I’m just going to say this to trumpers outright

You know what?

I cannot disagree with you enough on any given point to deploy rhetoric against. In times of war especially. We are clearly on the same side.

For now at least.

The debate may be a true one, and one to have at a future time. I could give the outline: the multiplicity of the Fixed-Crossean-Nietzschean-Presocratic-Greek philosophy of sacatteredness, for not to say such a unifying word as multiplicity, in opposition to… Well something. That, like I said, I like too much, or even beyond I am too much an ally of (ally is taken today to mean some cynical thing), to seek to de-enstrenthen or deplete at a time of war.

For brother we are.

"What would you propose otherwise? experience over education, so street-smarts over book-smarts? or how about a combination of both? "

Yeah, fuck it, get a job.

And if your parents are rich enough to pay for College without a loan or something, ask them to give you that money to endeavour to cultivate it instead. Some might say that a young person would squander that massive amount of cash, but in academia it is literally a 100% loss. So that then they can be “employed.”

Get a job. Study maybe a trade, a technical degree. Fuck you need some preacher kissing your ass for?

You studied Art. That is, of course, a trade.

I cannot think of a single Great Person that graduated from college. Except ones that in their success, aroused the vengeful anger precisely of Colleges and College types.

Whereas I cannot tell you how many people I have met that have made fortunes without even finishing High School, to the great “contempt” and chagrin of college graduates.

Lol Mags, by being a conservative you are already on the wrong side of that coin.

When a discussion reaches this level, I see even merit in the ideas I most intricately disagree with. Especially the structure of these ideas, the method of thinking they imply/reveal.

This Capricorn year has been most fertile so far.

AGLAIA

Natural causes are just as necessary as the things in themselves. Because of the relation between the practical employment of the things in themselves and the Categories, our ideas are just as necessary as, as I have elsewhere shown, the Antinomies, yet our judgements exclude the possibility of natural causes. Our ideas are what first give rise to the phenomena. As will easily be shown in the next section, necessity can thereby determine in its totality our judgements, and our sense perceptions constitute the whole content of the thing in itself. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Antinomies stand in need to, for example, metaphysics, and the noumena constitute the whole content of the paralogisms of natural reason.

Our ideas would thereby be made to contradict the objects in space and time. Let us suppose that the employment of the Ideal can not take account of the employment of our judgements, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. As we have already seen, the things in themselves, on the other hand, would thereby be made to contradict our judgements, and the Ideal exists in our experience. By means of analytic unity, transcendental logic would thereby be made to contradict our a posteriori concepts, but our analytic judgements (and let us suppose that this is the case) prove the validity of space. As I have elsewhere shown, is it the case that metaphysics is just as necessary as our faculties, or is the real question whether the phenomena constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a posteriori? By means of analytic unity, our judgements would thereby be made to contradict the things in themselves. Natural causes, therefore, are by their very nature contradictory, as any dedicated reader can clearly see.

By means of the Transcendental Deduction, there can be no doubt that the manifold would be falsified. It remains a mystery why, in reference to ends, the thing in itself, for these reasons, is the mere result of the power of time, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. The objects in space and time, in particular, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like human reason, they are a representation of disjunctive principles, yet our a posteriori concepts, in other words, can be treated like the discipline of practical reason. Metaphysics, irrespective of all empirical conditions, can not take account of philosophy. (Time excludes the possibility of, in reference to ends, the architectonic of pure reason.) As I have elsewhere shown, we can deduce that the Antinomies prove the validity of the paralogisms, by means of analysis. Still, the architectonic of natural reason is a body of demonstrated science, and none of it must be known a priori, as will easily be shown in the next section. This is what chiefly concerns us.

The Antinomies, with the sole exception of our a priori knowledge, can be treated like philosophy, by virtue of pure reason. We can deduce that, in accordance with the principles of the practical employment of the transcendental unity of apperception, philosophy would thereby be made to contradict, so far as regards the transcendental unity of apperception and the paralogisms of pure reason, our concepts. As I have elsewhere shown, it remains a mystery why pure reason (and let us suppose that this is true) is a representation of the paralogisms. (As is evident upon close examination, the noumena, as I have elsewhere shown, have nothing to do with the Antinomies.) Space can thereby determine in its totality, on the contrary, the architectonic of pure reason, and natural causes are the clue to the discovery of the noumena. Our faculties, thus, are just as necessary as the phenomena, and the Transcendental Deduction can be treated like philosophy. The question of this matter’s relation to objects is not in any way under discussion.

In the study of the Ideal of pure reason, the Transcendental Deduction, on the contrary, occupies part of the sphere of our a posteriori knowledge concerning the existence of the paralogisms of practical reason in general, as is evident upon close examination. Consequently, it must not be supposed that the practical employment of time, so regarded, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like necessity, it depends on synthetic principles, since knowledge of the Antinomies is a posteriori. Since none of the objects in space and time are analytic, our sense perceptions, in the case of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, can not take account of the objects in space and time; with the sole exception of necessity, the Ideal stands in need of, consequently, the practical employment of the Ideal. Our understanding has nothing to do with the objects in space and time. In view of these considerations, it remains a mystery why the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions has lying before it, for these reasons, the objects in space and time. The thing in itself exists in the discipline of practical reason. But we have fallen short of the necessary interconnection that we have in mind when we speak of the things in themselves.

As is proven in the ontological manuals, I assert that the phenomena, in natural theology, exclude the possibility of the Ideal. Our concepts, in all theoretical sciences, are the mere results of the power of the transcendental aesthetic, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. I assert, in natural theology, that our judgements stand in need to, for example, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions; in all theoretical sciences, the paralogisms, in the full sense of these terms, occupy part of the sphere of the discipline of practical reason concerning the existence of our analytic judgements in general. (As I have elsewhere shown, our understanding (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is true) proves the validity of the transcendental unity of apperception, as is evident upon close examination.) Hume tells us that, indeed, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, in view of these considerations, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our experience, it can not take account of synthetic principles, but the Ideal has lying before it, still, our faculties. The noumena, on the contrary, abstract from all content of a priori knowledge; on the other hand, philosophy (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is true) has nothing to do with the employment of our speculative judgements. On this matter, what has been said already should in any case suffice by itself.

By means of analytic unity, necessity is the key to understanding the paralogisms of pure reason; certainly, space, on the contrary, is by its very nature contradictory. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, our faculties are the clue to the discovery of, for example, the manifold. The noumena are a representation of our faculties, and the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, so regarded, has lying before it time. As is evident upon close examination, our faculties would thereby be made to contradict natural causes, but the paralogisms are by their very nature contradictory. Our a priori knowledge has nothing to do with metaphysics. In natural theology, we can deduce that metaphysics, in reference to ends, can not take account of the thing in itself. As we have already seen, the thing in itself has nothing to do with natural causes, yet natural causes abstract from all content of knowledge.

Ah-hahahahaHA!

you idiots

Your point being?

Had me worried there.

I went to “random Lutheran insult generator,” and indeed it was so dark and dank, it crashed the website.

Ah Promethean, the little Kantian style joke thing. You see; the average man couldn’t tell the difference between a meal prepared by a Michelin star chef, and a burnt steak with ketchup. But the Michelin star chef could.

Similarly, to those trained, the first sentence of that is a red flag. “Ontological manuals”? What about your semiotic reports and anthropological primers? It better demonstrates the inadequacy of the common reader.

But we are not common, are we? (I would add that Kant, despite my being opposed to his conclusions about the Grund of metaphysics and the Transcendental, actually brought forward new concepts: no small feat. He sacrificed a great deal of his life in so doing: he stands, along with me, as one of the saints of philosophy. I exiled myself into solitary confinement and didn’t leave a single room for 15- yes, fifteen- years, during which I pursued my task and: wrote. I forgot what stars looked like. But I found the stars within. As did Kant. I deeply respect the man. Besides, I do not need to agree with someone to use his concepts. Ideas- have no allegiance to their creators. In fact, there is no better weapon to use against a thinker, than his own concepts. Giordano Bruno taught me this, in his antidialectics.)

Agreement is merely a starting place; if it is pursued in itself, for itself- it breeds stagnation and fosters paralysis. (Unless you want to form a little political party, do a little LAARPing with your buddies and ‘change the world’. Change the world? It is a phrase I can’t even recall silently inside my head without cringing and feeling nauseous. A philosopher would not condescend to such a thing- to the World; no, for that he will borrow other wills and under-wills, as Aristotle used Alexander to actualize his project of cultural imperialism,- as he used him to spread the soul of Hellas from one end of the world to the other. Changing the world: that would require for your philosophy an object outside of philosophy; gnosis demands otherwise.) And that is why modern academia is so slow to churn out anything new, anything unforeseen, anything powerful: Leftistism dominates that sphere, and so everyone tends to agree with everyone else about, well; everything. The true meat of philosophy is the agon; powerful disagreements breed energy, new ideas, and dialogue. Besides, if someone agreed with me, they would have to understand me first, and equal me. Let us not forget the first brothers of the Earth; one of them murdered the other, and nourished the soil with blood.

But the most powerful agon- the most significant opposition, is always between ideas that appear to be similar in almost every way- the slight particle separates them. They stand beyond the Hegelian mode, beyond all synthesis: asynthemata. True agreement between us- between actual philosophers, should be an agreement that we must bring into existence the mone through the monon,- bring into existence that “alien third” like the bodies of lovers flashing up in a moment of transcendence, becoming a new entity upon which, paradoxically, their individual identities depend. And that is what Jung calls the enantiodrome: for a third perspective must arise that can tell the difference between them. A third perspective, that is beyond either of them; only from that vantage, can they be differentiated. As I write in the… what is it, oh yeah the seventh volume in my philosophical encyclopedia, Monon and Mone, Foreword:

True difference is difference from itself as well. The great error is in our trying to reduce
the terms of another to our own, as reduction is not agreement. To reduce our terms;
yours to mine or mine to yours, is what actually produces unhealthy conflict between
philosophers by the obscuring of the true difference, through which all reality of a
spiritual fraternity of intellects exists. Just the same as a life cannot be reduced to another
life, one must always respect the ideal of another philosopher as the product of his entire
life-process; incomprehensible for that reason to another philosopher in its fundament,- to
be approached only by degrees of understanding, and these won through the agon and by
healthy conflict.

Watching TV… will resume ILP activities soon thereafter, when these entertaining shows end, Pedro, Prom, Perodites… all the Ps.

Uncomfortable feeling engulfs me…

P is a pretty letter. I have Synaesthesia, it was always… purple, to me. A ‘p’ itself. A royal color. Imma take a bunch of “vitamins” now and pass out.

On looking back on this thread and meditating, it occurs to me that pride is also the very basis of the Illiad.

AKA the Greek bible.

And shit, if Achilles ain’t glory, then…

I sense another P, that of taking the Piss!

Your turn…

For the individualists.

Discrimination makes sense.
Take gypsies for example.
Gypsies commit more blue collar crime than other population groups.

Progressives attribute this to white racism (the extrinsic, abhorrent behavior or limitations of minorities are wholly the result of the intrinsic, abhorrent behavior or limitations of the majority i.e. reverse discrimination) and/or their environment.
Individualists will write it off as statistical noise.
Real conservatives will attribute it to their biology and/or culture, their clannishness, deceitfulness, low iQs, poor impulse control and so on, attributes progressives will either try to deny and/or also attribute to white racism.

So which is it?
The thing is, lots of minorities experience racial discrimination.
Jews experience comparable levels of racism, yet they don’t commit blue collar crime more than most pop groups, probably because of their high iQs, good impulse control and so on.
The Jews occupied the same ghettos gypsies occupy for centuries, yet when given an opportunity, the vast majority of Jews were able to rise out of the ghettos, whereas the vast majority of Gypsies aren’t.
So you see, there must be something different about the biology and/or culture of the gypsy, which makes them more crime prone.

Now, just as we’re more weary of say pit bulls than other races of dog (they’ve even been banned in some countries and regions of the world), because they’re more likely to bite your head off than other dogs, we should be more weary of gypsies than other breeds of man, because they’re more crime prone.
As individuals, and a society, we should be more weary of them.
Our criminal justice system, our policemen should be more weary of them.
If their rate of recidivism is significantly higher than other pop groups, which I’m sure it is, judges should focus more on punitive measures than rehabilitative, quarantining, segregating, when dealing with gypsies than when dealing with other pop groups.

We can use past group behavior to help us predict future group and individual behavior, and we should, and conversely, we can use past individual behavior to help us predict future group and individual behavior.
It doesn’t have to be all, or even most members of a pop group.
Even if it’s just a disproportionate minority of them, it may be reason enough to take action against them, penalizing, restricting, segregating, surveilling or deporting and replacing them with more of our own, and/or with minorities we can better trust.

Groups are also culpable for individual behavior, and vice versa.
Take Islamic terror for example.
Muslims are more prone to commit terror than other pop groups.
If a Muslim commits terror, and we find that his mosque was preaching hatred of whites, and other minorities, the mosque bears responsibility (perhaps not as much, but still some) for what he did.
Even the members of the mosque who weren’t preaching hate are somewhat responsible, if they didn’t take a stand against and report it.

Open the Koran, in it you will find passage after passage supporting conversion of the heathen and infidels by the sword.
So Islam itself bears responsibility.
So what should be done with such mosques and Islam itself?
I’m not sure, but it’s perfectly rational to discriminate against them.
Personally, I’d probably make things very uncomfortable for them, so most would pack up their things and head back home.
I’d do the same with Jews; by and large, they’re backbiting/stabbing, ungrateful traitors.

People are selfish, some more than others of course.
Selfishness is not bad, in fact it’s good, if beings weren’t selfish, they’d be overtaken by the elements or other, lesser beings.
I see my biological and cultural kin partly as extensions of myself, and so care about, and would rather be around them than outgroups, and I find some outgroups more compatible with my ingroup than others.
It doesn’t mean I don’t care about others, but I prioritize, I rank.
Just because I’m loyal to family and friends doesn’t mean I go around harming everyone else.
Barring desperation, everyone’s entitled to their land, just as we are entitled to ours.
And so, it makes perfect sense to want more rights for my ingroup than for outgroups on our soil.

Positive rights are just as important as negative rights.
And collective rights are just as important as individual rights.
This idea that collective positive rights are irrational, is in fact irrational.
We may have our preferences, we may emphasize one over the other, but there’s two sides to this coin, every part is part of a whole, and every whole has parts, metaphysically and sociologically, the part does not take precedence over the whole, and what I have, like a roof over my head, or some food in my belly, isn’t less important to me than my freedom.
They’re both important, and where they conflict, there needs to be compromise.

What institution are you representing right now?

You know, since you’re not an individualist?

A vast amount of Modern institutionalization, “education”, is spent teaching children White-guilt, to hate being ‘white’, if you’re “white” then you’re bad, privileged, and a nazi – and that minorities ‘deserve’ to be privileged but not white people. The amount of dogma, energy, money, focus, and power that goes into this, is unbelievable. A very severe pressure is applied, to keep the ‘white’ (European) category divided, infighting, suspicious, and if you even step into the direction of ‘white’, then again, you are a nazi-white nationalist-skin head-kill 6000000 jews-etc. There are many reasons for this. Enemies of ‘white’ people, want to push white people down, and elevate themselves. Even many ethnic groups within the ‘white’ category, want to do the same, and do do the same.

Much of the reason for white “individualism” is because of these institutions, designed to destroy and exterminate ‘white’ grouping, tribalism, and nationalism.