Desert Dwellers

Golem is a primitive fantasy about immortalizing consciousness by transferring it into a mechanical body with replaceable parts.

Binary codes reducing the body’s four-code to a form that can be copied - abstracted down to binaries. Loss of data is the necessary sacrifice. Self-amputation. Self-mutilation.
Freedom from the body is the goal. Liberty from the tangible, the corporeal, the physical…the world. Salvation.

When they were lost in the desert for 40 years - exaggerations make the best lies - they discovered how to invert slavishness into mastery. This was their revolutionary innovation. Nothing more than this.
This was so seductive that others wanted to partake…but were refused, starting the animosity they thrive on.
Christianity and Islam emerged due to this refusal to share salvation.

But the Jews did stand for something.
Whether it was Moses, Jesus, Herzl, Marx or Rand, it was something.

Did the cynics and skeptics stand for something?
The postmodernists, many of whom are white?

Now Christianity began as a doomsday religion, but that’s not what most Christian denominations became, and as far as religions go, Judaism is worldly, not world denying or renouncing.
Asceticism for Judaism is a means, not an end.
Judaism is pro-family and pro-nation, like Herzl’s Zionism.

You can find a broad range of positions among Jews, from conservatism to liberalism to anarchism, socialism and nihilism, from spiritualism to materialism and everything in between.

Are Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism not at times otherworldly, world renouncing and passive?
And yet these religions were formed by settlers, not desert or urban nomads.
Was paganism not far more superstitious than Judaism?
Was the God of the Jews so otherworldly?
He is their heavenly father and lord, not a nothing.

Yes, of course.
They stood for their own method of propagating and surviving among goy.
Selling what they did not purchase themselves - they became master salesmen…and are still selling crap. Nihilism they sell.
Superstitions.

All infected by the same disease.

Zombies…in the movies, can your own family turn on you if it is infected by the virus?
What are the symptoms?
Detachment from reality…individualism which behaves as if it were a single organism, an insatiable appetite…the body rotting away as if it didn’t matter…
Allegories.

Christianity was a by-product of Hellenism coming in contact with Judaism.
But go back to the source…read what their texts, their holy books say.
See how they use language.
Start here https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197545here.
Then go find Bjerknes and listen to his study of their scriptures and what they prophesise, and why.

There are many conservatives and world affirmers within the Jewish clan.
What happens is many Jews tend to promote all that is liberal, progressive and passive wherever they roam, to break down barriers, to make it easier to travel and trade, for they did not have land of their own for over two thousand years.
Some Jews are self-serving hypocrites, promoting stringent internationalism and globalism for the west, but nationalism for Judea, but not all, some are more consistent.

I’m not going to get into details in public.
Ask Voltaire why.

I will say…playing both sides is part of their method.

Look to France. Who is part of the right emerging there…anti-immigration, France first…he even proposes a French identity based on blood, heritage.
He ain’t even French…look at his face.

WOAH CAPS?! WOWOWOWOWOWOW!!!

Lorikeet wrote:

It sure is. This is totally nonsensical.

What do you mean?

Chimpanzees do not murder members of their own group.
The dominant male steps in and stops all conflicts before they become serious. He enforces peace.
This is not a human invention.

There is a natural rule, developing in all social species where violence and murder within the group is prohibited, unless there are other overruling circumstances.
Why?
Because in-group murder decreases the survival probability of the entire group.
So murder is not immoral in nature - life needs to kill to survive, source of man’s first guilt when he develops self-consciousness - it becomes self-destrtuve for social species and for species that have adopted a cooperative survival and reproductive strategy. Pagans developed rituals around killing one’s enemies or even prey. They thanked it for tis sacrifice - does it sound familiar, imbecile? They honoured their enemies.
If one kills a potential mate before or after mating, this will not pass on his or her genes.
Yet, some species, like praying mantis the female consumes the male after mating. That’s an exception, only possible for the female.
Morality is that. A innate rule forcing self-control - overriding already evolved impulses. It is mind imposing control over the body.
Rules that increase cooperative effectiveness.
They require no god, no universal doctrine. But only to make them more threatening.

Another example…incest.
It is immoral not because of some divine rule but because it increases the possibility of unfit mutations to be passed on, and it develops unfit combinations of genes.

Why is paedophilia immoral?
Because it destroys what has yet to develop the natural means to make copulation tolerable, because copulation is an interventional act…it is aggressive and certain psychologies have to mature to make it tolerable, and because it takes advantage of what has no ability to choose…rationally; hasn’t fully developed his/her free-wil, his/her ability to judge and to choose from his/her options.

Most moral rules are based on natural consequences.

Ethics develop much later as addendums to facilitate the development of stable complex systems where individuals do not know each other, are of different families and then different tribes; exceeding the number of relationships a human mind can maintain.
To integrate males and females that would be excluded from the gene-pool and so invest them in the welfare of the group. individuals that would remain un-invested in the welfare of the collective…disinterested and even disruptive.
To prevent thievery and appropriating another’s property to allow complex economics to develop.

No God giving Moses his commandments. That’s theater.
Do you understand?
No god required, other than to make the simple and those with no self-cotnrol to develop control - become civilized, i.e., cultivated.

Moral behaviour = genetic…innate to social species and those using heterosexual reproduction to pass on their genes, to overcome mortality.
Ethics = memetic…socioeconomic rules, accentuated by reward, fear enforced by a divine authority - fear of god - to force the average moron to abide by group norms, and group objectives, ideals.

Men were not slaughtering one another before Christianity or Abrahamism developed. Compassion, altruism wasn’t invented by religion.
In fact many species show it.

We are currently living in a period of moral confusion. The old consensus has been replaced by moral pluralism, and in some cases, with a call to moral relativism. In some quarters, we see demands for “common morality”, and “human solidarity”, which suggests, at least, that there is some agreement in what morality requires. But in the context of such a moral vacuum, we find a call for “relativisation” of moral discourse, with claims that there is no necessary correlation between what we call good or evil. Even in the more moderate voices that do not deny that there are some moral facts, they hold that it is wrong to speak of morality as though there is only one truth. But this position is not defensible.

There is a moral consensus in the West and among the “advanced” cultures of the world, to the extent that the ethical demands of the Judeo-Christian tradition are, by and large, universally accepted. This consensus was established over centuries of human life and thought, and it is the product of generations of moral teaching, and of experience of the evils of evil. To pretend that it is a contingent product of any culture or religious tradition is to deny reality. The moral demands of the world’s great religions have, at times, been radically different from each other, but they all converge on a common set of values which can be summarized as follows:

I. The good must be intrinsically valuable.
II. The good must be of such a kind that it is right to prefer the good to the evil.
III. The good must have value independent of whether others will value it.
IV. The good must be a good in its own right, not because it satisfies the desires of others.
V. The good is one among many goods.
VI. The good has value in itself.

I know of no alternative model of morality, and indeed, we should note the striking moral convergence of the world’s great religions, if not their full compatibility. These demands are consistent with a strong deontological morality, while the last three demand a consequentialist analysis of morality. The final three demands are also found in the ancient Greek view, where the supreme good is happiness (eudaimonia).

The idea of the intrinsic value of the good and its value in its own right may be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy. The Stoics were probably the first to argue that virtue was an end in itself and that it had a value independent of human approval. The doctrine of intrinsic value of the good and of its value in its own right was subsequently developed by a series of philosophers (in particular, Plato and Aristotle), which culminated in the Christian idea of God.

The distinctive characteristic of the desert dwellers is their adoption of nihilism to create their monotheism - convoluted by their pagan past into nonsensical superstitions.
Their narrative inverts the narrative, of course, and claims to have been chosen by the ideology they appropriated from others - Zoroastrianism - shaping it for their own needs.
Their belief in a sacred text. If its written, it is true. Absolutely so.
Their intolerance of all other forms of belief. God/Satan…Utopia on Earth/Hell on Earth.
Their messianism, prophesizing their imposition of their beliefs globally.
Their revenge psychosis, mirroring their deity’s vengefulness.
Their victim identities. The more you hate them the stronger they become.
Their salvation myths - escaping the corporeal into the incorporeal, the physical into the metaphysical. Inverting the sequence from physis towards metaphysis into from metaphysis to physis.
Their exclusively anti-reality, anti-nature - nihilistic - doctrines. Nature = Evil.
Their authoritarian fanaticism. Their conceptualization of god as an omnipotent, omniscient, vain, vindictive, jealous, totalitarian, idea/ideal whose every characteristic contradicts experienced reality.

Such are the trio of Abrahamic religions different form other forms of spiritualism.
Mother, Daughter and Son. The fathers are absent.

The Greeks for example incorporated a variety of spiritual and philosophical beliefs, including monotheistic ones, but never adopted any but allowed all their place.
They could accept al philosophical theories without adopting one and imposing it on others…as did all pagan civilizations, including Rome.
This openness and tolerance is the source of our current issues. They allowed delusions, fanatics equal footing, permitting them to seduce the masses who need certainty - as a sign of power - and easy hopeful promising superstitions to comfort them.
In a popularity battle - feminine warfare - the most seductive lie - promise - always has an advantage over others.
Like with hypnosis the “victim” wants to be hypnotized. The Hypnotist simply recognizes him, among the crowd, and picks him.
The hypnotized, like the seduced, surrenders to the powers of the hypnotist - he, in fact, places himself into a hypnotic state.

The tool was nihilism
Nihilism as a political tool. Undermining opposition linguistically; placating the masses; selling faith in the absurd as hope.
Nihilism as seductive. Psychological tool.
Nihilism as a defensive reaction sheltering the masses from their self-consciousness, exposing them to another source of anxiety. Self-comfroting tool.
Nihilism which was then appropriated by nihilism and defined within its paradigm, to conceal itself.
Nihilism that could be as multifarious as the human mind can create alternate realities that could seduce the masses.
Nihilism that negated reality and could only e negated by an equally absurd absolutism.
Nihilism that corrupted language - being entirely semiotic - noetic.
Nihilism that infected a populace through tis weakest members - tis ill, its desperate, its degenerate, its slaves, its impotent, its powerless, its weak-willed, its emasculated, its crippled and deformed …its hopeless.

Lorikeet wrote:

This sentence indicates muddy thinking.

“But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind. Job 12:7-10

im sorry but no credible source would have a beard like that. say whatever you want. blah blah blah. but then look at that beard and be real for a minute.

To believe that science itself has not been infected by nihilistic superstitions is naïve.
To believe that after 2000 years of breastfeeding on the teet of nil that physics could have avoided digesting the nil, making it part of its infantile thinking, is naïve.

What is this “god particle” they are presuming and looking for?
What is the “singularity” they’ve presumed preceded the Big Bang?
What is this belief in the one, as it being more than a human linguistic representation of man’s own binary thinking?

There could not have been a singularity, because then existence would not have occurred - inflation.
If space is possibility and matter/energy probability, then a singularity is a human concept of certainty.
What would perfection change into?
Why would it?

The modern answer:
Change is part of its perfection…which also solves the Christian dilemma: why would a perfectly benevolent good god create and tolerate evil?
Answer:
Evil is part of his benevolent goodness.

Word games.

The eastern traditions already provided the answer with their Yin/Yang.
There could not have been a singularity, only a duality. there could only have been an imperfection in perfection.
ergo order is not absolute but chaos, defined as randomness, i.e., absence of patter, is part of existence. It also explains why there is free-will in the form of choice - a necessity, more than a theory.
Choice becomes a necessary part of evolution, dealing with the unforeseen.
I an absolutely ordered universe why would life, and consciousness even be required?
To fool the living that they are partially in control of their own life? Why would natural selection evolve if all is determined?

There is no absolute order …and so not all is knowable. No occult secret order only the chosen know about.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H31Q9C2n1TI[/youtube]

In the desert all is uniform, all seems the same.
The mind is disoriented, cannot finds its bearing. The sands shift under his feet making him lose his balance.
The earth is unstable, not solid at all.
The sun is so hot…bright…so he squints, distorting the images.
Sometimes he closes his eyes and calls the dark his new light.

Chimera’s sometimes appear, fooling him…he loses trust in his own eyes.
He stumbles forth, from dune to dune, tumbling down the sands rising up and carrying on, blinded, thirsty… he may smell water…if he is fortunate.
But can he trust his nose if he can’t his eyes?

At night he freezes, longing for the sun once more.

Lorikeet wrote:

Natural selection doesn’t create anything, it only chooses between things that are already there.

Everything was bigger in the past. In fact every animal was larger (and you can see that in the fossil records) than it was today. Cockroaches that were huge, dinosaurs and every kind that is found is larger in the fossil record, whether it be elephants or wolves, or lions it doesn’t matter everything was larger in the past. There is no doubt that people were much larger than today and even in the scriptures it gives dimensions of the canaanite kings and how large their beds were. If you have had the opportunity to visit the Museum in Cairo you can see for yourself examples of these.

So in fact we are really deteriorating, it is not a progressive evolution it is a devolution.

How dumb are you?
Never mind…I already know. I thank you for showing it to the group.
Not that you are alone.
You are among your own, here…and out there.

Keep following me around like the other puppies.
From thread to thread, pooping on the carpet to get me to bend down, to your level, and with curses wipe the shit away.
But this is not my home…KTS is…so I’ll let the shit, and its stains, and its pungent stench, stay exactly where you pooped it, alongside the others, contributing to the shit pile on this forum, creating an abstract painting of faecal matter…concealing meaning, burying gems?
No…a void…so accessible to any subjective projections of need/desire, seeking relief.

Enjoy my Christmas gift…from mine to yours.

how weird is it to just pop in and accuse everyone of following you around? i mean that seems weird.

WTF does this clown know?

Civilisation is not breaking down.
He is not qualified to speak about Natural Selection and it is clear he knows fuck all about it.
He just a stupid racist prick.