplified/generalized abstractions.

An abstraction is a mental model, integrating internal and external stimuli by interpreting them in ways the organism evolved to deal with world.
An idea, image, in the mind is not the phenomenon itself. It is triggered by the phenomenon, and in some minds the phenomenon is not required, as with nihilist.
Nihilism takes the real and inverts it, contradicts it, or rearranges it in creative ways and then literally believes that his won constructs are more real than the ‘real’.

Abstractions are real…but only as representation existing in minds, not as tangible, observable, experienced phenomena, independent of minds.
The mind construct mental models, abstractions, and then it demands that the abstractions in the head be proven to not exist.

For example, the concept ‘God’ as the Abrahamic Nihilistic spiritual traditions define it, is a contradiction of the experienced real.
We can describe this as a conflict between the noumenon and the phenomenon - the mental model, abstraction, and the ongoing interactivity of patterns, that appear.
Nihilists then demand that the non-believer prove the non-existence of their own fabrications, and the skeptics, if they fall into their linguistic traps, will have to fabricate an equally absurd absolute to negate the one the Nihilists declared and never justified.

The one proposing an ‘absolute’ that is not merely theoretical, or based on social conventions and abstractions, such as 'All bachelors are unmarried" as an ‘absolute fact’, are burdened with the intellectual integrity of showing us all an absolute, as defined above:
indivisible, immutable, independent, complete, whole, singular.

The concept of ‘absolute’ only refers to a human abstraction and it describes the limit of human cognition.
By simplifying/generalizing the fluctuating inter-activities of world into a singular ‘thing’, a ‘concept’ the mind implodes reality into a representation, converting the phenomenon into a noumenon, or translating the stimuli phenomenon produce by interacting into a form the organism can process, store and recall - code.
Memory is founded on producing and storing codes, and this would also include genetic codes - sequences, sequential patterns representing a tried and tested function.

Words are often used improperly, or metaphorically.
Some do so on purpose, to confuse concepts and support their preferred conclusions, while others do so because they are ignorant, or lack talent, because language is another human representational art-form.
So they use ’ absolute’ to describe a ephemeral relationship, a ‘fact’.

“I am in a room” is not an absolute, but it is a fact.
It describes a relationship between an imperfect, incomplete, mortal, organism, and a boundary, produced by an element, or a congruity of patterns, such as a steel or concrete wall.
This relationship is not eternal, not perfect, not timeless, not indivisible, not independent…
The room and man exist on a rotating planet, going around a rotating star, going around a galactic core, moving in space.
Whether by death or the walls deterioration, in time, the relationship is not absolute.

Space = possibility
Order = probability
Pushed to their theoretical absolutes;
Chaos = infinite space/time, infinite possibilities - Randomness, not to be confused for complexity.
Order = finite space/time possibilities. A pattern would be the consistent, repeating, predictability of order, and as an absolute it would be certainty, or one portability - singularity.
Both absolute describe an end to existence, if by ‘existence’ we understand endless interactivity: dynamic ordered and non-ordered patterns relating.

We notice such confusions emerging with the child-like naivete, some use another word: beauty
Though the concepts refers to physical or mental symmetry and proportionality, indicating a higher degree of order , inherited but not always cultivated fully, most like to confuse the concept with other words, such as ‘like’.
They purposefully, or foolishly confuse symmetry/proportionality indicating genetic health, reproductive promise, probability of higher order, with personal affinity.
To ‘like’ something, or someone does not automatically make ti ‘beautiful’.
Describing how the other makes us feel is subjectivizing beauty to conveniently make it a matter of personal taste.
A more objective mind would see the ugliness of form and still not suffer a reduction in the affinity of liking, preferring, judging by using other criteria. It is possible to dislike a very attractive man or woman, and to like a very unattractive man or woman.
The factor of mental symmetry/proportionality is more difficult to evaluate, as it refers to mental relationships, manifesting as personality or psychology, yet symmetry/proportionality is what we describe as ‘charm’ or ‘humor’, or ‘intelligence’, all of these description have nothing to do with morality.
Another one of those words nihilists throw around haphazardly, with no understanding.

Morality = describing an evolved behavior conducive to social cooperative unities.
That these behavioral patterns would then be encoded by man as codes of ethos, is to be expected.
There is no morality outside social species, as morality describes how a species evolved to cooperate, and to inter-relate.
Morality always sacrifices self to the group, or repressed ego to take advantage of group dynamics.
Morality begins with codependency, as in heterosexual reproduction. The yearly seasonable necessity to repress the fight/flight mechanism for copulation to occur, has evolved a chemical inebriation that begins the evolutionary process towards what we now call ‘moral conduct’.

Some other words often misunderstood by nihilists, Moderns;

Knowledge = confusing the accumulation of data for understanding, lies behind the mythology of education being the road towards universal parity.
Many still insist on confusing information, as the recitation, regurgitation, of data, as proof of intelligence.
Though some degree of intelligence is required to recognize valuable form worthless knowledge, and to then collect and store them in memory, this collected data, as with the computer, does not automatically mean understanding.
Knowledge can be divided into two types, in reference to the source:
first-had = also called experience.
Individual interacting directly with environment, accumulating an storing data as memory. This memory is then passed on to the offspring via DNA.
second-hand = also called education.

Understanding = knowledge as the encoding of stimuli can also be describes as patterns collected and integrated into larger mental models - ideas, concepts.
Understanding is the perception of patterns within the accumulated patterns of data.
We also call this ‘meaning’…to perceive the meaning of the information at hand.
It is possible to possess vast amounts of data and still remain ignorant of their meaning, or lack an understanding of it, requiring a authority to give them ‘meaning’.
Moderns often display knowledge to hide their inability to find meaning, or to understand it.
I call this institutionalized autism, and it is at the root of specialization, producing schizophrenia, division of mind from body, or the compartmentalization of the mind into separate independent ‘wholes’, often contradicting one another.
In such a way as to protect the organism from facts it cannot endure - survival mechanism.
We often witness this in individuals who have suffered a traumatic life event. Commonly we witness this in such dogmas as Christianity where the disparity between the absolutes, proposed, and the world lived, must be dealt with using compartmentalization and the concept of ‘sin’ to deal with any cross-contamination.
We also witness it in such ideologies as Marxism, a secularized form of Jude-Chrsitianity, where pogroms deal with the inherit naivete of Marxist presuppositions - purging the error in their ideology, cleansing it of the paradoxes its own nihilistic delusions produce.

• There are absolutely no abstractions in the physical universe.
• Absolutely the entire physical universe consists of affectance.
• Absolutely everything in the physical universe can be named.
• There are absolutely no full grown elephants in my shirt pocket.
• The inside of the acorn is absolutely smaller than the outside.
• It is absolutely certain that there are absolutes in the universe.

You did not read.
I forgive you, you are desperate and emotional.

Factual statements indicate relationships not absolutes…as the absolute is defined as “perfect, immutable, singular, indivisible, whole”.
A relationship indicates a juxtaposition of patterns (congruities), after they’ve been reduced to concepts, or noumena.
noumenon is an abstraction.
An abstraction is the cutting away of dimensions, to construct a static, thing.
An abstraction may, or may not, refer to an external phenomenon, as in the case of a unicorn.
Ana abstraction can be a combination of collected stimuli, or a rejection of all experience, in the extreme form of nihilism.
Imagination is the only limit inside the brain, where fantasy can take over. In the mind natural order, as a limit to possibilities, can be denied relevance, making everything imaginable possible - this is whet moderns call ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’, relating to natural order as they would to a man-made social order, such as totalitarianism, fascism.

dimensions = spatial possibilities.
As such an ‘elephant’ is a congruence of patterns reduced to a thing, an image, a concept that can then refer to any organism possessing the same patterns - similarity of traits.

Facts refer to the most probable relationships, not to certainties.

As the Nihilist cannot show us a tangible, whole, a perfection, a complete indivisible, one, he only shows us a theoretical possibility, in relation to himself, or he expresses a probability a relationship.

The usage of the word ‘absolute’ can be used to accentuate a theory, or a relationship.
As in:
“I am absolutely in love with you”
The usage if words to exaggerate, to inflate, to pronounce, as metaphor, confuses the concept of the original meaning.
For example…take the word ‘beautiful’.

Beautiful sunset
Beautiful music
Beautiful scent.
Beautiful mind.
Beautiful body

All indicating the appreciation of symmetry/proportionality relative to the sensing organism can also indicate preference, appreciation etc.
Therefore…“there is absolutely no elephant in my pocket” accentuates the uncertain, ephemeral relationship of the concept ‘elephant’ with the concept ‘pocket’ where precedent gives us a average size - time/space probability for both the organism and the average pocket, in relation to the average human.
In fact pocket is a man-made concept, usually referring to a fold in a garment worn by humans.
The statement is not absolute as there is no absolute elephant, it being mortal, imperfect, incomplete, and no immutable indivisible pocket.
The elephant can, in theory, be reduced to dust and placed in a pocket, and a pocket can be constructed to encompass a live elephant.

These terms are using metaphors literally.
As ephemeral facts ex[pressing a perceived relationship.
Factual statement indicate relationships in time/space, which are never absolute, but always ephemeral, mutable, divisible, fragmentary, uncertain, incomplete.
Facts are not absolutes.
Absolutes are not facts.
Facts describe relationships within a specific time/space, not static, eternal, things.

As with the Abrahamic God, it is the one proposing a contradiction to reality, an absolute one, that must show us evidence…absolute evidence.
therefore the one proposing the absolute, as defined above, should not in theory use words to construct it, but show us a real absolute;
Indivisible, immutable, eternal, whole, singularity, perfection.

In our haste to deal with absurdities human manufacture we may fall into their linguistic traps and claim an equally absurd negation of what the Nihilists has proposed, using words, but not shown as independent from mind.
The representational utility of words referring to abstractions is found in their very essence as simplifications/generalizations of dynamic processes.
Processes are never complete, whole, indivisible, singular but are reduced to such by the interpreting mind.
In the mind any juxtaposition, relationship is possible…ergo we can fabricate a centaur by combining the abstraction human with the abstraction horse…or construct negations of the real, as with the concept one/nil, if taken literally and not figuratively, metaphorically, symbolically.

Words then act as agencies of confusion, inebriation, numbing of the conscious mind. welcomed by those who find the world too threatening and unpalatable.
Purposefully applying words selectively or sometimes in one context and then in another, is how the mind comforts itself and constructs any hypothesis it finds appealing.

Nihilism takes on two distinct psychological forms.
Pure or authentic nihilism, describing the universe as a nil, in relation to the desirable and absent absolute.
‘Positive’ nihilism, the purposefully self-contradicting, hypocritical, projection of noetic constructs to fill kin the void of an absent absolute.
words are how this void is ‘filled’, as words are the only way nihilism validates itself and spreads form mind to mind - memetic virus.

Words detached form their representation of noetic constructs, referring to phenomena, the apparent, but referring back to noetic constructs, or emotions - self-referential logic…solipsism.

The looping self-referential of solipsism is ‘corrected’ by using other mind as validation of an external source.
Lacking a external reference, the nihilist refers to itself or other minds infected with the same dis-ease, and this external source now becomes an external reference.

The absence of meaning in nihilistic concepts, due to this absence of an external phenomenon, is also dealt with by becoming popular.
Meaning is now a relationship of abstractions existing only in the mind, validated by becomnig popular, or with simple declarative statments with no external evidence, such as;
There is a God
God is Lov.
God is absolute.

Human will substitutes for the absence of evidence, or a validating external phenomenon.
Nihilists simply declares relationships as being factual, and sue word-games to create paradoxes to escape within, to hide in, to construct confusion and reinforce mysticism.

Words fill in for the absent absolute.
They no longer refer to a phenomenon, or represent it, but are projections of mental abstractions…such as
There are absolutes
There is a god

Words left undefined and vague facilitate in their malleability.
Disconnecting words from reality, permits them to be understood in whatever form is convenient, as is the case with the words ‘love’, ‘human’, ‘morality’, ‘beauty’ etc.

The word ‘human’ is of special interest.
In this case it is disconnected from its appearance, its past manifesting as presence, and as a reproductive category, as all species categories indicate a reproductive potential, and is converted to a pure noetic abstraction that can then be applied at the discretion of the mind using it.
With no limiting natural order, no precedent to restrict its application, it is only limited by the demands of communicating the nihilistic form it takes.
Similar to how they disconnect words like ‘love’, ‘morality’, ‘sex’, and ‘absolute’ from all external referents to allow the concept to be manipulated and applied in any way desirable - expressing desired relationships not present outside of the brain, or brains sharing the same memetic disease.

The motive of detaching the species concept of ‘human’ from its external referent, of reproductive type, is to then fabricate the illusion that sexual specialized types are social constructs, with no references outside human minds, sharing the same culture and upbringing.
Words such as ‘male/female’ are now left in limbo, allowing each individual sharing the same infection, to interpret the terms at will.

External relationships, between juxtaposed phenomena, are converted to esoteric ones, where words remain vague or malleable by the needful will.

The only honest response to nihilists and their self-referential ‘logic’ their literal usage of symbolism, is to not negate their fabrications, as with Atheism, but to demand evidence independent on all minds, external validation that is testable and provable, and observable by all.

Therefore the sentences:
“Truth is there are no truths”, or “There are absolutely no absolutes”, falls into the trap of minds desperate and needy, using words as declarations of what they cannot prove, or show, but only state.

Unfortunately, when forced to deal with such inferior minds one must lower himself to their level of understanding…and that is where they trap you within their Nihilistic paradigm full of presuppositions that exist nowhere but inside their minds, and are shared by those like them.
To any preposition of an absolute, such as ‘god’, ‘one’, ‘whole’, perfection’ ,immutable’, ‘indivisible’ one must demand evidence equal to the proposition made…therefore absolutes demand absolute evidence, not other noetic construct, not statements of conviction, not theories, not more words.
First came the action - Goethe.

If none is provided but more word-juggling, evasion, declarations, one must deal with such individuals as one deals with the insane.
Therefore, the proper, honest, response to the proposition of a One omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, whole, perfect God, is not a negation of this absurdity, but simply a rejection based on absence of evidence…absence fo absolutes.

Responding to the absurd by lowering yourself to their level and offering an absolute negation of their absolute proposition, only traps you within their nihilistic paradigm.
They cannot think outside those premises - their conceptual limitations.

Yawn

Consider the word ’ value’ and how it is often ab-used by needy spirits desperate to validate a desired conclusion.

The concept of value, as nihilists use it, implies something innate innate in the phenomenon, when, in fact, value is a relationship of observer to observed, in relation to the observers needs, and then in relation to the observers motives, ideals, goals.
To measure a pattern, or a congruity of patterns, we juxtapose it to another pattern, or to an average, as conceived by the observer, or in reference to an external, established standard.
As such value only has meaning to a living organism, and to nothing other than that - only in reference to a present need, or a goal, a motive.

Projecting this as some universal motive implies a Deity, a consciousness beyond, outside, living organisms - a telos, a motive, a will.
Will implies need, for one does not will what one is in possession of, and nothing wills if it is not living.
The word can be used metaphorically, as one can also use pathos, or god, or love, metaphorically, if we disconnect it from reality and abstract it to a form that is convenient to our desired conclusions.
If we use ‘value’ as a measure of energies, or how I use ‘pattern’, then it is the wrong term, guided by a desire, a motive, that may have nothing to do with reality.
For example, the desire to remain true to a dogma.

A word also abused in this manner is ‘love’. It has now become another term for ‘God’ among a certain sect of Nihilism.
More evidence as to how a word can be disconnected form its pragmatic, evolved, functions, and be converted to pure noumenon, and then to a divine abstraction: perfect, absolute, complete, whole etc.

Moderns do this with the concept of ‘pleasure’, as well. Pleasure detached form its pragmatic source and converted to an end in self.
‘Self’ is another word often abused, and by abused i imply the same kind of abuse one inflicts upon himself when trying to pleasure himself - sterile, useless, impotent.

Self is abused by converting ti to anything abstracted by the mind.
So, an abstracted rock, distinguished, discriminated, from a pile of rocks, or a mountain, becomes a emergent unity, with a motive, and not an ephemeral congruity of interactive patterns - attracting/repulsion is how interaction works.
A stone can then acquire anthropomorphic elements, by the mind projecting into it a motive.
Lacking the necessary component of memory, the individual projects into it his/her own.
Causality is given a telos, a motive, even if the attainment of its end might, be denied, to evade the Abrahamic inheritance it is rooted in…as with Spinoza.

Excellent retort…in line with your exceptional fabrications against race reality.

Back to value-selfing with ya.
Self-preservation replacing self-loving, as the highest virtue.
New way to repackage an old nihilistic self-hating, nature despising dogma.

Attracting the lost, the desperate, the needy.
Very popular.

How can the Messiah, bridge what Jesus failed to do?
Abrahamism and Paganism.

With words, psychosomatic effects, exploiting feebleness, sickness, desperation.

The amount (quantity) and quality of detached abstractions a mind can integrate into its compartmentalized consciousness is determined by the degree of sheltering present in the environment it exists within, protecting it from its own detachment form reality, and the degree of need present in it.
Despising the world as it is, easily converts feeble minds into ideologies that promise alternatives, escapes, self-numbing word balms.

Assimilation into popular norms indicates a desire to preserve the sheltering that permits the mind to indulge in self-referential escapes, or mind numbing chemical or verbal medications.
Easiest converts to absurd dogma’s are those whose own feebleness is compensated by the dogma’s promise.
The level of detachment form world determined by the particular organism’s genetic potentials, awakening to a threatening and challenging uncertain cosmos.

Reason is dominated by emotion, skepticism silenced by need/hope.

Words are for the memetic virus of the multiplicity we call Nihilism, what DNA is for an organism.
Memories, converted to code, passed on from mind to mind - copulation, insemination, intercourse.

With no genetic reference, but only as a rejection, it becomes self-referential.
With no phenomenon to attach its noetic fabrications, its convoluted abstractions, it is left with emotion to validate, and other minds to impregnate and reaffirm its presence.

It’s Will to power, to use one of the modern’s favorite idols to misinterpret, is limited to within organic premises…or anything that can be trained, taught - symbolism and how to react to it.
It is powerless beyond. Useless outside human brains.
Nihilistic concepts refer to nothing but human abstractions, taken literally.
This is why it desperately seeks to infect as many minds as possible, expand its power potential, or to reinterpret all existence as being organic, as hiding organic processes - it anthropomorphizes in an attempt to make its abstractions universal.

See how ‘love’ has been projected and redefined.
See how ‘humanity’ has been converted to a divine abstraction erasing its reproductive, sexual meaning.
Or ‘will’, or ‘justice’.
Any ‘positive’ word can be used to exploit feebleness, to seduce the needy.

If not ‘love’ as ‘love thyself’ expanded to mean ‘god’, or ‘humanity’, then why not self-preservation projected as an all-encompassing mystical force, explaining everything form life to elements.
The criteria are emotional. Their validity established by how many are indoctrinated into its meanings.

Values only exist because entities capable of valuing exist. All values are relative to a valuer. But, what is “a valuer”?

The only “universal” and formality of value is an entity’s own self-value. Not sure why that’s so difficult for you to grasp.

No innate value.
Only a relationship of life to world, giving value to phenomena.
Value only has meaning within living unities.
A stone does not have a self, and has no innate value, outside a consciousness projecting one into it, in relation to a motive.
A stone is not a one stone…you conceptualize it as a singularity. It does not self-reserve, nor value itself, a consciousness projects this into it.
Attraction/repulsion is part of interactivity…no self required. Your bastardization of language hides a motive other than clarity.

Your master made self-preservation into self-valuing, and exploited self-loving to exploit the death of God.

How you defended your anti-racist rhetoric exposed the quality of your mind.
Try explaining evolution of man, of intelligence, without intermediating forms. Do you call yourself an empiricist, or rational?
You apply evolution theory selectively.
Should I expect more from you than emotional gibberish, and womanly tactics like *yawns?

Pity…that the old dogma still seduces the same feebleness.

Sorry that you don’t understand. “Self-preservation”? Please. You have no idea what I’m talking about here, if that is what you think.

Try harder.

Oh self-valuing is so precious.
It can shift from the pragmatic to the mystical evading detection…whoever sees it as another repackaging of the old, does not understand…those that feel its truth, have potential to understand.
Its self-referential, self-valuing.

Stones do not value self, for they have no self and cannot perceive nor judge.
Case closed.
Organisms do…we also call it self-preservation, later evolving along with self-consciousness into self-love.

No ‘self’ required to explain how and why elements interact the way they do, and how they ephemerally form onto congruities.
No motive…no will, no appreciation of self.
Non living congruities of patterns have no self, unless you want to broaden the concept to mean just about anything you like.

If by value, once again, you mean energy, or type, as your master once admitted, then that word has purposefully chosen to pretend it is more than what it is.
Implying and then claiming to be misunderstood by all but the select imitated…the van clan.

Energy - dynamism, patterns, but also non-patterned dynamism, randomness/chaos.

Even in this case, to measure energy requires consciousness using self as the measuring standard, or creating an average, or an abstraction such as mathematics to measure it.
No Value with no consciousness, with a motive, a goal.
No innate value.
Use another term…that one betrays your Abrahamic leanings.
Wanting to reinvent Jude-Christianity to also incorporate Nietzsche into it, substituting one messiah for a Messiah 2.0 will not work.
Same reasons Judaism and Hellenism, or Nihilism and Paganism, could not mix, still apply.
Any new morphoma, new Christianity, will have a minimal if any, popularity, effect, and only among the effete, the cowardly, the ill, the desperate…the needy.

I will try harder…as hard as you did when you gave us that childish argument against races.

Time is short…so…

nihilism = taken out of Nihilistic contexts, rescued from nihilistic abduction, the word describes the rejection of world, as it is; as lacking god, universal morality, meaning, purpose, an end…absolutes.
All is fluid, all is in flux…all is declining towards chaos, where chaos is not merely hiding order, as in complexity, but lacks all order, as in randomness.
Just as the Big Bang the theoretical “beginning” of the “uni-verse” was not a singularity, not an absolute, but only a near-absolute…so too will randomness not complete into absolute chaos where all is equally possible, and probability as a description of order, loses all meaning.
I will not explain, here, how from this process new cosmos emerge, representing cycles.
Nihilism - a word based memetic dis-ease.
The Jews did not invent it, they just exploited its potentials to their fullest, inverting hierarchies, inverting reality.
In the east other nihilistic forms corrupted Hinduism, the original Pagan spiritual system.

Marxism is a offshoot of Jude-Christianity.
Abrahamism minus the god crap.
In his place the State is placed, as the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent authority…the absolute.

Nihilism detaches words from their references in phenomena, detaching noumena, or abstractions, form their reference points.
This is called ‘freedom’. by the modern, who take advantage of this offering to fantasize any reality they desire, which does not come into conflict with the only rule - that nobody disturbs the other from his own delusions.

The meek, the ill, the insane, the feeble, the idiotic, all come to inherit their own private earth.
Nihilism can only survive by contradicting itself - it must lie…or it can survive when there’s a protective umbrella sheltering the fool from the consequences of his own delusions.
This is the social contract…or Democracy.
Protecting everyone’s “right” to remain as obtuse and retarded as he or she desires.

You mean my point that the terms “white people” and “black people” are stupid and meaningless terms? Yeah, that’s true. They are stupid and meaningless. Anyone who uses such terms is made to be a racist. That’s why these terms exist.

As for the rest of what you wrote… I see no evidence that you have any idea what “self-valuing” means. But th larger point is that you seem insane, incapable of forming coherent thoughts, just stringing along disconnected and mostly empty concepts in no particular order or significance except a kind of game of superficial associations. Can’t say I see any philosophy in here at all.

So I’ll leave now. Keep it up, whatever it is you think you’re doing.

Thanks.
You keep fighting against the racists, with that cunning that attracted you to the Messiah.
The arguments against racism were exceptional.

As for VO…I’ll leave you to your symbols with healing properties, and rocks valuing self.
Very original.
I’m expecting a cRAP album to sweep the charts.

You honor the van-clan.
I am humbled.

Happy New Year folks!!!