ILovePhilosophy.com

Jakob wrote:The old testament is actually one of the best books ever.

Well are whites superior or are they not?

Gloominary wrote:Serendipper

Well are whites superior or are they not?

Why do you insist I simplify it?
You can prefer something, and identify with it, and have reasons for preferring and identifying with it, without thinking it's objectively superior.

Silhouette wrote:So in criticising Nietzsche as part of your point here, you're actually criticising a proponent of the style of your criticism.

Silhouette wrote:

Jakob wrote:The old testament is actually one of the best books ever.

The prodigal capitalist revealed.

Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked

— (Ps. 82 (81): 3, 4).[6]

Blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in his commandments!...He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever; his horn is exalted in honour

— (Ps. 112 (111): 1, 9).[6]

Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood...cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow

— (Isa. 1:15–17).[7]

He who loves gold will not be justified, and he who pursues money will be led astray by it. Many have come to ruin because of gold, and their destruction has met them face to face. It is a stumbling block to those who are devoted to it, and every fool will be taken captive by it

— (Sir. 31: 5–7).[8]

It is God's gift to humankind that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil

— (Ecc. 3: 13).[9]

You shall not oppress your neighbour...but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord

— (Lev 19:13, 18).[4]

He [the Lord your God] executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner therefore; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt

— (Deut. 10:18–19).[5]

I think of Stirner as a bit of a joke. A lot of fascile points. Not a lot of depth there.

promethean75 wrote:

I think of Stirner as a bit of a joke. A lot of fascile points. Not a lot of depth there.

understandable. he does have that effect. we take offense at anyone who calls our deepest thoughts and most pressing philosophical concerns, a menagerie of nonsense and spooks. we want to take something seriously, want to believe we can find some cause external to us that might give us meaning so that we can temporarily lose ourselves as the 'creative nothings' that we really are (according to stirner), and escape the nihilism that consumes us.

there probably hasn't ever been a thinker as honest as stirner; that's what's so offensive to the involuntary egoist, who on account of his fear of his own nothingess, cannot live without lying to himself and others. what's so impressive about stirner is that he 'called out' everything philosophical that was to develop south of marx, long before it happened. he was the absolute antithesis of marx's collectivity and morality, a kind of private eye that got a look behind all the individualisms and egoisms that would evolve and parade around as 'moral' systems. especially capitalism; the quintessential farce in this respect. so in a way stirner was like the priest that the capitalist must confess to if he is to come clean. the capitalist has everyone else fooled, but not stirner... not that master psychologist and magistrate of philosophical honesty.

somewhere else i talked about how stirner and marx represent the only two possible wings of political theory. and stirner is incredibly important because he is the shining symbol of conservatism (jakob had it backward in some comment elsewhere), which is nothing more than an anarchy of egoism with no view toward a collective and truly moral state. this being the case, the conservative is the epitome of the involuntary egoist; he covers his immorality up by telling himself he cares for something more than his pocket - humanity, freedom, liberty... spook narratives he occupies his head with, 'causes' he tells himself he is involved in so he can avoid having to face his own transparency.

in the end you might say there are only two types of people. nihilists-truthers, and nihilist-liars. the first type is the creator of morality precisely because he knows there isn't any morality. he has to fill this void, and to do so honestly, properly and completely, he has to shift to the other side of that spectrum and embrace the marxist collectivity. the second type is immersed in a tripartite lie; the first, that there is morality, the second, that his cause (capitalism) is this morality, and the third, that he becomes moral in what he does when he takes up his cause.

so the capitalist is so perfectly nestled in this series of lies that he tells himself that to come out of it would scare him to death... and this is the condition of the involuntary egoist. the first step out is to come clean and get washed. then you can begin doing political philosophy proper. until then, one is a thug at best, or a worm at worst.

this is the wisdom of the grand master max; that deadly philosophical marksman sniper. dostoevsky and nietzsche were great existential soldiers, sure, but they couldn't shoot like max. no sir.

artimas wrote:There isn't any morality? Based off of logic there is.

Nihilism? Really? The meaning of life is Life, to evolve and experience, sorry that isn't enough For some, quite sad to be honest. If one actually TRULY believes life has no meaning then what stops them from ending their life which has "no meaning" other than cowardice?

promethean75 wrote:

I think of Stirner as a bit of a joke. A lot of fascile points. Not a lot of depth there.

understandable. he does have that effect. we take offense at anyone who calls our deepest thoughts and most pressing philosophical concerns, a menagerie of nonsense and spooks. we want to take something seriously, want to believe we can find some cause external to us that might give us meaning so that we can temporarily lose ourselves as the 'creative nothings' that we really are (according to stirner), and escape the nihilism that consumes us.

there probably hasn't ever been a thinker as honest as stirner; that's what's so offensive to the involuntary egoist, who on account of his fear of his own nothingess, cannot live without lying to himself and others. what's so impressive about stirner is that he 'called out' everything philosophical that was to develop south of marx, long before it happened. he was the absolute antithesis of marx's collectivity and morality, a kind of private eye that got a look behind all the individualisms and egoisms that would evolve and parade around as 'moral' systems. especially capitalism; the quintessential farce in this respect. so in a way stirner was like the priest that the capitalist must confess to if he is to come clean. the capitalist has everyone else fooled, but not stirner... not that master psychologist and magistrate of philosophical honesty.

somewhere else i talked about how stirner and marx represent the only two possible wings of political theory. and stirner is incredibly important because he is the shining symbol of conservatism (jakob had it backward in some comment elsewhere), which is nothing more than an anarchy of egoism with no view toward a collective and truly moral state. this being the case, the conservative is the epitome of the involuntary egoist; he covers his immorality up by telling himself he cares for something more than his pocket - humanity, freedom, liberty... spook narratives he occupies his head with, 'causes' he tells himself he is involved in so he can avoid having to face his own transparency.

in the end you might say there are only two types of people. nihilists-truthers, and nihilist-liars. the first type is the creator of morality precisely because he knows there isn't any morality. he has to fill this void, and to do so honestly, properly and completely, he has to shift to the other side of that spectrum and embrace the marxist collectivity. the second type is immersed in a tripartite lie; the first, that there is morality, the second, that his cause (capitalism) is this morality, and the third, that he becomes moral in what he does when he takes up his cause.

so the capitalist is so perfectly nestled in this series of lies that he tells himself that to come out of it would scare him to death... and this is the condition of the involuntary egoist. the first step out is to come clean and get washed. then you can begin doing political philosophy proper. until then, one is a thug at best, or a worm at worst.

this is the wisdom of the grand master max; that deadly philosophical marksman sniper. dostoevsky and nietzsche were great existential soldiers, sure, but they couldn't shoot like max. no sir.

Artimas wrote:We should have a half socialism system, half of our system focused on necessities and the other half as capitalism for luxuries, the un-needed things that we use as comforts or pleasures.

THE MOST DANGEROUS COUNTRIES IN EUROPE FOR WOMEN HAVE LARGE MUSLIM IMMIGRATION
Statistics link Muslim immigration in Europe to sexual violence.
September 6, 2018 Daniel Greenfield
Share to Facebook5.6KShare to TwitterShare to More422Share to Print
73
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism

Sweden has one of Europe’s highest rates of sexual assaults.

At 120.79 violent sexual assaults per 100,000 people, and 56 rapes per 100,000, the otherwise bleak socialist country ranks as having the second highest rate of sexual violence in Europe.

What makes Sweden so exceptionally dangerous for women? Its militant feminism is embedded in its political culture and its educational system. Sweden has boasted of a “feminist foreign policy”, 61% of Swedes in one survey identified as feminists and hold the strongest views on “gender equality” of any Europeans. Swedes are the most likely to believe that it’s okay for men to cry. Only 11% believe that women should take care of the home and only 10% believe that it’s a man’s job to support his family.

A local branch of the Left Party in Sweden even demanded that men urinate while sitting down.

And then there are the Czechs, just 13% identify as feminists, 77% think that a woman’s place is in the home, yet the sexual assault rate is 7.79 per 100,000, a tiny fraction of feminist Sweden.

If the real issues were feminism and toxic masculinity, if sufficient educational indoctrination about the evils of masculinity is needed to “teach men not to rape”, women should be safest in Sweden.

So what went wrong?

Instead of traveling from Stockholm to Prague, let’s take a closer trip over to neighboring Finland.

Finland has a third of Sweden’s rape rates and a quarter of its sexual assault rates. Its numbers are still far higher than most of Europe, but nowhere near those of Sweden.

What could possibly explain the difference?

Finland is also fairly feminist, but the Muslim proportion of its population is only a third of Sweden. Finland has a third of Sweden’s Muslim population proportion and a third of its rape rate.

Sweden has the second highest non-indigenous Muslim immigration population rate in Europe and the second highest sexual assault rate in Europe. It would be foolish to pretend that this is a coincidence.

Take Ireland and the United Kingdom. The UK tops even Sweden in Europe’s sexual assault and rape statistics. At 130.96 per 100,000 for sexual assaults and 50.68 per 100,000 for rapes, the United Kingdom is the most dangerous place for women in Europe. One analysis claims that 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted and that 3.1% of women were assaulted in just the last year.

But then why do the numbers for nearby Ireland look so strikingly different? Like Finland, Ireland’s numbers are high, but nowhere near as high as those in the United Kingdom.

The UK’s sexual assault and rape rates are roughly four times as high as those of Ireland. And at 6.3% versus 1.4%, the difference in Muslim population percentages is in almost perfect proportion.

London, with its great diversity, has the highest rape rate within the United Kingdom.



Finland was once part of Sweden. Ireland was once part of the United Kingdom. Unlike comparing distant countries where differences can be accounted for by a great variety of factors, Finland and Ireland serve as a kind of control group measuring the impact of immigration on Europe.

Belgium, which hosts the capitals of the European Union and of Islamic terrorism, is in third place. At 65.92 sexual assaults and 25.50 rapes per 100,000, women are unsafe in the capital of the EU. Meanwhile Hungary, the country in the news for its clashes with the EU over admitting Muslim migrants, has a sexual assault rate of 2.45 and a rape rate of 3.82.

Belgium has the third highest Muslim population rate and the third highest sexual violence rate.

Brussels has a thousand programs and regulations pushing feminism. Hungary has a wall. The lesson from Sweden and Brussels is that if you want to stop rape, professional feminism doesn’t work, walls do.

At 0.86, Serbia has one of the lowest sexual assault rates in Europe. And at 8.8, France has one of the highest. Eastern European countries, generally not known for their militant feminism, have low rates while the more “progressive” Western European countries suffer from very high rates.

The Netherlands has the fourth highest sexual assault rate in Europe and the fourth highest non-indigenous Muslim population rate. Germany has the sixth highest assault rate and the sixth highest Muslim population rate. Not all the numbers add up so well, but those that do are quite disturbing.

There are European countries with low Muslim population rates, but high sexual assault rates. Portugal, Finland and Latvia are all examples. But there is no European country that has a high Muslim immigrant population and a low rate of sexual violence. All of the top Muslim immigrant countries are in the red.

The differences are sometimes striking when measuring culturally dissimilar neighbors.

Germany sits next door to Poland. Sexual assaults in Germany clock in at 33.55 while in Poland, they’re at 1.40. Muslims make up 6.1% of Germany and less than 0.1% of Poland.

The statistics suggest that the key factor is not necessarily a high Muslim population, but a high Muslim immigrant population. Bulgaria has a sizable Muslim population that has been living there for a very long time. And its sexual violence rates are quite low. It’s particularly immigrant populations coming from societies with a very different set of Islamic mores that lead to epidemics of sexual violence.

European countries with ancient Muslim populations don’t appear to have large sexual assault rates. It’s the countries that admitted large numbers of Muslim migrants in a matter of decades that are suffering.

Islamic doctrines and Arabic cultural mores that permit, explicitly or implicitly, the sexual assault of non-Muslim women who are not dressed properly or walk unaccompanied by a male relative, are pernicious. And Muslims rapists in Europe and Australia have cited belief and culture in their defense. But mass migration is often inherently disruptive, breaking down values and trust in stable communities.

That trust then has to be rebuilt in ways that the media and the entertainment industry frequently reduce to simplistic moralizing tales about trusting people who are different, but that in practice take generations to restore lost social capital. There can be gains along the way, but any honest accounting must measure the horrifying losses, including these shocking assault rates, against the gains.

Sweden has the second highest non-indigenous Muslim population rate in Europe and the second highest sexual assault rate in Europe. Belgium has the third highest Muslim population rate and the third highest sexual violence rate. The Netherlands has the fourth highest sexual assault rate in Europe and the fourth highest Muslim population rate. Germany has the sixth highest assault rate and the sixth highest Muslim population rate. Are all of these numbers just a random coincidence?

Feminist government policies don’t stop sexual violence. Not when the same feminist governments open the borders to mass migrations from countries where women have no legal or cultural rights.

The more open a European country is to Muslim mass migration, the more dangerous it is to women.