Debating The Old Goat

And how would you define yourself Moreno? What are your views on the world? It’s not something we hear a lot from you on these internet forums.

Apex primates? No, I am not so foolish to believe we can go back to such a primitive existence. There’s no going back.

No, a new form of primitivism upon the collapse of civilization in its ruins will emerge. A new culture also. A sort of anti culture, culture. I am not against culture per se, I just believe in the minimum of it since as culture expands so does authority and control along with it.

The collapse of civilization across the planet will alter humanity and human behavior for a very long time especially concerning inter generational memory of the event.

Other historical collapses of various civilizations were national ones. The inevitable collapse I speak of is different and unique because it will be a global one at the height of human technological achievement.

My aims are not as simple as just jumping off the reservation to live very Thoreaunian in the woods somewhere. No, my beliefs and views are much more than that. Besides, nobody is allowed to legally jump off the reservation anyways. They would eventually find you and drag you back onto the reservation as that is how this system operates.

The rapture? :laughing: No, I am very anti religion and anti god. I’m just a guy who has a firm respect for entropy and natural equilibrium otherwise known as chaos.

Most people will become anarchistic nihilists? Nope, only a handful really.

In fact in order to maintain anarchism I believe it to be necessary to take out all kinds of authoritarian people under their various forms so that a new form of rule cannot be forged again. Execution, genocide, or whatever method available to stop their expansion in the aftermath of a civilization collapse. I want to see all of their temples and government institutions in a burning firy rubble. Line them all up and kill them in mass. Small price to pay the way I look at it so another nightmare like this current reality never arises again. If blood is the answer so be it. Let blood be spilled.

I can tell the way you write Moreno that you’re so invested in this current paradigm of civilization that you cannot imagine life or existence without it.

You say my view is fantasy and yet I would say your clinging onto civilization believing it will last forever is equally fantastic.

Human beings have such marvelous potential? To what end?

I am very aware of the power establishment’s goals in the aftermath of the collapse of civilization. I know they see it as an opportunity to further enforce control, dominion, and power over whole entire populations. They’re all apart of my target list in the advent of such a collapse. When the time comes it is open hunting season on all of their heads.

I despise the world’s elites and its aristocracies.

The neo Spartan aristocratic objective idealists are a funny lot of people obsessed with resurrecting a time period in current civilization with what they regard as the Golden Age or Human Renaissance in a time of societal decadence.

It is this idealism that their group think entirely revolves around. The problem of course with their belief is that little do they realize the type of social reformation they have in mind is unattainable and they have little or no way to implement such.

Also, this ideal Golden Age of humanity they largely worship and constantly praise is largely illusory. They cannot see that their highest ideal is equally decadent or bankrupt and that the Golden Age they admire so much was a precursor to the age we live in now.

It’s all a part of their ideological collective mythos with Satyr as their self proclaiming Platonic philosophical king.

Ah, what dreams are made of…

Then it is rigid when you say what you say and stand by it. And it is flexibility to not stand by anything and defend it.
That is mush calling itself flexible and calling what is flexible rigid.

Flexibility is resistant and when it’s pushed beyond its flexible point it remains deformed or broken.
This is when its flexible resistance was broken.

No, it can be fine to stick to your guns. I was thinking more of when challenged feeling the need to not only stick to one’s guns, but to try to use social, playing to the gallery to make the one who disagrees be seen as an idiot. To engage in dominance games, with a focus on use of shame, instead of argument and or in addition to argument. That kind of posturing. Where you must damage, to the extent you can, socially any disagreement. The autocrat’s lashing out. One can have a certainty that guides one and feel not the slightest need to try to make small anything that threatens you. In reality it is certainty as a mask. This does not mean, in his case, that he thinks he is 100 per cent certain. But in social terms he acts as if no other idea can exist or should and if harm is needed to remove it, then it is used. That should require full certainty, since it is heinous otherwise, but it really reveals weakness.

And you end up training yourself and other people to pretend you are not upset by what they say. In the Platonic form of this you get two neo-KT posters insulting each other, each making sure to point out that they do not care what the other one thinks or says, while, of course, continuing ad infinitum insulting the other one and dismissing the points made, if any. A gorgeous dance of denial hiding the fear in plain sight, which seems to work with many people.

Sticking to your guns does not look like this. or rather need not. Sticking to your guns does not entail dancing with an idiot while showing you are one. Nor trying to create a whole community where people think strength is the presentation of lacking weakness when in dispute or when dealing with something that is not parroting you.

If I was making a simple heuristic, it would be mush. Like: Don’t be rigid, be flexible. But I was referring to a specific individual and his rigidity. Of course, for example, he feels fear, he may even acknowledge this more than others, at certain times, when he is in control. By dynamically, he lashes out and expresses anger instead of fear. He implies certainty by being willing to diminish others, by needing to, when they disagree with him. This is rigidity and functional, relational fear denial. And it creates a culture. In this case a little one, one which has a need to be parasitic on other communities and individuals, SO THAT IT CAN FEEL SUPERIOR. It will keep coming back compulsively to what it hates because of the need to reassure itself.

So sure, if I was saying be flexible not rigid, that would be silly. There are times to be flexible and times to be rigid. There are times to stick to your guns, they are times to reconsider. Context dependent and related to what you know you know and how you know it etc.

But I was referring to a specific sick pattern.

And if you were he for example, I would encourage you to notice how convenient it is to take what I wrote as a rule for everyone always, when in fact it was a judgment of one specific sick interpersonal dynamic used repeatedly, OCDlike, by one person who has serious problems he wants to spread (mixed in with some insights, which only makes it worse).

When it comes to Satyr’s positions, all criticisms I’ve ever read were based on trying to hide parts of reality which he describes.
Attackers are not interested in explaining things but interested in obfuscation. In this case doubt does not serve to come up with a better understanding but simply to hide reality and remain blissful, blissfully ignorant about unflattering parts of reality.
Who is the most doubting person among you lot? Who is the most ambiguous one?
Someone with integrity will see that there is no valid attack on Satyr’s position except trying to seed doubt just to slander and to hide some hurtful insights. Contradict them they can not, at least not if they read them carefully. But then who would do that when certain insights hurt them. I probably wouldn’t if it would be too painful to give them the benefit of the doubt which is required for earnest consideration and understanding.

So what is left is personality traits.
How do you know that Satyr lashes out in anger?
Has somebody told you about that?
Can you not stop reading what he writes yourself?

And needing to feel superior -
Don’t you have to save the whales, the climate, humanity and abolish suffering from reality?
Do you not feel morally superior enough yet? When is your free weekend, so that the evil parts of the world can take a breather?

Psychoanalysing is not good for them.
They usually have so little empathy (not to confuse with sympathy or self-pity) that they tend to describe themselves all the time.

I see that you, like him, have a cut and paste reaction to disagreement and criticism. IOW something enters the radar screen of your mind. It is not flattering to your ideas or beliefs or you, so you pull from your repetoire something that attacks from some historical archive. Something even the impovrished AIs out there can manage. Here this cut and paste from the archives makes the assumption, based on nothing, that I cannot bear or notice or must hide some part of reality that Satyr boldly faces and gives insights around.

Some people might at this point assert their willingness to in fact do this. IOW take this kind of random attack as valid. Let a shift of focus take place. Be defensive.

But that’s just silly.

These questions are not coherently integrated or irrelevent. AGain, it is as if they relate somehow to what I wrote. You remind me more and more of him.

And like him you cannot read. What thread are we in? We are in a thread started by HHH and in which I contrasted my reactions to two people, one HHH and the other Satyr, his opponent in this thread. In a fairly personal message to HHH, I mentioned why I do not really give a shit about Saytr and the downside for Satyr of his personality and judgments. I was not ad homming him. OH, S is wrong because he is an asshole. I was telling another person why I do not give a shit about Satyr who has had much more control of the bed he makes for himself than HHH. That’s it. An implicit message to put my reactions to HHH in an interpersonal context.

Out of this context I then extended, in response to you, a focus on some of the interpersonal dynamics S engages in. You know PMing people to get them to carry out little tasks to undermine people. abusive sexual type stuff, playing to the gallery, trying to use shame as a control - while looking down on anyone, say religious people, who use guilt to control others (and here we are not talking about some noble forms of shame, but infantile schoolyard shit, which leads to the community he deserves) - lying, creating fake supporters, and so on.

How one acts is at least as important and one’s ideas. This is no distraction from Satyr’s ideas. HIs behavior was the topic and used to convey something interpersonal to HHH.

That you or Satyr would even care adds to one of the points I made in the previous post.

Ah, well then you are projecting your own weaknesses.

Sure, quite a long time ago. I mean at times via masks I end up reading him. Perhaps I have right here, but that’s easily remedied.

Now it doesn’t matter to me if you are him or one of his paler copies, but this is so him. AGain, something comes into his field of perception, it reminds him of other people who disagreed with, so he flings criticisms that are not relevent. A discussion with someone like that is a waste of time. That happens on personality issues and it also happens when it comes to specific discussions of ideas. A bad habit you should not emulate if you are, in fact, another person.

I am sure that’s a nice analysis of someone.

One difference between us is that you will spend pages and pages of a thread trading insults with someone you claim not to respect. That kind of what should be a waste of time fits with what I wrote in the previous post about S.

Me, I drop a dead end like this right here.


Debating the old Goat, somehow the fire in the belly has gone.

Once there would be a flurry of responses from quite a few people, but my “pulse never got above 85”, when I read the heading above.

All things must come to an end and a fifty something male still obsessed with a 1991 horror movie speaks volumes to me.

Anyway, carry on and on and on.

You >are< being silly here.
You don’t have to take it personally when I say that I have never seen Satyr being attacked properly on his positions. You know that’s fine, you don’t have to attack his positions, don’t mention them, but likewise you don’t have to allude to them being wrong via tactics of slander and obfuscation.
Satyr is banned from ILP and this is why I find those petty attacks, trying to slander his ideas and personality irksome. That’s not a sign of strength, nor courage, in fact, it can be quite ugly.
And notice how I say slander ideas and I mean that - It’s not about properly critiquing them. And with properly I mean actually reading and understanding them and then criticise away. Then it can be done without alluding to some vague ‘rigidity’.

You don’t see how this goes in the same direction as iambiguous criticism? It’s just plain stupid and again, I’m not just saying this to be insulting to the biguous nor you but when the same kind of critique can be applied to all and any kind of statements then it’s stupid because then the critique has obviously nothing to do with the statements which were being made. It’s a generalised critique of all manmade statements directed at one person or idea in particular.
That’s just stupid.

After attacking somebody else’s personality, somebody who is banned on this forum, where the attacked can’t defend himself, you can take the high road and keep lying in wait, for another opportunity to take a shot.
Let’s call it mature behaviour.

I like that following saying - “Many people believe to have a good heart when all they have are bad nerves.”

You know its funny. I realized later that I had in fact agreed with Satyr in this thread. At least what I remembered to be his opinion from quite some time back. So on the idea level, here, I agreed with Satyr, though I did end up being critical of his character. What does he or this ISWIDEOPEN do but suggest that I can’t take on S’s ideas SO I focus on his character. Which shows once again that S, or this person who is imitating him, reads very poorly, but like Iambiguous, is always ready to type in what he has said hundreds of times as if it fit the context.

I’ve got him on ignore HaHaHa, so he is all yours again.

When all you had going for yourself was your moral high ground and that one is crumbling then shutting it down is all you have left.
I think the moral high ground is very important to Moreno, essential even.

Control of the bed? :-k

Agreed. I’m shocked he hasn’t made a much more valiant effort against my anti morality thread where I compare human morality to mythology. To be fair however I like Moreno in that he is the complete opposite of me where he gives me a glimpse into contrasting criticism of my views that I always welcome from anybody. I actually like being criticized in that it only helps to strengthen my own views overtime.

The only place I take something like a moral high ground is when someone is not consistant with their own morality. If they have expectations of me, morally, that they do not seem to have for themselves, for example. There can also be inconsistancies, obviously, that do not involve their relation to me, I react to also. Don’t get me wrong, I can get pissed off at people for all sorts of behavior and opinion, but that’s different from moral high ground. In the main you are consistant. You do not expect others to live up to a moral code, and do not have one yourself, which if you had one, might expect others to live up to. My reaction is not a moral one to you. I have reacted strongly to Iamb, largely due to communication issues, but also because he is inconsistant. I can react to people who I think I get their moral code and further think they are not living up to it, but aiming it outwards. Here, of course, I can make errors. Someone strikes me as liberal or conservative or more vaguely as a modern, I may come back at them from what seems like moral high ground, but that is because I think they are being hypocritical, within in the sphere of their own values. This can lead people to assume things about me. As I have said to Iamb, I don’t think morals are objective. I am more of a vitalist, and react to things in terms of how they value life, are anti-life, etc. That perspective is nto easy to break down into a bunch of rules. I mean, should I lichens and in what ways, over stones, bears over a human, say. So a lot of my values are intuitive. I don’t build them from the values of a God. I am skeptical about utilitarianism, which is pretty much the main moral approach of most modern Western people, even religious conservatives, because there is a great deal of hubris involved in it - how does one do those calculations? Everyone today claims to be rational, to have reasoned their way to everything they believe in. Bullshit.

People make assumptions about my beliefs in other areas because I will often, here, work with the assumptions of the person I am responding to. If they are presenting me with mainstream science, then I will use mainstream science or mainstream scientific models to rebutt what they are saying. If they believe in mainstream science, but are using other kinds of epistemology in a political discussion, I will attack their position using criticisms based on scientific epistemology and a mainstream version of that. This doesn’t mean I hold the positions they do.

So my reactions to you are not moral based. I think you have biases in relation to human nature and weird optimisms about post-collapse utopias forming. Those are practical, potentially scientific issues, at least in the long run, ha ha.

This doesn’t mean we would get along or not, post or pre collapse.

And don’t buy any shit that moron says about me or anyone else. He sees categories and cannot, any more, at the age and state he has reached, retract one of his idiotic judgments once he has made them, such is the fragile state of his selfhood online, at. One of my core problems with him is the kind of society he already creates. He has moved shame into the place of God. He creates a little gaggle of PM whisperers, who feed him information, and get assigned roles to play out or to suss out information on people he cannot get directly. He uses any information he gets to use shame as a tool for dominance and, often, as a replacement for nuanced responses to what people actually write. Why should someone move away from guilt and moral based self-suppression to move into his realm of shame, gossipping, lying, manipulating and fear vampirism. It’s high school culture redux. Or some actually kinda crude version of court life at Versailles. A culture that puts anal values, asceticism, self-suppression, form up, and then has all sorts of disease and decadence behind closed doors. Half-humans can be made in other ways than guilt.

Not my take on us. I have a lot of the same reactions to current society, psychiatry, power elites, the ‘justice system’, what is really going on, etc. that you do. And I have been through my own hells in relation to it. I see daily life in society as ruled by guilt as god leading to an infrastructure that is life destroying as a rule. I do not, remotely see someone like you as the problem. I even have yearnings for that collapse also, though I am not optimistic, given what I see, about post-collapse life. This is not because I am attached to comfy suburban life. My life is neither comfy nor suburban. I have lived out of doors, though in wilderness not in urban setting, for long stretches, also in very rustic, no frills - no plumbing, self-generated el, etc. - for even longer periods. I just see resource wars, chaos, fascism as givens post-collapse. And that’s not counting in whatever fallout, literal or otherwise, from whatever the big govs do to create the collapse or in reaction to it. A nuke exchange might well lead to Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, book not film, as the daily scenario and as a vitalist, even surviving in that seems diminished.

So my problems with your position have nothing to do with morals.

Talk to Erik about that. I haven’t had the displeasure.

Oh, and well HHH, your ideas about women. They fit a portion of what I have experienced, but then I find most people impossible/terrible/zombied. But I have found as many exceptions to that amongst women as I have amongst men. That is, not many. So it’s misanthopy for me not misogeny.

Nobody should believe a single word that I’m saying, I am dangerous and can skilfully wrap any mind around my finger.
Best to not listen. Better not listen than sorry!

Alright, if you are still reading then neither Moreno nor I were able to persuade you to quit reading, so far.

So Satyr sees categories… maybe he even creates categories and puts things into them, that discriminating devil.
Something is telling me though that Moreno is a bit hypocritical here, secretly he has probably set up categories for himself as well, like eat-this but don’t-eat-that. I can only hope that his diet is at least ethnically balanced at the cuisine level to win social brownie points in the race category.

This is the funny thing with commies and their variations - Categories are bad they say, yet they seem to recognise them - they need to because how else would they be able to tell if somebody is discriminating based on them. In fact, often the people who they accuse of discrimination are genuinely surprised about their own wicked deeds - they just didn’t see their racism when they were hiring some competent white person.

Next, ‘this idiot’ with his ‘idiotic judgements’ has a fragile state of selfhood, apparently…
This is a wonderful inversion. Maybe, if Moreno (and I’d be careful about calling others moron with that name) could point out how to make non-idiotic judgements and how to not be an idiot then people who don’t have a fragile state of self could pick it up and prove their strong state of self by following those suggestions. Of course, only for as long as somebody with more social credibility shows up and calls them an idiot. Now they’ll have to switch gears again to prove their strong sense of self to them too.
Imagine you’d have to please two masters at the same time, oy-oy-oy…

Looks like Moreno has sussed it out that there is a well coordinated attack taking place, on him no less. Sure why not, could be true, I mean, I don’t find Moreno to be that irksome in general but who knows, some people could unite in their goal to discredit and shame him because they agree on his irksomeness or because … of his importance in…. hm, I got nothing.

The reader will have figured it out by now, I find Moreno inspiring - this light-hearted defence, I mean this shaming, writes itself. Unfortunately I don’t seem to inspire Moreno, instead I seem to have made him transpire - First the blocking and now the ‘Don’t buy anything ‘that moron’ says’ bit.

Moral based self-suppression….
What, like the chick who tries to stay attractive is suppressing her-self? I wonder which non-self part is doing this self-suppressing. It’s almost as if people, at least some people, have a part in them which is displeased with being a sloth of a wanker. This we call the Nazi part of self. Bad, evil part.
How about this - Don’t drag others down, just because you can’t or won’t pull yourself up!

And btw. every time you mention high school, I imagine you being shoved into a locker in a comedic fashion.

I wrote it in another thread, but this applies so well to you, Moreno, and Turd:

It’s an established pattern by now.
Those who are the most degenerate will accuse of degeneracy anybody who despises degeneracy, because degeneracy is so beautiful and you cannot sincerely despise it, only insult it out of jealousy and secretly covet it.

When it’s more than a hundred women you encounter it goes from being isolated incidences to a wide range pattern. Remember that Moreno.

There’s met and met. And then there is what you are attracted to, the women who you will do more than greet or have a single fuck night with. The women you will get to know well will follow patterns, and therefore confirm ‘a rule.’ Especially given that most people are, in my experience, way too problematic to associate with closely, whether men or women. I am not assuming that you met a couple of women, they were bitches and you made your decision, like some childhood trauma making someone think all bodies of water will try to drown them. I am saying that 1) most people are a problem 2) we tend to end up in closer contacts with those people of the opposite sex who are attracted to us and who we are attracted to - even if the relationship is not sexual. That attraction is based on unconscious patterns way more than that of our patterns for choosing male friends. 3) Women and men are different, so differences are more global.

I have some spiritual ideas which you obviously would never share, but there are more mundane psychological reasons why the women you meet will tend to confirm your unconscious expectations of women. You have to reject the pattern in yourself that makes them attractive (in the broad sense), but further you have to break the patterns that make you a person of interest to THOSE WOMEN and also find the desire that is not constrained by the pattern in yourself.

A battered woman will be attracted to the one guy in the bar who is going to beat the shit out of her. Men have this magical radar also.

But anyway this is a tangent in the thread so I will leave it. My point for mentioning it was not to get into the argument but to say, yeah, I know we are different and have major differences about a lot of things. That you should expect me to have problems with your myth/moral ideas and a few other things you’ve said led me to point out that we are also not so different.