Nihilism [Archive]

Black Dagger

9th June 2005, 14:42

Obviously you like this website and the postings on it, so I would be interested if you could explain why. Because, so far, I haven't found it to be interesting at al

LSD, did you read this article?

"How to Become Your Parents"
http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/parents/

We all know what it is that makes our parents so distinctive: adults are more beaten down than children because they've seen more frustration and hence, written off more avenues of approach in life. We're all familiar with the sayings they have. Don't fight it, go with the flow, it's just how things are. Don't resist, give up, go along, in other words. For this reason, most people have a nagging fear of being "conformist" like their parents.

What your parents are, more than anything else, is practical. They've set aside a few things they can control and written off the rest, knowing - if they're smart - intuitively that things such as democracy, free enterprise, etc. are covers for the vast ongoing kleptocracy of modern government. They no longer have time for ideals because in their experience, every ideal gets dragged down into the same old thing. You can avoid this, if you want to, but it requires thinking outside of what is commonly accepted as an ideal.

It used to be (1960s) that the way to become your parents was to be conservative. If your only values were earning money and going to church, by god, you'd be a parent in no time at all. The reason for this is that conservatism was where the sheep hid back then, because it was the safest ideology. Now the sheep have found an even safer ideology, and that's liberalism, in all of its covert forms - including what passes for "conservatism" today.

The core of liberalism is class warfare, or the ongoing desire to lift up those who are impoverished or oppressed so that there can be social equality. Liberal ideologies from Communism to the Democratic Party to Anarchists to what passes for "Greens" all share this basic thrust. Their fundamental idea is that if we make everyone happy, there will be no strife, and if there's no strife, we will not be personally endangered. And that's where liberal thought ends. It doesn't go on to consider what might make a life meaningful, or make living in a society positive. But it's a perfect ideology for getting along with people.

Think about it. If you encounter people working on your house, bums in the street, impoverished oppressed AIDS patients, etc. you can tell them you're on their side. You believe everyone should have what you do, and as a token of that, you'll hand them a small gift and send them on their way. It's a combination of pacifism, or refusing to fight for what must be done because someone might get hurt, and pity, or finding a way to make others seem puny by giving them things and thus affirming the roles of you as powerful giver and them as weaker receiver. For whatever reason, because it refuses to assert that some ideas are worth fighting for over others, and because it refuses to acknowledge that not all people are equal in ability, liberalism is a very popular belief, even when hidden in a conservative skin in the style of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

However, remember the old adage: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberalism, as good intentions, creates disorder out of society by, instead of putting effort into the growing areas of society, e.g. its excellent people, putting energy into those who are going nowhere and removing any external pressure for them to rise up out of a state of failure. Since liberalism is one of those beliefs composed of moral/ideological projections instead of adaptations to reality, it also puts everyone in spacy cloud-nine fantasyland, where they dream on about how good they are and how the poor are being helped while what they should be focusing on - society as a whole - goes into the toilet. But no one ever got fired for adopting a liberal idea, because if you don't stamp it with allegiance to a certain party (red star), the basic concepts are socially inoffensive. "Sure, I accept every person as my brother or sister."

Liberalism is in fact no different from the conservative Christianity which was the bedrock of conservatism in the 1950s. We fight the Soviets because they don't have "freedom," so what we're doing is morally right. Now we fight "racists" for the same reason, not thinking that perhaps there is no end to this war. But let me share with you a little secret: whether we call it Christianity, or liberalism, or pluralism, or humanism, the simplest way to become a beaten down and submissive droid like your parents is to adopt this viewpoint. The secret is that out of all the beliefs you can potentially adopt, almost all are derived from liberalism, and therefore, basically the same.

Be a hippie or a Republican, an anarchist or a Green, a Libertarian or a Communist. It doesn't matter. You're still upholding the same basic broken belief system that originates in the Jewish idea that morality should preserve the individual at all costs, and avoid personal sacrifice; this is in dramatic contrast to the Indo-Aryan ideal that ideals should be upheld at all costs, as they are the basis of structure in our lives. No matter how much you rebel, with Che Guevara posters on your walls and emo in the CD player, you're still acting through the same tired drama that has torn down every civilization, which is a progressive distancing from reality and regression into the individual.

This type of thinking makes it easy to be beaten down. You can't have any strong opinions, because that would offend someone, and therefore be not only un-liberal but bad for business. You can't desire any change outside that mythological beast known as your "personal life," because that might conflict with someone else's desires - no matter how insane - and thus cause offense and loss of business. Finally, you can't ever suggest that the way we do things - liberalism - is in error, because it's clearly a "good" thing and also a socially-accepted one. Keep these ideas in your head, and soon it won't be worth fighting and you'll give in to the flow. You will have become your parents.
-----------------------------------------
:blink:

The author groups 'communists' and 'anarchists' with conservative christians, democrats, republicans and greens- as liberals. Apparently these 'liberals' all support 'class warfare' in a "combination of pacifism, or refusing to fight for what must be done because someone might get hurt, and pity". Communists/anarchists are not "adapted to reality", but "mindless drones" who are "still upholding the same basic broken belief system that originates in the Jewish idea that morality should preserve the individual at all costs, and avoid personal sacrifice", this is apparently in "dramatic contrast to the Indo-Aryan ideal that ideals should be upheld at all costs, as they are the basis of structure in our lives".

Aryans? Evil jewish ideologies?

There's more, the page also has three articles from the vanguard news network, a white supremacist website, the title of which is "No Jews. Just right" and one article from whiterevolution.com- another white supremacist website.

Why hasn't this tool been restricted yet? His support of 'ecofascism'-in a previous thread- should have been sufficient.

LSD

9th June 2005, 14:59

Holy shit! :angry:

Yeah, I'll admit I didn't study the site that carefully. To be honest, I took one look and bolted! :lol:

But in closer examination it actually appears to be quite racist, anti-smetic, and vaguely fascist.

Here's their analysis of racism (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/racism/):

Looking through history, we see no successful multicultural societies; all of them die out or collapse into third-world status within a few generations. Looking through history again, we see no society that has successfully hosted a politically-active Jewish population without collapsing or, because one cannot in civility remove a parasite, resorting to increasingly violent pogroms, of which the Holocaust is only the most recent and most publicized. Judaism is parasitic, there's no doubt about that.

:o

EDIT:

and here's another one:

In my mind, Jews are an invading culture and I have no problem drawing a sword against them, men women and children alike, to drive them back into the middle east, where they may have to actually stop feeling superior to their Abrahamic brethren and make peace with the Arabs. Not my problem. But, I feel the same way about Christianity: if you're not Eckhardt, or Schopenhauer or Emerson, I recognize that it's my duty to draw a sword against you, man or woman or child or dog or AI, and drive you out of Indo-European lands before you destroy what's left of our culture.

from Metal Cult or metal Christ? (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/metal/)

Also, the consensus on their bulletin board (http://bbs.anus.com/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=002961) seems to be that deporting all Jews would be a "good idea"!

...and did anyone notice that Ted Kaczynski is one of their "heroes"!?

EDIT 2:

What the fuck is this:

Our root belief is in a traditional (pre-Christian, Indo-European) society which is feudal in its nature, which means that it respects specialization of the individual and bloodline but also guarantees a living for all but the defective, who are bred out of existence. This is the only sustainable form of human government.

:blink:

Seriously, this is a really fucked up web site.

Publius

9th June 2005, 16:50

Welcome to nihilism, the home of the philosophically challenged.

And nihilism cannot be adapted to Marixism or communism.

It's no order at all, the existence of ANY social order is fundamentally against the tenets of nihilism.

It is denial of everything.

A true nihilist, and I very much doubt these people are anything more than teenagers drowning in ennui, would be out there attacking things right now, now making posts on a website.

Such is the domain of the weak-minded, I suppose.

Andy Bowden

9th June 2005, 19:44

They had nihilists in The Big Lebowski.

"Ve believ in nuffing mr Lebowvski - ve are nihilists!"

:lol:

LuZhiming

9th June 2005, 22:22

Being a Black Metal fan, I have been to that site numerous times. It actually has some interesting ideas. I don't agree with a lot of the things said, but you might learn something from the site if you are openminded.

A Point on the 'Nazi Witch Hunt':

The site itself says "Writings here are targetted at Indo-Europeans; we can only speak for our own ethnic groups, and do not attempt to address concerns of black people, Asians, or people of mixed heritage such as Middle Eastern Semites (Arabs, Jews). We feel it would be condescending and authoritarian to tell people of other groups how to live their lives, thus we speak only to our own, and within it, to the different tribes such as Scots, Germans, Italians, Basque, French and Spanish, urging each to act according to our beliefs as interpreted according to local tradition."

http://www.anus.com/zine/about/

As I have said, I have been to this site numerous times, so let me say: It is not any kind of "White Supremacist" website. That is not its purpose and not its ideology. The author does believe that for the betterment of "our tribe" and because of differences in culture that people of different ethnicities should live apart(and also that those who want to assimilate can live in Brazil or some such place), because destroying race only weakens the human by lessening the "pureness." The author does however reject the idea of exterminating other races or even thinking of one's own race as superior, calling it idiocy and bigotry. The author also does believe that no humans are born equal and that there are superior humans among us which must be raised in status(The author claims to despise class systems, but it a supporter of caste systems). You can criticize it however you want(I don't agree with any of the beliefs on this matter and many others), but I just want to get the point straight, and would advise people not to childishly throw out words like "fascist" and "Nazi."

By the way there is a reason the site is called "anus" and it does have to do with the anus, I'll get the words to that when I can....

LSD

9th June 2005, 22:54

Oh come on LuZhiming, are you really telling me that you can justify this:

Looking through history, we see no successful multicultural societies; all of them die out or collapse into third-world status within a few generations. Looking through history again, we see no society that has successfully hosted a politically-active Jewish population without collapsing or, because one cannot in civility remove a parasite, resorting to increasingly violent pogroms, of which the Holocaust is only the most recent and most publicized. Judaism is parasitic, there's no doubt about that.

How is that not anti-semitic?

How about their "eco-fascism" or their advocation of feudalism!?

For God's sake man, Ted fucking Kaczynski is on their "heroes" list! :angry:

Oh, and by the way, the only person in this thread to use the word "Nazi" is you.

LuZhiming

9th June 2005, 23:06

Are you not reading what I said? Let my break it down rather then fall into your trap and make a long and stupid rant to follow yours:

1. When did I say anything about justifying anything the site said? I merely said it had some interesting ideas. Oh yeah, and I did say I didn't agree with a lot of the things said on the site.

2. When did I say a thing about Semitism?

3. Most of their comments on "eco-fascism" are true, with exceptions of course. Eco-fascism is merely a term used by humanists to bitterly accuse environmentalists of "hating man."

4. When did I imply I supported their views on feudalism? Or: When did I say they didn't say these things about feudalism? What relevance does feudalism have to anything I said?

5. Yes, Ted Kaczynski is on their heroes list. That's horrible. Move on now, I wasn't saying a damn thing about Ted Kaczynski either.

6. I was using the term "Nazi" as an example, as it is commonly used in this context by people on this board.

LSD

9th June 2005, 23:20

6. I was using the term "Nazi" as an example, as it is commonly used in this context by people on this board.

You labeled this thread as a "Nazi Witch Hunt" and "advised people not to childishly throw out words like "fascist" and "Nazi."". That certainly seems to imply that someone used the word!

2. When did I say a thing about Semitism?

Not "Semitism", "anti-semitism".

And you said it here: "It is not any kind of "White Supremacist" website. That is not its purpose and not its ideology."

3. Most of their comments on "eco-fascism" are true

Yes, they are "eco-fascists" ...which is bad.

4. When did I imply I supported their views on feudalism? Or: When did I say they didn't say these things about feudalism? What relevance does feudalism have to anything I said?

Just another example of their reactionary, regressive, and oppressive views.

5. Yes, Ted Kaczynski is on their heroes list. That's horrible. Move on now, I wasn't saying a damn thing about Ted Kaczynski either.

No, but it's another example of what's wrong with that website.

1. When did I say anything about justifying anything the site said? I merely said it had some interesting ideas. Oh yeah, and I did say I didn't agree with a lot of the things said on the site.

You said that the site "has some interesting ideas" and that I "might learn something from the site if you are openminded".

"openminded" to what? Racism and biggotry?

Sorry, but I have no intention of having an "open mind" about a site that promotedsTed Kazinski, advocates feudalism, and hates Jews.

What exactly could anyone "learn" from such people anyways!?

That site is AWFUL. It is racist, it is hateful, it is reactionary, it is regressive. What it represents is the diametric opposite of communism, and of progressive thinking in general.

LuZhiming

9th June 2005, 23:47

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide+Jun 9 2005, 10:20 PM--> (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide @ Jun 9 2005, 10:20 PM)You labeled this thread as a "Nazi Witch Hunt" and "advised people not to childishly throw out words like "fascist" and "Nazi."". That certainly seems to imply that someone used the word! [/b]

First off, calling certain parts of this thread a nickname like "Nazi Witch Hunt" does not in any way imply that someone used the word Nazi. By the way, I did say(you quoted correctly) words like "fascist" and "Nazi." Although I did insert quotes around them, which can be interpreted as me implying that I am somehow quoting someone from this topic, if that makes you fell happy about yourself.

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 10:20 PM
Not "Semitism", "anti-semitism".

And you said it here: "It is not any kind of "White Supremacist" website. That is not its purpose and not its ideology."

Yes, and I made a correct statement. Since I don't feel like repeating myself again, here's a useful link: http://www.anus.com/zine/philosophy/index_blasphemies.html

White Supremacy and Anti-Semitism, and for that matter Anti-any other ethnic goup are two different things. You can accuse the site of the latter, but not the former. Again, just another example of how people with stereotypes in their head can talk so much about a subject they know little or nothing about.

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 10:20 PM
Yes, they are "eco-fascists" ...which is bad.

If you don't have anything useful to say here I would rather move on from this garbage.

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 10:20 PM
Just another example of their reactionary, regressive, and oppressive views.

So you're responding to me just for the heck of it?

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 10:20 PM
No, but it's another example of what's wrong with that website.

If anyone feels differently they can say so, but somehow I don't think anyone here needs you telling them what's wrong with that website. I know that I certainly don't need your "information." Again: 1. I have been to that site numerous times and have read plenty of its content 2. I never said I agreed with all or even most of the things the site says. Please stop "informing" me of things I already know(and things you at most barely know anyhow).

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 10:20 PM
You said that the site "has some interesting ideas" and that I "might learn something from the site if you are openminded".

Another words I never said a thing that justified anything the site said. All you are saying here is that "this site says something I don't like, therefore everything said on this site is bad, because everything revolves around the things I don't like." Look, I realize that you are a fanatical censorship-supporting, wishing-to-be imposer of "Communism," but don't accuse me of things I never did just because you are a narrowminded little troll.

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 10:20 PM
"openminded" to what? Racism and biggotry?

...Or maybe some of the other ideas on the site. It's funny how you all of the sudden think you're a real expert on the site.

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 10:20 PM
Sorry, but I have no intention of having an "open mind" about a site that promotedsTed Kazinski, advocates feudalism, and hates Jews.

What exactly could anyone "learn" from such people anyways!?

Well ok, but I don't know why you're criticizing others for not being narrowminded like you are. Is your purpose merely to break up the thread with your constant childish remarks?

I don't care what your intentions are, I never said anything to you. You were responding to my posts for no apparent reason and are now trying to give some sort of 'meaning' to your unnecessary responses because it is clear they were stupid and uncalled for. Try to find something better to do then respond angrily and fanatically at explanations and comments on the site like they are heresy.

If you don't want to read the site, don't read it! There's no need to attack me for suggesting to people it might be interesting if they have an openmind, I'm in no way attempting to "make" you read it.

Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 10:20 PM
That site is AWFUL. It is racist, it is hateful, it is reactionary, it is regressive. What it represents is the diametric opposite of communism, and of progressive thinking in general.

Actually, you are the one who is regressive. You advocate ignoring all viewpoints of people and/or their ideology because you disagree with certain views of them. This is itself regressive. Marx himself used plenty of views from "opposing sources" to create his own theories. You can't pick one idea and stick with it(that is faith), you first off have to understand the opposing viewpoints just so you know who you are opposing, but you can also get good ideas from them as well.

Publius

10th June 2005, 02:38

If you don't understand nihilism, don't argue against it, it's pitiful.

Nihilism is the lack of any social order. Nihilism advocates everything, because it advocates nothing.

Murder, rape, assualt, robbbery, it's all permitted.

It's not a social order, it's the lack of any order, government, sociatal (Reffering to morality for instance) and religious.

This is self-evidently a crock of shit, but at least attempt to understand why it's a crock of shit.

Clarksist

10th June 2005, 02:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:38 AM
This is self-evidently a crock of shit, but at least attempt to understand why it's a crock of shit.
That's true for ANY opposing idealogy.

Publius

10th June 2005, 02:57

That's true for ANY opposing idealogy.

Yes, it is true for communism, and I do understand.

LSD

10th June 2005, 11:39

If you don't understand nihilism, don't argue against it, it's pitiful.

I wasn't arguing against nihilism, I was arguing against that site which is more than nihilistic, it's racist and "eco-fascist".

White Supremacy and Anti-Semitism, and for that matter Anti-any other ethnic goup are two different things. You can accuse the site of the latter, but not the former. Again, just another example of how people with stereotypes in their head can talk so much about a subject they know little or nothing about.

You're right.

I stand corrected, the site in question is not classically white-supremecist. It is however anti-semitic and does seem to contain racist sentiments.

Look, I realize that you are a fanatical censorship-supporting

Hardly!

Read the thread on free speech in Politics.

Another words I never said a thing that justified anything the site said. All you are saying here is that "this site says something I don't like, therefore everything said on this site is bad, because everything revolves around the things I don't like."

LuZhiming, it seemed to me that you were suggesting that we not critisize that website. Your characterization of that critisism as a "witch hunt" as well as your suggestion that we could "learn something" from, suggested that you were contending that our condemnation was premature or unfair. If you were not in fact trying to say this, than I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Remember, this isn't just my opinion. infoterror was banned for incessently promoting that web site. So clearly there's a consensus here that that site is not one which meshes with leftist ideology.

I am not saying that "everything" on that site is bad, merely that because the site advocates race-hatred, social regression, a caste-system, mass muder, etc... that the site is bad. Much like while the KKK website might (I don't know I've never seen it) have some "good ideas", I would contend that the entire site is bad.

For example, the NSDAP had some rather revolutionary economic solutions to get out of the depression. the Nazis really introduces large scale public works projects as a mathod to combat unemployment. So did the Nazis have "good ideas"? Yes, but I will still condemn the Nazis because of the horrible things they did and advocated.

Likewise, despite the possibility that there might (again, I don't know) be good ideas on this site, I still condemn the site for the terrible things it advocates.

you are a narrowminded little troll.

:wub:

Black Dagger

10th June 2005, 12:48

LuZhiming, out of curiosity, what are the 'good ideas' you have read/gained from that site?

RedSkinheadUltra

10th June 2005, 14:11

For not caring they sure do care a lot.

OleMarxco

10th June 2005, 14:23

Quoted somewhere below ;)

zinc

10th June 2005, 18:25

It's no order at all, the existence of ANY social order is fundamentally against the tenets of nihilism.

It is denial of everything.

No its about not having faith in anything actually, not denial of everything.

A true nihilist, and I very much doubt these people are anything more than teenagers drowning in ennui, would be out there attacking things right now, now making posts on a website.

Such is the domain of the weak-minded, I suppose.

Nihilism does not equate with violence either.

I'm no nihilist but at least attempt to understand it before putting forward a critique.

zinc

10th June 2005, 18:27

Nihilism is the lack of any social order. Nihilism advocates everything, because it advocates nothing.

This makes no sense, you cannot advocate everything and nothing at the same time. A nihilist quite simply looks to what can be shown in the world, rather like a scientist except realising that even science can be flawed, a nihilist seems refuses to take anything based on our shaky foundations.

Murder, rape, assualt, robbbery, it's all permitted.

It's no doctrine, Ive never heard a nihilist argue for any of these or say they are permitted bar the early Nihilists with no basis in thinking.

It's not a social order, it's the lack of any order, government, sociatal (Reffering to morality for instance) and religious.

No, thats anarchism in practise and not the anarchism of your dreams.

zinc

10th June 2005, 18:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:23 PM
Nihilism is not about not caring, but realizing that, after all, nothing matters (Some even think that Metallica are Nihilists, mostly because of their track by the same name) but not caring usually follows, so you're kinda right, I suppose, in your indirect critic - And Nihilism is totally opposite to Communism because it implies we CARE about -SOMETHING- atleast artifically (someone are just in it for TEH DESPOTIC POSITION) in teh Workin' Class, but meh, who cares, right? :P

Well communism is based on an ethical judegement that there as humanists we should care for the proles or whatever.

It is also based on the Hegelian notion of progress etc. Nihilism I guess realises how Marxism can be so flawed, there is no perfect system.

Publius

10th June 2005, 19:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:25 PM

No its about not having faith in anything actually, not denial of everything.

Don't equate nihilism with some ultra-logical ideology.

Nihilism is defined as the belief in nothing. This means no faith, but also a denial of everything, aside from our own existence.

Belief in social order, religous order, order in general, and everything that follows is not nihilistic.

Nihilism does not equate with violence either.

I'm no nihilist but at least attempt to understand it before putting forward a critique.

Nihilism is inherently violent. It's founding members in Russia were known to use violence to reach the goals of nihilism.

Nihilism, even by your own (flawed) definition, as the rejection of faith, is violent, in that a nihilist sees nothing wrong with using force to end faith.

Without any set of morality, violence is inevietable. As Dostoevsky said: "If God is not real, than all things are permitted"

Granted, I'm an atheist, but I just substitute 'God' for morality, and the message is the same.

Dostoevsky's books deal extensively with nihilism as a philosophy (Actually, rational egoism as a whole), so I feel that as an avid Dostoevsky reader, I know what I'm talking about.

And I plan to read Fathers and Sons as soon as I can. Have you read it? If not, I don't think either of us can lay claim to any true mastery of the subject.

Publius

10th June 2005, 19:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:27 PM

This makes no sense, you cannot advocate everything and nothing at the same time. A nihilist quite simply looks to what can be shown in the world, rather like a scientist except realising that even science can be flawed, a nihilist seems refuses to take anything based on our shaky foundations.

Nihilism; the belief in nothing.

If all our perceptions are flawed (As my sig notes), than how can we percieve the universe?

If you refuse to take anything based on our shaky foundations, and all our foundations are shaky, what are you left with?

It's no doctrine, Ive never heard a nihilist argue for any of these or say they are permitted bar the early Nihilists with no basis in thinking.[/quiote]

Of course it is. Without social order, morality, God, or anything else, there is absolutely nothing preventing anyone commiting violence.

Even the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence.A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

Now I will say I was wrong in saying it was a 'doctrine' of nihlism, but a nihilist sees no fault in violence, espescially if it's FOR nihilism.

A nihilist would use any sort of violence to end social order.

[quote]No, thats anarchism in practise and not the anarchism of your dreams.

I don't quite follow you.

LuZhiming

10th June 2005, 19:41

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide+Jun 10 2005, 10:39 AM--> (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide @ Jun 10 2005, 10:39 AM)LuZhiming, it seemed to me that you were suggesting that we not critisize that website. Your characterization of that critisism as a "witch hunt" as well as your suggestion that we could "learn something" from, suggested that you were contending that our condemnation was premature or unfair. If you were not in fact trying to say this, than I apologize for the misunderstanding. [/b]

Just to clarify, I was merely stating that people should not ignore this site or condemn just because people throw out the words like "fascist," and that people should keep an openmind. It sounded to me like your were being ultra-"conservative" by trying to attack me for these words, but that wasn't your intention apparently, so forget it.

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 10:39 AM
Remember, this isn't just my opinion. infoterror was banned for incessently promoting that web site. So clearly there's a consensus here that that site is not one which meshes with leftist ideology.

Well, all infoterror seemed to do was promote that site, so his banning was appropriate regardless. I agree that this doesn't mesh much with leftist ideology, it isn't at all a leftist site(Although the people who made it do claim they have tried leftist ideologies and do mix in some elements of Chomsky and others with their ideology, interestingly).

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 10:39 AM
I am not saying that "everything" on that site is bad, merely that because the site advocates race-hatred, social regression, a caste-system, mass muder, etc... that the site is bad. Much like while the KKK website might (I don't know I've never seen it) have some "good ideas", I would contend that the entire site is bad.

For example, the NSDAP had some rather revolutionary economic solutions to get out of the depression. the Nazis really introduces large scale public works projects as a mathod to combat unemployment. So did the Nazis have "good ideas"? Yes, but I will still condemn the Nazis because of the horrible things they did and advocated.

Likewise, despite the possibility that there might (again, I don't know) be good ideas on this site, I still condemn the site for the terrible things it advocates.

Ok then. The only disagreements with this statement I have is that, unlike the Nazis and other examples, the things you mentioned are not actually the main focus of the site, so the comparison is slightly unfair. Other then that I don't fundamentally disagree with you on these.

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 10:39 AM
:wub:

Heh, sorry about that. I was offended by what I though were your attempts to launch senseless attacks against me and the site for no apparent reason other than to be a troll. But I wasn't wrong there, so nevermind.

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 10 2005, 11:48 AM
LuZhiming, out of curiosity, what are the 'good ideas' you have read/gained from that site?

I wouldn't say I base any principles I believe in on things I have learned on this site, but you can find out some good information in it. Some of the points made in opposition to Judeo-Christianity, environmental, propaganda, criticism of technology, and nihilism. And on the last point, this site in a lot of ways really is better then a lot of "nihilist" sites. It can be used to give one lacking knowledge in nihilism an idea about what it is while also say something new and fresh that one of higher knowledge then a beginner may or may not find useful. It goes more into stating how things should be accomplished. I can't really tell you a specific "idea" without misleading it or going into depth in it, it's really a collection of ideas that I have found in a mass of ideas along the way. I'm not promising people they will get something out of this site, just suggesting that they may be able to.

[email protected] 10 2005, 06:16 PM
Even the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states

Using an encyclopedia or dictionary of any kind as a source for things with depth is really lame. They are never realiable sources, because they try to be " neutral" by stating something with no opinion(which can complete mislead people about the ideology) or they just state established opinions. Sources like these can only be used on matters that are completely technical.

Publius

10th June 2005, 22:53

Using an encyclopedia or dictionary of any kind as a source for things with depth is really lame. They are never realiable sources, because they try to be " neutral" by stating something with no opinion(which can complete mislead people about the ideology) or they just state established opinions. Sources like these can only be used on matters that are completely technical.

I don't think that's fair at all.

Read the piece on it: http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

It's not the World Book or something, it's an enyclopedia dedicated to philosophy, and as such, is more technical and reliable.

ÑóẊîöŉ

10th June 2005, 23:09

Fuck Nihilism. A true nihilist would be a sociopathic individual who values nothing but their own existance. Read the stuff on that website and if you're sane you will get a very dim view of nihilism.

Publius

10th June 2005, 23:11

LuZhiming

11th June 2005, 01:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 09:53 PM
I don't think that's fair at all.

Read the piece on it: http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

It's not the World Book or something, it's an enyclopedia dedicated to philosophy, and as such, is more technical and reliable.
I have read it. It's a giant article which is mostly taken up by the writers explaining what (they say)is the meaning of nihilism, adding tiny quotes here and there to back it up misleadingly. Wikipedia's article is better than this(and I'm not what you would call a fan of Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

6419

11th June 2005, 01:25

You obviously have not thoroughly read through the site, it makes an obvious distinction between the use of nihilism as a belief and as a process. It is impossible for any person to believe in nothing, because that is a belief. The site advocates to believe in nothing, then from that stem eternal beliefs, those that live on in nature and reality. We can find what truly matters to us in life. This has nothing really at all to do with politics, where their advocacy is towards traditionalism. The use of judaism is mainly towards the religious belief, and not the race. It is very materialistic and is racist in itself (being God's chosen people).

Could you explain what your attack on ecofascism is about? If people constantly mess up the planet in the search for using resources in a stupid way, should we not stop them? There are limited resources and they should be regulated.

LuZhiming

11th June 2005, 01:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 12:25 AM
You obviously have not thoroughly read through the site, it makes an obvious distinction between the use of nihilism as a belief and as a process. It is impossible for any person to believe in nothing, because that is a belief. The site advocates to believe in nothing, then from that stem eternal beliefs, those that live on in nature and reality. We can find what truly matters to us in life. This has nothing really at all to do with politics, where their advocacy is towards traditionalism. The use of judaism is mainly towards the religious belief, and not the race. It is very materialistic and is racist in itself (being God's chosen people).

Could you explain what your attack on ecofascism is about? If people constantly mess up the planet in the search for using resources in a stupid way, should we not stop them? There are limited resources and they should be regulated.
Would you please specify who you are talking to? :D

P.S.: Since this is your first post, welcome to the board!

LSD

11th June 2005, 01:37

The use of judaism is mainly towards the religious belief, and not the race. It is very materialistic and is racist in itself (being God's chosen people).

Specifically targeting Jews as "parasitic" and "an invading culture" is anti-semitic.

Originally posted by ANUS+--> (ANUS)Looking through history, we see no successful multicultural societies; all of them die out or collapse into third-world status within a few generations. Looking through history again, we see no society that has successfully hosted a politically-active Jewish population without collapsing or, because one cannot in civility remove a parasite, resorting to increasingly violent pogroms, of which the Holocaust is only the most recent and most publicized. Judaism is parasitic, there's no doubt about that.[/b]

Originally posted by [email protected]
In my mind, Jews are an invading culture and I have no problem drawing a sword against them, men women and children alike, to drive them back into the middle east, where they may have to actually stop feeling superior to their Abrahamic brethren and make peace with the Arabs. Not my problem.

The site advocates to believe in nothing

It advocates feudalism!

ANUS
Our root belief is in a traditional (pre-Christian, Indo-European) society which is feudal in its nature, which means that it respects specialization of the individual and bloodline but also guarantees a living for all but the defective, who are bred out of existence. This is the only sustainable form of human government.

It also calls Ted Kaczynski a "hero"!

Could you explain what your attack on ecofascism is about?

Rational thinking.

LuZhiming

11th June 2005, 01:47

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 11 2005, 12:37 AM
Specifically targeting Jews as "parasitic" and "an invading culture" is anti-semitic.

The Judeo-Christian culture(religion) was invading, and the people who wanted other to be Christians subjected people to it by the sword. I don't see what's wrong with that statement, it sounds correct to me. I won't comment on the rest of that though, as there is no need to point anything out about such blatant barbarism.

6419

11th June 2005, 02:06

Not to you LuZhiming, the other person.

I may call christianity a disease because it says there is more importance in some utopia we have never seen than in this life. It is an attack on a belief, not a people. That belief will affect how people view the world, so negative beliefs should not be allowed.

I already said that belief in nothing was used as a process. From this person's culture and environment, he has seen the need for a feudalistic society. I already made that distinction, please don't bring it up again. People can never believe in nothing, but they can try, which will allow them to discover what is eternally meaningful to them.

And 'rational thinking' isn't telling me anything, please explain. I believe ecofascism is rational, as history shows. Look at the industrial revolution, now we have destroyed a huge portion of the worlds forests, we are running dry of oil, the atmosphere is being screwed up (look at LA). Both in a capitalist and communist society, value is percieved by dollar value. That leaves the environment last without extensive regulation.

About Kaczynski, can you show how we are somehow underpopulated? It costs a huge amount for first world citizens to drive in their cars and watch their tv on today's resources, think how it will be if all third worlders join in. Just because people can fit in a certain space doesn't mean we should. Humans need space, not cramped into some huge suburbia like that of a 12 billion person population in the future. Agriculture would die in that instance, and your communist beliefs were meant to help the farmers. Most scientists believe that the planet could not support a 12 billion person planet, and only if everyone had a 2x2 shack and ate small quantities of rice.

ÑóẊîöŉ

11th June 2005, 02:21

I may call christianity a disease because it says there is more importance in some utopia we have never seen than in this life. It is an attack on a belief, not a people. That belief will affect how people view the world, so negative beliefs should not be allowed.

Why limit your attacks on pie-in-the-sky religions to Christianity?

And 'rational thinking' isn't telling me anything, please explain. I believe ecofascism is rational, as history shows. Look at the industrial revolution, now we have destroyed a huge portion of the worlds forests, we are running dry of oil, the atmosphere is being screwed up (look at LA). Both in a capitalist and communist society, value is percieved by dollar value. That leaves the environment last without extensive regulation.

Primitivist ideologies like eco-fascism create more problems for humanity, they don't solve them.
Environmental problems should be dealt with via application of policy, resources and technology.

About Kaczynski, can you show how we are somehow underpopulated? It costs a huge amount for first world citizens to drive in their cars and watch their tv on today's resources, think how it will be if all third worlders join in. Just because people can fit in a certain space doesn't mean we should. Humans need space, not cramped into some huge suburbia like that of a 12 billion person population in the future. Agriculture would die in that instance, and your communist beliefs were meant to help the farmers. Most scientists believe that the planet could not support a 12 billion person planet, and only if everyone had a 2x2 shack and ate small quantities of rice.

A lot more people could live comfortably on this planet if society were communist. You would not believe the amount of crap capitalism produces.
I guesstimate that about 20 billion people could live on this planet at a maximum.

LSD

11th June 2005, 02:41

About Kaczynski, can you show how we are somehow underpopulated?

Wait a minute..

Are you saying that Ted Kaczynski should be admired? :blink:

I may call christianity a disease because it says there is more importance in some utopia we have never seen than in this life. It is an attack on a belief, not a people.

The following says that the problem is "a politically-active Jewish population" which is, by definition, attacking a people.

Originally posted by ANUS
Looking through history again, we see no society that has successfully hosted a politically-active Jewish population without collapsing or, because one cannot in civility remove a parasite, resorting to increasingly violent pogroms, of which the Holocaust is only the most recent and most publicized. Judaism is parasitic, there's no doubt about that.

I already said that belief in nothing was used as a process. From this person's culture and environment, he has seen the need for a feudalistic society. I already made that distinction, please don't bring it up again.

Don't bring it up!?

This site is advocating feudalism. How can I not mention that?

Feudalism is an oppressive, regressive, tyrannical society that has enslaved hundreds of millions and killed millions more. Millions have died fighting it to give us the relative freedom of even bouregois capitalism. How can I not condemn a site for advocating a return to such a brutal system?

Both in a capitalist and communist society, value is percieved by dollar value.

There is no money in communism and hence no "dollar".

And 'rational thinking' isn't telling me anything, please explain. I believe ecofascism is rational, as history shows. Look at the industrial revolution, now we have destroyed a huge portion of the worlds forests, we are running dry of oil, the atmosphere is being screwed up (look at LA)

Yes we need environmental reforms, but the priority of human civilization must always be humans foremost. Regressing technologically only hurts humanity in the name of some nebulous "nature". We need to study what specific environmental changes are required and then enact them, nothing more.

And besides, primitavism and ecofacism will not accomplish any meaningful environmental changes because no one will stand for them! People are not going to abandon technology because you tell them to!

6419

11th June 2005, 02:42

The use of christianity was purely as an example, and due to it being the dominant western religion. Pagan religions however often use an afterlife in a metaphorical context, and utilise symbolism heavily. Of course, it would most likely be better if we just explained the world to people without using stories.

How does eco-fascism create problems? Sure you might have to walk around now instead of driving. Driving created the problem in the first place, the seperation of the businesses from the suburbs appeared and people had no choice about driving because they can't get to work any other way. Also, in many ways, heavy regulation and ecofascism are the same. Regulating things is telling people what to do.

In communism, money still defines value, same as capitalism. Many things can't have a dollar value, but they still more important than having a huge tv or a nice car (even though I myself am not bothered with those things). Only just now is pollution being regulated, before we could just pump chemicals into the air. Because air is in a short-term context readily available, people aren't bothered. Stopping people from having useless assets like huge cars, a 60 inch tv, porno channels for cable, speakers so loud you can't use full volume without long term damage, etc etc will help people both physically and mentally from messing themselves up, as well as the society and the planet.

LSD

11th June 2005, 02:52

The use of christianity was purely as an example

It was also kind of random considering we were discussing anti-semitism. A charge which you still have not addressed.

In case you forgot:

Originally posted by ANUS
Looking through history again, we see no society that has successfully hosted a politically-active Jewish population without collapsing or, because one cannot in civility remove a parasite, resorting to increasingly violent pogroms, of which the Holocaust is only the most recent and most publicized. Judaism is parasitic, there's no doubt about that.

In communism, money still defines value, same as capitalism.

Once again, no money in communism.

How does eco-fascism create problems? Sure you might have to walk around now instead of driving. Driving created the problem in the first place

No a business sector with no motivation towards developing fuel efficient / alternative energy is the problem.

Abolishing capitalism means that we can address environmental concerns rationally without worrying about the "bottom line". That's the rational choice.

Abolishing technology is just counterproductive emotionalism.

...and I'm still waiting for an answer on the Ted Kaczynski thing.

6419

11th June 2005, 03:08

I'm saying that the anti-semitism expressed is about their religion, not their race. Christianity is very much like Judaism.

So you expect to just keep using up resources over and over so you can get to your job faster? What if your alternative source encountered some problem like oil does today, how would the society survive. If people become immunised against a disease, the body will rely on a foreign entitity to stop the disease entering the body. If we run out of immunisation drugs, or the body develops a resistance, our immune system will not be prepared for something like this and will break down. It is better to be less dependent on technology and more on ourselves than vice-versa. Technology can be used in many good ways, but should be used with regulation. Feudalism is not about going back to the middle ages and living in wooden shacks, it is about having a caste society instead of class. Where exactly is the feudalism that has killed millions?

Also in response to having humans first in human civilisation, people cannot survive without the planet. The health of the planet should be put first before a quantitative look upon the human race. If the planet dies, we die, quite simple. Without the disgusting humanism of the renassiance we would be a lot better of in the world.

Publius

11th June 2005, 03:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 01:06 AM

I know you weren't responding to me, but I feel the need to address this.

I already said that belief in nothing was used as a process. From this person's culture and environment, he has seen the need for a feudalistic society. I already made that distinction, please don't bring it up again. People can never believe in nothing, but they can try, which will allow them to discover what is eternally meaningful to them.

No nihilist would ever advoate fuedalism as a political system.

Fuedalism is in obvious contradiction with the prime tenants of nihilism. Czarist Russia was fuedalistic and it was the Russian nihilists that led a rebellion against it.

And 'rational thinking' isn't telling me anything, please explain. I believe ecofascism is rational, as history shows. Look at the industrial revolution, now we have destroyed a huge portion of the worlds forests, we are running dry of oil, the atmosphere is being screwed up (look at LA). Both in a capitalist and communist society, value is percieved by dollar value. That leaves the environment last without extensive regulation.

History doesn't show that, you just made that up.

And who is a nihilist to be using history? Can you prove any of that stuff ever happend? Doesn't it require FAITH?

So we do things that deplete the earths resources and kill people.

And you advocate killing people.

You contradict yourself.

And how could you support regulation, when nihilists don't support the existence of a government?

About Kaczynski, can you show how we are somehow underpopulated? It costs a huge amount for first world citizens to drive in their cars and watch their tv on today's resources, think how it will be if all third worlders join in. Just because people can fit in a certain space doesn't mean we should. Humans need space, not cramped into some huge suburbia like that of a 12 billion person population in the future. Agriculture would die in that instance, and your communist beliefs were meant to help the farmers. Most scientists believe that the planet could not support a 12 billion person planet, and only if everyone had a 2x2 shack and ate small quantities of rice.

http://www.stanford.edu/~burney/sustjc/01-...0population.pdf (http://www.stanford.edu/~burney/sustjc/01-myles%20(population)%2021%20oct%2004/human%20population.pdf)

LSD

11th June 2005, 03:21

I'm saying that the anti-semitism expressed is about their religion, not their race.

That's dubious based on the "Jewish population" line.

Besides, the claim that Jews are parasites is a very old anti-semitic contention and I don't see any other religious or racial groups being labeled as "parsites" on your site.

So you expect to just keep using up resources over and over so you can get to your job faster? What if your alternative source encountered some problem like oil does today, how would the society survive.

What if it didn?

The point is that we will be rational an conscious of what we do and what impact it will have on us. That really isn't that much to ask.

If people become immunised against a disease, the body will rely on a foreign entitity to stop the disease entering the body.

I don't think you understand how immunization works.

The point is that through the introduction of harmess versions of the disease in question, your immune system develops antibodies so that when the actual disease comes, the body is ready.

You see immunization actually strengthens the body,

If we run out of immunisation drugs, or the body develops a resistance, our immune system will not be prepared for something like this and will break down.

Again, you're misunderstanding the science. If we run out of vaccines, then we make more. It's only a problem if you need a booster shot, but that's not very often. I think you're somehow confused and think that you need to take immunizations daily or something. You don't!

Insofar as the "body developing a resistance", this doesn't make any sense. Immunization works because the body resists. It's the body's reistance (the creation of antibodies) that is at the basis of how immunization medicine functions.

It is better to be less dependent on technology and more on ourselves than vice-versa.

Why?

People live longer today, they live healthier, and they live better than 100 years ago. A hundred years ago they lived better than 1000 years before that.

If there's one thing we've learnt from history, it's that technology improves lives.

Where exactly is the feudalism that has killed millions?

From around 800 to around 1600.

Feudalism is not about going back to the middle ages and living in wooden shacks, it is about having a caste society instead of class.

And that's better!? :lol:

How?

Also in response to having humans first in human civilisation, people cannot survive without the planet. The health of the planet should be put first before a quantitative look upon the human race. If the planet dies, we die, quite simple.

Absolutely, but the planet isn't going to "die" anytime soon. In fact there's very little short of a total nuclear war (and probably not even that) that would "kill" the planet.

What we can do is make the planet inhospitable or uncomfortable for us which would, obviously, not be in our best interests. Therefore we should take progressive action to ensure a relative level of environmental protection. But we do not need to technologically regress to do that!

Without the disgusting humanism of the renassiance we would be a lot better of in the world.

Yes, we were much better off in the 12th century... :rolleyes:

6419

11th June 2005, 03:29

You are very, very annoying. I won't bother explaining this concept of nihilism a third time for you. Not everything is in such absolutist terms, I am sure you would agree. Under that system, I can call you a stalin-communist, and say you support a belief that killed millions. www.anus.com has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Russian Nihilists.

Killing the people who have created no meaning in life for themselves, and have no real attachment to it, in the effort to save humanity. Or they will go down the path of using every resource available and destroying civilisation and themselves, which will kill everyone.

Stop thinking everyone is equal, because by looking at the intelligence of people, their artistic abilities, their strength & character, I can see this is not true. Some are better at jobs than others. Communism destroys any will to work, because by being a lazy janitor, they get the same as a hard working doctor. I use these two occupations because janitorial duty is purely physical and limited in that respect, and does not involve that much thinking, while doctors do. People choose to do less work than more. Shortage of doctors. The average citizen is not motivated to some sort of patriotism that would make them work more than others unless they were under some sort of pressure. How do you expect to convince people to become doctors and do more work for the same results?

LSD

11th June 2005, 03:33

Communism destroys any will to work, because by being a lazy janitor, they get the same as a hard working doctor. I use these two occupations because janitorial duty is purely physical and limited in that respect, and does not involve that much thinking, while doctors do. People choose to do less work than more. Shortage of doctors. The average citizen is not motivated to some sort of patriotism that would make them work more than others unless they were under some sort of pressure. How do you expect to convince people to become doctors and do more work for the same results?

This is exactly the thing that reinforces my belief in communism.

You say that everyone will be a janitor and no one will be a doctor. Most capitalists here argue that everyone will want to be a doctor and no one will want to be a janitor. It only shows that there are different people with different occupational desires and that humanity is not as one dimensional as some would like us to believe.

Publius

11th June 2005, 03:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 02:29 AM

I assume you're speaking to me, with your reference to the Russian nihilists I mentioned.

You are very, very annoying. I won't bother explaining this concept of nihilism a third time for you. Not everything is in such absolutist terms, I am sure you would agree. Under that system, I can call you a stalin-communist, and say you support a belief that killed millions. www.anus.com has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Russian Nihilists.

I'm not a stalinist, or a communist.

You are a nihilist, however.

Killing the people who have created no meaning in life for themselves, and have no real attachment to it, in the effort to save humanity. Or they will go down the path of using every resource available and destroying civilisation and themselves, which will kill everyone.

Sounds great! I mean, human life is worthless right?

If not, prove to me its worth, if human life IS worthless, why not just kill everyone and get it over with?

If humanity isn't worth saving, as you state, why save it?

Stop thinking everyone is equal, because by looking at the intelligence of people, their artistic abilities, their strength & character, I can see this is not true. Some are better at jobs than others. Communism destroys any will to work, because by being a lazy janitor, they get the same as a hard working doctor. I use these two occupations because janitorial duty is purely physical and limited in that respect, and does not involve that much thinking, while doctors do. People choose to do less work than more. Shortage of doctors. The average citizen is not motivated to some sort of patriotism that would make them work more than others unless they were under some sort of pressure. How do you expect to convince people to become doctors and do more work for the same results?

I don't think everyone is equal so this doesn't apply to me.

6419

11th June 2005, 03:39

The point was that most jewish people believe in the jewish religion.

The millions you refer to, is that not the crusades? That was christianity.
Most of the deaths in that age were related to disease. We support keeping our borders defended, but we don't intend on extending our boundries due to the fact we won't need to.

Read some of the caste articles on the site, I'm not going to bother replying to this.

Obviously an inhospitable planet is what I was refering to. If you create technology, it can almost never be taken back without the implementation of some other form. As soon as you create it, people can't survive without it. All technology requires resoures, so it will constantly be stripping the planet of them. If we don't stop using it in excess and reduce some of it, we won't have resources left.

6419

11th June 2005, 03:44

I did not say human life was worthless. I did not say that the human race isn't worth saving. In fact I said it is worth saving, and the way was to regulate population growth. It's worth can most likely only be defined in a subjective way, not objective. Life is usually a positive experience for people, so we as a species on the planet should be allowed to live it. But we should not go around killing other species to satisfy some designed need for 'entertainment'. If people cannot enjoy life as it is, and require something to keep them amused, something is quite wrong.

LSD

11th June 2005, 03:46

The point was that most jewish people believe in the jewish religion.

..and are therefore "parasites"?

How is that not textbook anti-semitism?

The millions you refer to, is that not the crusades?

No, that's a different millions! :lol:

I was refering to deaths due to impoverishment, starvation, murder, revolts, the peasant wars, etc...

All technology requires resoures, so it will constantly be stripping the planet of them. If we don't stop using it in excess and reduce some of it, we won't have resources left.

What about solar power? or water? or wind? or geothermal?

There are renewable resources!

Read some of the caste articles on the site, I'm not going to bother replying to this.

Yes, if I supported a "caste system", I wouldn't bother responding either. I'd be far too busy checking into the nearest mental facility for immediate treatment.

Publius

11th June 2005, 03:47

Obviously an inhospitable planet is what I was refering to. If you create technology, it can almost never be taken back without the implementation of some other form. As soon as you create it, people can't survive without it. All technology requires resoures, so it will constantly be stripping the planet of them. If we don't stop using it in excess and reduce some of it, we won't have resources left.

What a dumbass.

Without technology, resources are pointless.

You can have all the metal in the world, but if you don't have the TECHNOLOGY to create fire, it means shit. You can't fashion it, smelt it or craft it.

You can be drowning in a sea of oil, but it may as well be piss if you don't have the TECHNOLOGY to use it.

You can have all the seeds in the world, but without farming TECHNOLOGY you may as well farm dirt.

You can have all the animals in the world, but without fashionen weapons, you're going to starve to death (A fitting end for a moron).

You can have all the fucking gold, silver, platinum, plants, animals, shit and dirt and it won't mean one fucking thing when you have nothing but your bare hands.

Do you even have a fucking brain? Houses are technology, do you propose we get rid of them?

I mean, they waste valuable resources, I mean, that grass was serving such a useful fucking purpose out there in the middle of that field.

Tell me, without shelter, clothing, hunting tools, tools for making fire, or any other form of technoloy, how will you survive?

Why don't you show us the advantage of the nihilist existence and get off your fucking computer and go starve?

I hope this post doesn't get deleted, I want every one of these stupid fuckers to read it.

Publius

11th June 2005, 03:49

LSD

11th June 2005, 03:51

I hope this post doesn't get deleted

Why would it get deleted? :blink:

Publius

11th June 2005, 03:52

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 11 2005, 02:51 AM

Why would it get deleted? :blink:

The language and flaming.

This forum is very restrictive from what I've seen.

LSD

11th June 2005, 03:55

Publius

11th June 2005, 03:58

Not at all.

Very little is deleted in fact. So long as the thread is not pure harassment, abuse, racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc... it will probably stay.

But I'm curious, what lead you to think otherwise? Any examples come to mind?

A thread of mine that was deleted.

It was deemed spam, which I guess was my fault for asking a vauge question, but the fact that is was deleted without asking me what it was for sort of peturbed me.

LSD

11th June 2005, 04:04

What, you mean the "Pencils" thing? :lol:

Publius

11th June 2005, 04:08

Yes, the pencils thing.

That was an excellent essay.

Publius

11th June 2005, 04:09

And something tells me that idiot won't be responding.

If I ever made a claim that stupid (Only possible after drinking a 5th of Windex or something), I wouldn't.

6419

11th June 2005, 04:21

The idea you seem to propose is that all resources on the planet are simply just to be used up, and have no other value. No where have I at all said, destroy all technology. I said we should limit our excessive growth of it because we use more resources than the planet creates. We also use them in stupid ways instead of making them last.

Yes, water, solar, wind can all be used as alternate sources, and are much better than oil. But if something goes wrong at some point, most likely with transfer of energy, our society will crash. It is better to be less dependent on all of these resources by finding some alternatives that are better in the long run. Instead of creating massive cities, smaller communities are founded. Then we don't need to drive all the time and public transportation can be used for getting between towns. Smaller communities are better for human interaction, better relationships are formed, people feel more in control of their life than some government that reigns over them.

Also your language highlights some anger problems, it also makes you look immature.

LSD

11th June 2005, 12:03

The idea you seem to propose is that all resources on the planet are simply just to be used up, and have no other value.

Well, they don't.

Resources are only valuable when they are used. Sitting in the ground, they are uesless.

But if something goes wrong at some point, most likely with transfer of energy, our society will crash.

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

"transfer of energy"... what, like power lines? Dude, we have black outs all the time. It doesn't "crash" society.

Instead of creating massive cities, smaller communities are founded.

Which is always worse for the people.

Notice that the historical trend has been towards urbaization? That isn't accidental. People live better in the cities than they do in rural areas. They have better access to resources, to water, food, medicine. It makes community easier, etc..

In fact, having everyone living in rural areas wastes the resources you're do concerned with because it requires a lot of duplication. Instead of having one hospital that services 200,000, you'd have to have 200 health centers that each service 1000. This means a lot of duplication of building, equipmant, staff, paperwork, furniture, rooms, power, water, etc...

Then we don't need to drive all the time

um...the more rural the society, the more you need to drive.

Smaller communities are better for human interaction, better relationships are formed,

Assertion, assertion, and assertion.

people feel more in control of their life than some government that reigns over them.

Well we agree on this! Which is why we must smash the state and abolish government.

You, however, are advocating feudalism[/b. You're actually pushing for overlordship and oppression which is entirely incongruous with your critisizm of a strong government...

I think you may be confused. :(

[b]Also your language highlights some anger problems, it also makes you look immature.

You support feudalism, anti-semitism, and Ted Fucking Kaczinski.

Who's immature here?

Publius

11th June 2005, 14:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:21 AM

The idea you seem to propose is that all resources on the planet are simply just to be used up, and have no other value. No where have I at all said, destroy all technology. I said we should limit our excessive growth of it because we use more resources than the planet creates. We also use them in stupid ways instead of making them last.

Can you prove that our growth is 'excessive'; can you prove which amount of growth is correct?

Or is this just another unsubstantiated opinion?

Yes, water, solar, wind can all be used as alternate sources, and are much better than oil. But if something goes wrong at some point, most likely with transfer of energy, our society will crash. It is better to be less dependent on all of these resources by finding some alternatives that are better in the long run. Instead of creating massive cities, smaller communities are founded. Then we don't need to drive all the time and public transportation can be used for getting between towns. Smaller communities are better for human interaction, better relationships are formed, people feel more in control of their life than some government that reigns over them.

You are the must wussy nihilist I have ever had the displeasure of encountering.

And your proposal for preventing society from crashing it to crash it prematurely. It's like trying to prevent a plance crash by intentionally blowing up the plane.

And what is better about smaller communities? 10,000 years ago everyone lived in small communities, and they lived like shit.

Those people weren't in control of their lives, they died when they were 25.

Also your language highlights some anger problems, it also makes you look immature.

No anger problems here, I just think it's funny.

Immature? Who cares? As long as I'm shreddng you apart like this, I don't care how I look.

ÑóẊîöŉ

11th June 2005, 14:20

Truly, philosophy really does transcend politics.

LuZhiming

11th June 2005, 20:26

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 11 2005, 11:03 AM
Notice that the historical trend has been towards urbaization? That isn't accidental. People live better in the cities than they do in rural areas. They have better access to resources, to water, food, medicine. It makes community easier, etc..

In fact, having everyone living in rural areas wastes the resources you're do concerned with because it requires a lot of duplication. Instead of having one hospital that services 200,000, you'd have to have 200 health centers that each service 1000. This means a lot of duplication of building, equipmant, staff, paperwork, furniture, rooms, power, water, etc...
Then how come the people living in the absolute worst conditions in say, Alabama, are not living in the kind of shit some people in say, New York live in? Let's stick to Alabama, how come the people worst off in Alabama are the ones in the cities and not in rural areas?

You're right on one thing, the trend towards urbanization hasn't been accidental. It has been forced by a greedy group of humans who mix their Christian, humanist, and Capitalist views into one religion bent on destroying all that is beautiful and meaningful in the world for the "betterment" of man. People have moved into big cities because the governments of societies have in various ways compelled them to move into them. Do you know how many farmers there have been that would prefer to live in rural areas and live their "simple" lives growing crops and making profit off of them, that can't because government subsidies and other actions have given all power to agrobusiness? You people all criticize "Capitalism" but your misguided views on issues leave little option for anything else but the current destructive systems we have.

LSD

11th June 2005, 20:39

Then how come the people living in the absolute worst conditions in say, Alabama, are not living in the kind of shit some people in say, New York live in?

They are.

Let's stick to Alabama, how come the people worst off in Alabama are the ones in the cities and not in rural areas?

Actually, that's not true.

Recent statistics show that Alabama s total personal income grew by 4.0 percent between 1999 and 2000 the weakest gain of all states in the nation. Based on the 1999 data, for instance, Alabama's average per capita income ($22,972) was 20 percent lower than that of the nation ($28,546) and was highly skewed and polarized at the county level. Despite the fact that two counties Shelby and Jefferson had above the national average per capita income, there was great disparity in incomes. This disparity is just as evident when we compare the top and bottom ten counties. The average per-capita income in the top ten was $26,505 almost $10,000 higher than the average of $16,058 for the bottom ten counties. Seven of the highest ten per capita income levels were recorded in urban counties (average population 186,210) such as Jefferson and Montgomery whereas eight of the ten lowest per capita income levels were recorded in rural counties with average population of 14,186 residents such as Perry and Wilcox counties (Bukenya, 2002). Disparities in incomes were also evident in the racial composition of the counties. The average black population in the bottom ten per capita income counties was 66 percent eight of these ten counties had majority (greater than 50 percent) black populations. On the other hand, blacks averaged only 22 percent of the population in the top ten counties. Eight of these ten counties had an average of less than 25 percent of the black population (Alabama s Income: Past and Present, 2000).

from UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POVERTY AND INCOME INEQUALITY (http://computing.breinestorm.net/james+bukenya+email+alabama+lekhanath/)

For the most part, rural Alabamians are older and poorer than the state as a whole. Of the 15 counties with the highest percent population over 65 years of age, 14 are rural.

Of the 10 counties with double-digit unemployment, all are rural

from The state of rural Alabama (http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/other/040516.shtml)

And don't think that that's limited to Alabama! It was your example, I was just running with it. The fact is that everywhere, you are much better off living in a city than in the country.

And for really obvious reasons too!

Look, spreading people out makes it more difficult to get basic services to them, obviously. It's harder to get them power, water, food. It's harder to form a community. It's harder to get good schooling. It's harder to travel. It's harder to find a job, etc..

It is simply better to live in a city and that's why the trend for the past 3000 years years has been towards urbanization.

People have moved into big cities because the governments of societies have in various ways compelled them to move into them.

Bullshit.

They move there because they know that they will live better off. Those aren't government forces, they're economic ones. Certainly no less coercive for that, but they're in no way the action of the state.

Do you know how many farmers there have been that would prefer to live in rural areas and live their "simple" lives growing crops and making profit off of them

No ...and neither do you.

ÑóẊîöŉ

11th June 2005, 21:24

You're right on one thing, the trend towards urbanization hasn't been accidental. It has been forced by a greedy group of humans who mix their Christian, humanist, and Capitalist views into one religion bent on destroying all that is beautiful and meaningful in the world for the "betterment" of man.

Excuse me! You are mischaracterising humanism.

Humanism is not compatible at all with Christianity because it subverts the will of humanity to the will of God. Capitalism is not compatible with humanism in the long term because it degrades the common man into a money-grubbing animal intent only on profit and giving no thought to technological, cultural and memetic advancement.

Cities are the ultimate enforcement of human will over nature... but it's not enough. More must be done.

LuZhiming

11th June 2005, 21:53

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide+Jun 11 2005, 07:39 PM--> (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide @ Jun 11 2005, 07:39 PM)Recent statistics show that Alabama s total personal income grew by 4.0 percent between 1999 and 2000 the weakest gain of all states in the nation. Based on the 1999 data, for instance, Alabama's average per capita income ($22,972) was 20 percent lower than that of the nation ($28,546) and was highly skewed and polarized at the county level. Despite the fact that two counties Shelby and Jefferson had above the national average per capita income, there was great disparity in incomes. This disparity is just as evident when we compare the top and bottom ten counties. The average per-capita income in the top ten was $26,505 almost $10,000 higher than the average of $16,058 for the bottom ten counties. Seven of the highest ten per capita income levels were recorded in urban counties (average population 186,210) such as Jefferson and Montgomery whereas eight of the ten lowest per capita income levels were recorded in rural counties with average population of 14,186 residents such as Perry and Wilcox counties (Bukenya, 2002). Disparities in incomes were also evident in the racial composition of the counties. The average black population in the bottom ten per capita income counties was 66 percent eight of these ten counties had majority (greater than 50 percent) black populations. On the other hand, blacks averaged only 22 percent of the population in the top ten counties. Eight of these ten counties had an average of less than 25 percent of the black population (Alabama s Income: Past and Present, 2000).

from =http://computing.breinestorm.net/james+bukenya+email+alabama+lekhanathUNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POVERTY AND INCOME INEQUALITY

For the most part, rural Alabamians are older and poorer than the state as a whole. Of the 15 counties with the highest percent population over 65 years of age, 14 are rural.

Of the 10 counties with double-digit unemployment, all are rural

from http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/o...er/040516.shtml (http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/other/040516.shtml)]The state of rural Alabama

And don't think that that's limited to Alabama! It was your example, I was just running with it. The fact is that everywhere, you are much better off living in a city than in the country. [/b]

Do you not understand anything about these figures? Average per capita incomes means nothing when a place is filled with huge equality(Which is exactly what huge cities do have in them). Have you ever been to a city? A place can have tons of people that are in the lower range of "middle class" and poor people but also have an extremely rich elite and the per capita income can be higher than a place where people all live a decent lifestyle but doesn't have as many rich people. You should know that. And that's exactly how it is in Alabama. Just look at the statistics this article posts on how Blacks are so much poorer than Whites in Alabama. But if you take a look at demographics most Blacks in Alabama live in cities. But cities are mentioned as the richest places in Alabama! Why is that? Exactly the reason I mentioned. Just take a look at the demographics of some of the richest urban countries the article mentions: Jefferson and Montgomery. In Jefferson, Blacks make up 39.36% of the population, and 48.58% in Montgomery. Keep in mind that Blacks make up only 26% of the population. How do you explain that? Of course there are exceptions, Wilcox county is such a place(with only about 13,183 people) full of "ghost towns" where the areas are both rural and Black and are poor. The point stands though, my claim was not that rural areas are "richer" in Alabama then urban areas, but that the people mostly live better. You will find some of the worst excuses for life in some cities of Montgomery, Alabama, not in the country(generally).

You can search the internet and pull out all kind of statistics, but since you don't really know anything about the subject you're talking about, you do not know exactly what those statistics mean. And I used Alabama because it's more "controversial" and not a blatant example. The point becomes even more clear when one mentions places like Colorado, Conneticutt, Montana, etc.

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 11 2005, 07:39 PM
Bullshit.

They move their because they know that they will live better off. Those aren't government forces, they're economic ones. Certainly no less coercive for that, but they're in no way the action of the state.

Actually, they are the actions of the state. The state built societies that relied on big businesses in big cities to keep 'everything running.' Furthermore, profitable occupations in rural areas of various kinds have been purposely destroyed in many cases by big businesses with government support, a point you conveniently ignore.

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 11 2005, 07:39 PM
No ...and neither do you.

I do actually know people who prefer such lifestyles, although I can't claim to actually know any that have been forced away from them. I have family in (guess where)Alabama who usually grow all they eat, and although aren't "ecofascists" who live in "primitism" and do live fairly simple lives in small houses. This includes a 90(91?) year old great-grandfather who has managed to live quite a happy(one of the most satisfied persons you'll every know) life but also a very healthy one interestingly.

[email protected] 11 2005, 08:24 PM
Humanism is not compatible at all with Christianity because it subverts the will of humanity to the will of God. Capitalism is not compatible with humanism in the long term because it degrades the common man into a money-grubbing animal intent only on profit and giving no thought to technological, cultural and memetic advancement.

In Christianity man is fashioned after god and the creator asserts that everything on Earth is for man's use and exploitation. Man is given a choice to follow God's guidenlines.

Humanism is compatible with "Capitalism" because it degrades man into a selfish-money/technology/material hungry being who wishes for nothing but "advancement." The only things "Capitalism" adds to this is the belief that individuals should do all they can to advance themselves specifically. They compliment eachother well.

LSD

11th June 2005, 22:28

Do you not understand anything about these figures? Average per capita incomes means nothing when a place is filled with huge equality(Which is exactly what huge cities do have in them). Have you ever been to a city? A place can have tons of people that are in the lower range of "middle class" and poor people but also have an extremely rich elite and the per capita income can be higher than a place where people all live a decent lifestyle but doesn't have as many rich people. You should know that. And that's exactly how it is in Alabama.

Actually, the opposite is true.

Income disparity is much higher in rural areas than in urban ones.

Read this: Rural Remedy (http://www.arhaonline.org/PDF%20Files/V8No3.PDF) (you can skip to the 6th page)

You can search the internet and pull out all kind of statistics, but since you don't really know anything about the subject you're talking about, you do not know exactly what those statistics mean.

No?

Well I've taken enough statistics courses to know that when the per capita income is lower and more of the population is living under the poverty line, it means that the median income level is worse.

Not to get overly statistical, but since the standard deviation is greater in rural areas than in urban ones and the mean income level is higher and the actual poverty level is lower, it means both that the per capita income level is more accurate in urban than rural areas and, more importantly, that any person taken at random in an Alabaman city will probably be making more money than a person taken at random in a rural area.

There are simply less poor in the cities, there are better services in the city and there are more jobs in the city.

Actually, they are the actions of the state. The state built societies that relied on big businesses in big cities to keep 'everything running.'

The "state" didn't build societies, people built societies. If it were state action, then it would be limited to only the United States or only Western countries but it isn't. Every country on earth is becomming more urban and less rural and has been doing so for millenia. That's millenia. Do you realize how many different states have existed over that time?

We're talking feudalism, monarchy, colonialism, republicanism, socialism, you name it. In every society, people have been moving into the cities and out of the country.

Furthermore, profitable occupations in rural areas of various kinds have been purposely destroyed in many cases by big businesses with government support, a point you conveniently ignore.

What like in some sort of conspiracy? :unsure:

Corporations destroy competition because they want to make money. That's true of urban and rural based corporations, that's how they work. But they don't give a damn about rural vs. urban, they just want to make money.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you're trying to say... are you suggesting that there's some covert government/business plan to drive people from the countryside?

ÑóẊîöŉ

11th June 2005, 23:13

In Christianity man is fashioned after god and the creator asserts that everything on Earth is for man's use and exploitation. Man is given a choice to follow God's guidenlines.

Man may be fashioned after God according to christian dogma, but in reality man is his own being. We don't need a divine imperative to exploit the earth's resources, we do so because it is to our own gain.

And what kind of choice is 'do this and that or suffer for eternity'? it is the same kind of 'choice' that the capitalists shove down our throats.

Humanism is compatible with "Capitalism" because it degrades man into a selfish-money/technology/material hungry being who wishes for nothing but "advancement." The only things "Capitalism" adds to this is the belief that individuals should do all they can to advance themselves specifically. They compliment eachother well.

Capitalism does not propogate real, useful technology, it propogates toys, widgets and faddish gizmos that do nothing but absorb resources that could be better invested in something else. Instead of one reliable product that does the job it's meant to do, capitalism mutates that into several competing product of varying utility, thus causing wastage.
The pursuit of capital has nothing to do with the advancement of the human species.

I like how you're trying to lump humanism and capitalism together so you can attack humanists under the guise of anti-capitalism. Nice trick, but it's been done before and I see right through it.

Raisa

12th June 2005, 08:21

Nihilists are like the ones who say nothing exists.

If we dont all exist...and we are all feeling and perceiving, then I guess we just exist in our non-existance then, dont we.

What a big bunch of shit! :unsure:

Iconoclast the Splendid

16th August 2005, 06:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:29 PM

Fuck Nihilism. A true nihilist would be a sociopathic individual who values nothing but their own existance. Read the stuff on that website and if you're sane you will get a very dim view of nihilism.

Glad to see there's someone else on here that can see the bullshit.
You know nothing. If you would read the "what is nihilism" from their website you would see that they reject OBJECTIVE MORALITY, not OBJECTIVE REALITY. There is a difference, friend, and please read the website before you blindly parrot out insults.

Iconoclast the Splendid

16th August 2005, 07:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 08:42 PM

You're right on one thing, the trend towards urbanization hasn't been accidental. It has been forced by a greedy group of humans who mix their Christian, humanist, and Capitalist views into one religion bent on destroying all that is beautiful and meaningful in the world for the "betterment" of man.

Excuse me! You are mischaracterising humanism.

Humanism is not compatible at all with Christianity because it subverts the will of humanity to the will of God. Capitalism is not compatible with humanism in the long term because it degrades the common man into a money-grubbing animal intent only on profit and giving no thought to technological, cultural and memetic advancement.

Cities are the ultimate enforcement of human will over nature... but it's not enough. More must be done.
Christianity does have humanistic elements. Matthew 5:5, Galations 3:28, etc.

saint max

16th August 2005, 10:14

I think the horse may actually still be alive...

No one seemed to respond in a reasonable way to the specifics of the pro-technology critique. And the crypto-eco-nihilist is a bit strange... So here's my insurrectional anti-civ pro-uncle ted points.

That one capitalist said: What a dumbass.

Without technology, resources are pointless.

nope, we just don't conceptualize life as an object anymore

You can have all the metal in the world, but if you don't have the TECHNOLOGY to create fire, it means shit. You can't fashion it, smelt it or craft it.

technology doesn't make fire. Perhaps you're never made one without a lighter? Also what good is metal? I think it was doing fine being a mountain...

You can be drowning in a sea of oil, but it may as well be piss if you don't have the TECHNOLOGY to use it.

there is nothing sustainable about oil, or oil-economy.

You can have all the seeds in the world, but without farming TECHNOLOGY you may as well farm dirt.

"farm dirt" eh? you mean till soil? tilling soil actually kills it. (makes it unfertile, remember "the fetile cresent?") agriculture is unsustainable. The only cultivation that comes close to reflecting wildness is permacultre.

You can have all the animals in the world, but without fashionen weapons, you're going to starve to death (A fitting end for a moron).

a pointed stick or rock with a patricular velocity may very well kill just about anything. Also ever heard of the Native Americans or Celts for that matter? Hell, any primitive peoples?

You can have all the fucking gold, silver, platinum, plants, animals, shit and dirt and it won't mean one fucking thing when you have nothing but your bare hands.

You are correct, it will have no material value, besides what I asign to it through my relationships with it.

Do you even have a fucking brain? Houses are technology, do you propose we get rid of them?

You think Houses, shelters are technology? A cave is technology? A mud hut? A teepee? etc? nah. If we did want to get rid of some houses though, i'd suggest fire. Lots and lots of fire.

I mean, they waste valuable resources, I mean, that grass was serving such a useful fucking purpose out there in the middle of that field.

Tell me, without shelter, clothing, hunting tools, tools for making fire, or any other form of technoloy, how will you survive?

You don't know the distinction between tools (even though you use the term) and technology do you?

Tools exist when life is conceptualized and related with differently than what and individual or band would usually understand it as. for instance a peice of wood, now also something to hit an apple out of a tree with, something to dig with, something to help start a fire, something to use as a weapon.

Technology is the coninuation of tools, from Life to object; requires continual elaboration of alienation of the form from the rest of life and division of labor to produce it. The Sword is technology. Mountain must be reconceptualized as objects where Ore come from. Ore must be mined. Someone(s) must specialize in the mining, the fashioning, smelting, and crafting, and someone else must become proficent in it...etc. And it all continues on the path of more specialized division of labor and more alienation.

Uncle Ted tried to save us, albeit some of his anti-anarchist views...you know how old people get.

cheers,
-max

Xvall

16th August 2005, 10:39

A true nihilist, and I very much doubt these people are anything more than teenagers drowning in ennui, would be out there attacking things right now, now making posts on a website.

But if everything were worthless, what would be the point?

ÑóẊîöŉ

16th August 2005, 13:51

Originally posted by Iconoclast the Splendid+Aug 16 2005, 06:18 AM--> (Iconoclast the Splendid @ Aug 16 2005, 06:18 AM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 08:42 PM

You're right on one thing, the trend towards urbanization hasn't been accidental. It has been forced by a greedy group of humans who mix their Christian, humanist, and Capitalist views into one religion bent on destroying all that is beautiful and meaningful in the world for the "betterment" of man.

Excuse me! You are mischaracterising humanism.

Humanism is not compatible at all with Christianity because it subverts the will of humanity to the will of God. Capitalism is not compatible with humanism in the long term because it degrades the common man into a money-grubbing animal intent only on profit and giving no thought to technological, cultural and memetic advancement.

Cities are the ultimate enforcement of human will over nature... but it's not enough. More must be done.
Christianity does have humanistic elements. Matthew 5:5, Galations 3:28, etc. [/b]
Hmm, I don't think so:

5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

The meek shall inherit NOTHING. (Titties and beer for the reference) They will be shoved aside by the non-meek people.

3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Yes, because all being the same under the whip of some imaginary god-king is analagous to being a free individual. Idiot!

Christianity glorifies God, not Man. Poor humanity only gets some reflected glory because it is made 'in his image' (Supposedly, but the best human torturors have nothing on the Almighty)

Publius

16th August 2005, 13:51

You know nothing. If you would read the "what is nihilism" from their website you would see that they reject OBJECTIVE MORALITY, not OBJECTIVE REALITY. There is a difference, friend, and please read the website before you blindly parrot out insults.

Why?

Is there something WRONG with my doing so? :lol:

Hahahaahah

Publius

16th August 2005, 14:06

nope, we just don't conceptualize life as an object anymore

What's that supposed to mean?

WHY DOES IT EVEN MATTER if 'conceptualize life as an object'?

technology doesn't make fire. Perhaps you're never made one without a lighter? Also what good is metal? I think it was doing fine being a mountain...

Technology - Anthropology. The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.

I would love to see you make a fire without traipsing into the domain of that definition.

Wood and flint are tools technology was well, albeit primitive technology.

there is nothing sustainable about oil, or oil-economy.

Who cares?

We'll just use it and then be done with it.

We may as well rock-and-roll for a few hundred years than live like dogs for ALL eternity.

"farm dirt" eh? you mean till soil? tilling soil actually kills it. (makes it unfertile, remember "the fetile cresent?") agriculture is unsustainable. The only cultivation that comes close to reflecting wildness is permacultre.

How does tilling soil kill it?

If crops are rotated and nutrients are put back into the soil, it does just fine.

Soil is nothing more than broken down rocks, minerals and plant matter.

I don't give a flying shit about 'reflecting wilderness'. It means nothing to me. Fuck the wilderness.

a pointed stick or rock with a patricular velocity may very well kill just about anything. Also ever heard of the Native Americans or Celts for that matter? Hell, any primitive peoples?

A pointed stick is STILL technology.

Read the definition of the word, in the anthropological sense (What we're reffering too): Anthropology. The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.

That means sticks and rocks to.

I guess now you're going to chase them down with your bare hands? :lol:

You are correct, it will have no material value, besides what I asign to it through my relationships with it.

That's exactly how thigns work now...

You think Houses, shelters are technology? A cave is technology? A mud hut? A teepee? etc? nah. If we did want to get rid of some houses though, i'd suggest fire. Lots and lots of fire.

We get to live in caves!?

WHERE DO I SIGN UP?

And if a bear happens to occupy that cave, I bet we bore him to death with our psuedo-philosophical ramblings on the pointlessness of technology, because we sure as hell couldn't kill him with our bare hands.

You don't know the distinction between tools (even though you use the term) and technology do you?

All tools are a form of technology. Not all technology is a tool.

Tools exist when life is conceptualized and related with differently than what and individual or band would usually understand it as. for instance a peice of wood, now also something to hit an apple out of a tree with, something to dig with, something to help start a fire, something to use as a weapon.

Those are all tools. They are also technology.

Anthropology. The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.

Technology is the coninuation of tools, from Life to object; requires continual elaboration of alienation of the form from the rest of life and division of labor to produce it. The Sword is technology. Mountain must be reconceptualized as objects where Ore come from. Ore must be mined. Someone(s) must specialize in the mining, the fashioning, smelting, and crafting, and someone else must become proficent in it...etc. And it all continues on the path of more specialized division of labor and more alienation.

HUH!?

'Alienation'? From what?

This isn't nihilist, this masturbatory naturalism.

ÑóẊîöŉ

16th August 2005, 14:53

Who cares?

We'll just use it and then be done with it.

We may as well rock-and-roll for a few hundred years than live like dogs for ALL eternity.

Now that's rather pessimistic, Publius. I'm sure we'll develop various alternatives to oil that, in aggregate, will provide the energy we need.

Waste burning, fission and fusion come to mind.

Publius

16th August 2005, 14:55

Now that's rather pessimistic, Publius. I'm sure we'll develop various alternatives to oil that, in aggregate, will provide the energy we need.

Waste burning, fission and fusion come to mind.

I agree.

But I'm reffering just to oil.

Better to use it and abuse than leave it in the groun.

ÑóẊîöŉ

16th August 2005, 15:34

It is more useful out of the ground than in it, I suppose.

Xvall

16th August 2005, 15:44

Oil doesn't really serve much of an other purpose. I don't think anyone has a problem with using oil. (When people talk about "conserving resources" they usually mean things that serve other uses in our environment, such as trees.) It would probably be a good idea not to be gluttonous with it, as we do rely on it until other such means of energy are perfected.

saint max

16th August 2005, 23:17

Publius.

Technology is not neutral, nor is our language. For an anti-tech/anti-civ critique to be best understood, those in the milleu have come up with working definitions.

You may be right to claim, visavi the Dictionary, that technology is all tools. But that is merely representation. The fact remains, particular ways of organizing organic matter into more and more complex forms, leads to a seperation both, physically, and mentally (perhaps spiritually) from what it was, and what it is shaped to become from our will; alienated from its wild form. This is the objectification of life--reification. The logic that allows for this has only existed for about 10,000 years, less than 1% of human existance. Consenquently it is within this time period we have lived with the fundemental forms of oppression and hierarchy we have today: class, race, gender bianary, the state, ecological destruction...etc. None of these were rapant before 10,000 bc

How can you argue a stick, or a rock, that has no humyn intervention before they become a 'stick' or a 'rock' is technology?

cheers,
-max

ps: Your posts about oil are ridiculous. You fail to understand every problem with oil, oil-economy, and global political-economy.

pps: maybe the world and all life does'nt exist merely for you to exploit it? I'm pretty sure I don't and my good friends smith and weston agree.

Moral_Imbalance

17th August 2005, 00:26

wow im gone for a couple of weeks and everything goes to shit.......
in any case.......

Those who are now arguing for Nihilism please state so im to lazy to read back through and decifer it for myself.....

and could someone tell me why were arguing about a stick being technology?
i mean honestly....... its a stick man didnt create a stick... now one could argue that man made the stick sharp but thats pushing it....... i would assume only items made entirely by man would be technological......

And whats with the primitivism.....?
not alll nihilists wish to revert back to the cave days.....
i for one dont care what happens after we transend morality and other herd ideology....

-Ilis

Publius

17th August 2005, 03:50

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 16 2005, 10:35 PM

Technology is not neutral, nor is our language.

How could they be anything other than nuetral? There is no such thing as morality.

For an anti-tech/anti-civ critique to be best understood, those in the milleu have come up with working definitions.

I understand it just fine. I think it's stupid.

You may be right to claim, visavi the Dictionary, that technology is all tools. But that is merely representation

No, that's what the word means.

Stop equivocating.

The fact remains, particular ways of organizing organic matter into more and more complex forms, leads to a seperation both, physically, and mentally (perhaps spiritually) from what it was, and what it is shaped to become from our will; alienated from its wild form.

And that 'wild form' was just an evolution from our 'natural form' a single celled creature living in the water.

Should we attempt to revert to that as well?

There is no fact regarding our seperation. We are not seperated physically, we control nature, we are not seperated mentally, we're brilliant in comparison to our former selves, and there is no such thing as spirituality.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING A SPIRIT. You're not better than a theist.

We have no have no 'wild form', we only have OUR form.

Man is the sum of the decisions he makes and the actions he takes. Nothing more or less.

This is the objectification of life--reification.

Life IS an object, at least conceptually.

The logic that allows for this has only existed for about 10,000 years, less than 1% of human existance. Consenquently it is within this time period we have lived with the fundemental forms of oppression and hierarchy we have today: class, race, gender bianary, the state, ecological destruction...etc. None of these were rapant before 10,000 bc

And BEFORE 10,000 BC we lived in utter deject poverty and misery, being lucky to make it 18 before killed.

Wanting to go back to those days makes as much sense as wanting to go back to the days of single-celled creatures by saying "In those days, we didn't have racism. It was OBVIOUSLY superiour"

We didn't have ANYTHING before 10,000 bc. We were fucking apes.

Compare that to us now and we're GODS. Why give up our divinity?

How can you argue a stick, or a rock, that has no humyn intervention before they become a 'stick' or a 'rock' is technology?

You can't.

I'm not arguing that.

Once the human takes the stick or rock and uses it AS a tool, it obviously BECOMES a tool.

If I use your ferrous skull for a hammer, it BECOMES a hammer; a tool.

ps: Your posts about oil are ridiculous. You fail to understand every problem with oil, oil-economy, and global political-economy.

Every post of yours is rediculous.

You take no account of logic and resort to misty emotions and 'spirituality' as readily as any mash-headed theist.

I understand the oil-economy perfectly well and the entire economy much more so.

maybe the world and all life does'nt exist merely for you to exploit it? I'm pretty sure I don't and my good friends smith and weston agree.

This is such a strawman it's not even worth responding to.

When I have ever claimed that world and all of life was mine for the taking?

saint max

17th August 2005, 05:20

Pubilus, if you're not willing to have a debate, where you critique, and use arguements, besides blanket statements, to back up you critique, then you are doing more than wasting both of our time, you are boring me.

When I have ever claimed that world and all of life was mine for the taking?

right here: "Life IS an object, at least conceptually."

Moral imbalance, I am arguing for nihilism, and also defending a critique of technology and civilization. You're going to have to look back just a little if you want to get into this particular waste of time.

QUOTE
You may be right to claim, visavi the Dictionary, that technology is all tools. But that is merely representation

No, that's what the word means.

Do you really want me to argue the fact that words have changed meaning through-out history and in use? Words are merely representations of our intent and perception. I don't care if what you think civilization and technology is, I care how its problemacized. And it's much more advantageous to say "technology" not the logic of tools becoming more alienated from their natural form, and the ways we reify life through division of labor and specialization into non-life or a parody of life.

Pubilus, do some homework.

Publius

17th August 2005, 14:35

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 17 2005, 04:38 AM

Pubilus, if you're not willing to have a debate, where you critique, and use arguements, besides blanket statements, to back up you critique, then you are doing more than wasting both of our time, you are boring me.

A 'blanket statement' is a perfectly valid form of debate when it shows the underlying flaws of your arguments.

But the point isn't salient as most of my posits were not 'blanket statements' at all.

But I don't see the point in continuing this debate.

It's obvious you have no idea what you're arguing about.

right here: "Life IS an object, at least conceptually."

Life is a conceptual object.

Are you disputing that fact?

Life is a conceptual object. That does not mean that it exists for me exploit. It means that it isn't here for any objective purpose, but for subjective, conceptual ones.

Do you really want me to argue the fact that words have changed meaning through-out history and in use?

No.

Good thing we don't have to, because your use of the word has ALWAYS been incorrect.

Words are merely representations of our intent and perception.

Ahfdohafpshhfdshdpfashdf.

There. That was my response. It was a mere representation of my intent and perception.

I hope you understand.

I don't care if what you think civilization and technology is, I care how its problemacized. And it's much more advantageous to say "technology" not the logic of tools becoming more alienated from their natural form, and the ways we reify life through division of labor and specialization into non-life or a parody of life.

Tell me, what's the difference between said 'non-life' and said 'parody of life' and the supposed 'real' life.

Ignroe the rest of my post if you want, just answer me this.

saint max

18th August 2005, 01:45

I don't care if what you think civilization and technology is, I care how its problemacized. And it's much more advantageous to say "technology" not the logic of tools becoming more alienated from their natural form, and the ways we reify life through division of labor and specialization into non-life or a parody of life.

Tell me, what's the difference between said 'non-life' and said 'parody of life' and the supposed 'real' life.

I don't think I need to explain non-life. I haven't experienced it yet, but I fear it comming. Supposed "real" life, in my langauge above was just "life." Perhaps the only way to conceptualize a natural (rewind to 0) life is to look at anthropology's contemporary conclusions of 'the primitive' and indigenous, and relate our experiences to that of other wild-animals (read: non-domesticated). Life, in it's 'natural' form is wild. A parody of life is a representation of 'what-was-life' in a humorous or ironic form. We have a historical example of what-was-life, wildness, and through that we can deduce that how we live not is a parody of that life. For instance, a sportsteam, or nation-state, or gang, is a parody of a community, tribe, clan or band. Drinking water from a cup (where I have no clue how it became a cup or how the water got there besides the faucet) is a parody of drinking water from a stream.

The big difference I think, is Life in wildness, is an unmediated experience. The parody of Life we live today is merely a representation of things that occur in wild-nature.

I think it's the same logic for tool vs technology.

cheers,
-max