Buddhism is eastern nihilism.
Denial of self is part of it.
Nihilistic dogmas, like the one Paul introduced into Rome, gain traction when population levels reach a level where self-restraint and extending the number of people you consider your own kind, becomes a necessity for the preservation of society.
Are not the sum parts of the entire whole?
Is there not something greater in the universe than the self? Perhaps a society not based upon the ego could be a good thing.
I donât ascribe to fairy tales about a universal consciousness
Man deifies anything he cannot comprehendâŚ.like consciousness
Yes, but when this egotistical self is disconnected from its own body, so that it no longer identifies with its species, its race, its sex, nor its ethnicity, then it latches onto an abstraction, as in Buddhism and Abrahamism.
A Platonic IdealâŚ.
A metaphysics that is contradicted by physics, or that contradicts physics and then denounces it as illusory or a âfallen stateâ or a prison to be escaped.
Alienation from the self, by rejecting the apparent, the bodyâŚwhat is present.
From there thereâs a short distance to postmodern wokism where a man can claim that he is âtrapped in the wrong bodyââŚexpressing the total alienation of man from himself.
This is why men-children, like Care-less, can reinvent history to accommodate their liberal agendasâŚ.âcorrecting natureâs injusticesâ, such as races that lack the same range of traits as those of other races.
Nature is unfair. YES!!! nobody disagrees. But this âunfairnessâ is part of natural selectionâŚ.not my fault for exposing the truth of it.
They are admitting itâŚ
Their conflict with the Jews is an internal struggle over who is the chosen victimsâŚgodâs preferred people.
Jews want to be elite victimsâŚChristianity wants to universalize victim identity.
Jews want to be their masterâs house slavesâŚslaves with privileges. Christianity wants to collectivize slavery - all slaves are equal, in the eyes of their master.
Itâs the old Communist conflict between the proletariat and the intelligentsia.
And then consider the extent of Abrahamic compulsion and defense-reflex when they are confronted⌠you are âdemonic, Satanic, heretical, etc.â All because you remind their religious ideology of âNatureâ (the Old Gods of the Pantheon). It exposes their worship and dependency on strict Literal definitions and interpretations.
How many times, throughout the recent 2 decades, have they debased their own arguments and positions about âoh yeah, whatâs the dictionaryâs definition???â They rely on MSM talking-heads. They rely on propaganda. They rely on institutional authority and legitimacy on one hand â then espouse Cosmopolitan âtraveledâ world-views on the other. They expect to be treated as 1st class citizens around the world. They ignore and deny reports and news articles about their women going to turd-world shit holes, and getting decapitated and raped for it.
They depend on lie, after lie, after lie, to support their collective delusions and group-think on a Societal scale.
The lies are too numerous to count.
All value-judgements are relative to an objective.
Their objective is salvation - liberation from realityâŚ.from nature.
Liberals = liberty from all injustices, including those rooted in nature. They dream of socially engineering the perfect man, living in a perfect society.
Anything or anyone that inhibits this liberation/salvation agenda is demonic, evil, satanicâŚnegative.
A fascist, a Nazi, a bigot, a racist, a sexistâŚ. he must be silencedâŚ.
They think silencing erases all that they fear they cannot overcome, because their own ideologies are entire linguisticâŚ..they can never be realized - existing only as theories represented by words.
In essence, they accuse nature of being all of this. So they despise pagans, or those still of the Ind-European spiritual dogma. Those that worship nature.
They become personifications of natureâs unfairness, embodiment of natureâs unyielding, relentless injustices.
You still donât understand what trans is⌠wowâŚ
Its a disagreement between 2 groups, one group is the old world which believes that people should be trapped into their bodies, roles they were born intoâŚ. the other group is the new world which believes people should have free-choice and define their own destinyâŚ
One might even say the first group is inclined to believe in slavery, a kind of slavery and bondage to ones body. A coincidence that almost everyone of the old world believes that humans should have to work all the time, like Sisyphus⌠and those of the new world believe robots should do the work and pay UBI to humansâŚ? Coincidence, surelyâŚ
the bible says God created the earth. âIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. **2 **Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.â
Yes, I noticed jews seem to be obsessed with numerology. I believe it is because Mathematics is perhaps the greatest talent of a semite. Could be why they were chosen as bankers, accountants, etc.
One thing that struck me in Genesis and Exodus is that itâs mentioned several times that there are âOther Godsâ and the Israelites are commanded to server no god âbeforeâ the Abrahamic God. This demonstrates a Pantheon to me, an immediate competition among Pagan Gods.
The bible calls them the Lord usually.
In the Beginning Elohim (council of several GODS) creates the world. They create an illusion called the garden of eden and put a digital tree containing all knowledge. A serpent convinces them to receive the knowledge which corrupts them and removes their innocence. They are then banned from the garden. A new god takes over (the Lord) and the descendants of Adam are now under their command.
I know this because, in the Eden they were all meant to be vegetarian, until entering Earth-realms where the new lord punishes them for not eating meat. Canât possibly be the same god, obviously.
In my philosophy it is the ego that always gets in the way of natural harmony and ultimately is what undoes it overtime.
The ego is the root cause of the radical individualism you always complain about.
The unfairness as you call it is ultimately destroying civilization, society, and nation states overtime. Itâs what happens when you have an out of control tyrannical minority who have rendered the majority of the population as being entirely expendable.
Collectivism requires moral or ethical fairness, there is no way around that.
Ego is the lucid part of self - the part that is conscious of being conscious - self-conscious.
What you mean by âegoâ is egotisticalâŚ.but all acts are egotisticalâŚâŚALL of them, even those that profess to be selfless and altruistic.
All actions, thoughts, are expressions of self, ergo selfish, in tat they expect a return, a reward a benefit. Even in self-sacrifice.
How do you distinguish between egos of individualism versus egos of collectivism?
Collectivism is an ideology where individual egos are willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater whole versus individualism where people only do things for themselves.
Saying everything is egotistical is missing the point distinguishing both, is it not?
Demons are hypocriticalâŚ.They use words to explain their lies and then claim that words are meaningless when they are corrected with truths.
âIn the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was Godâ.
âIn the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was Godâ
@futureone Ecmandu is correct, this is the important part regarding Creationism and Genesis. The âCreationâ is the Naming. Itâs not actual physical magic in pops Existence (ie. Ex Nihilo concept). Thatâs ridiculous and an infant childâs approach to interpreting The Bible.
If you take The Bible as âabsolutely literally trueâ then thatâs just double-digit IQ, or Autism (in those like @MySiddhi)
Thatâs why Protestantism is inferior to Catholicism, and a Priestly class of triple-digit IQ is needed to prevent retarded, infant interpretations.
Infants believe in Santa Claus too. Do you believe in Santa, Trixie??
I consider social behaviors a compromise necessitated by weakness.
Vulnerable species naturally selected a method of coping, compensating for their individual weaknesses by cooperating.
The difference between herd and pack is, once more a matter of degree. Herds associate with more, packs associate with less.
Herd psychology is the association, the identification with humanityâŚ.all humanity. Tu accomplish this man identifies with an abstraction, an ideology represents this abstraction, such as Marxism and Abrahamism. For Christianity it is god - representing all humanity as the collective ideal man. For Marxism it is humanity, represented by the state.
Anything that prevents this universal identification is considered evil or badâŚ.such as biological identifiers, like sex, race, or god evenâŚ.becasue Marxism rids itself of that divisive abstraction.
Humanity = god God = Humanity
In Marxism the evil concepts are ethnicity, raceâŚanything the prevents the collective identification with a multiracial, multi-ethnic, multicultural state.
Marxism promotes the identification with the proletariatâŚ..based no money/wealth, representing resources. Crossing ehtnic and racial boundariesâŚmaking it possible for a poor person in Africa to feel closer to a poor person in NorwayâŚ..just as cultural Marxism - postmodernism - makes it possible for a sexual deviant in Brazil to feel closer, to feel a member of the LGBTJEW+ global collective of sexual deviantsâŚ..turning against their own ethnicity, their own culture their own people.
At some point the predatory nature of humanity is going to have to be shed off in favor of cooperation otherwise our entire species will never evolve leaving us in constant violent infighting. I understand what youâre saying and you see everything in a sort of master slave morality dynamic interaction.
I will only say we either evolve or curse ourselves to this violent existence forever. We have the ability to evolve if we choose to do so.
I would say your understanding of Marxism is very limited where most of things you constantly complain about are not Marxist iterations but instead are liberal ones.
Karl Marx didnât say anything on sexuality, Karl Marx didnât support radical feminism, Karl Marx did not posit an anti white or anti male agenda, and Karl Marx did not talk about getting rid of ethnocentrism or nationalism.
All of those things youâre complaining about right there are political liberal ideologies, theyâre liberal in origin.
In an ideal Marxist society all men and women were equalâŚ.No god, no ethnicity could be tolerated because it would disturb its idealized uniformity.
God was the last divisive issue.
Not all Marxist or communist societies are atheistic and irreligious, the Soviet Union in the very beginning was but even it overtime lost the war against the Orthodox Church. It was forced to make allowances for religion.
You will find many Marxist and communist societies in Asian there exists ethnic nationalism.
Again, the things you complain about are liberal aberrations. The Marxism I support is the one free from all liberal perversions.
What did Marx say about religion?
You are contradicting Marxism.
There are variants of every political system, including capitalism.
Marx opposed religion becasue he made the ideology his religion, and the State his God, otherwise the proletariat would not submit.
Liberalism is an offshoot of Marxism.
Marxism light. Socialism.
Multi-ethnic, multicultural societies must find a way to deal with the divisiveness. Americanism deals with it with miscegenation and the reduction of culture to a fashion and menu option.
âbecasue he made the ideology his religion, and the State his God, otherwise the proletariat would not submitâ
Sometimes, Karl suggests doing ideologically simple and mundane stuff like seizing control of the means of production and the workers are like âHey thatâs a great idea. Iâd totally submit to it!â You donât even have to be religious or worship a state god to do so, either. How cool is that?
Karl Marx was an atheist but the fact of the matter is a majority of the world isnât atheistic at all. There are Marxist communist states inside of Asia where communism, spirituality, and religion coexist just fine.
I myself am not an atheist at all.
The entire concept of destroying ethnic nationalism in the west over several decades from the 1960s onwards has everything to do with liberal capitalism, not Marxism or even communism.
The Soviet Union collapsed or was intentionally destroyed in the 1980s and then after that the liberal capitalists decided ethnic nationalism was no longer necessary because they came up with entirely new program of international capitalism dominated by the United States where every nation is basically transformed into a corporate business territory replacing the concept of citizenship with that of employee.
With this new international capitalism that only cares about money and profit the entire world of different human beings are simply interchangeable parts within the capitalist machine. Again, liberal capitalism has done all of that, not Marxism or communism.
It was the liberal capitalists that stomped out communism and socialism everywhere in the west from the 1980s onward. Marxists have no power inside the United States or the west in general.
Thereâs a reason our Hebraic liberal capitalists despise socialism, communism, and Marxism because if such a revolution were to ever be popular here their power through liberal capitalism would diminish politically very quickly.