Dismantling Subjectivity

There is no subjectivity, only Truth and not-Truth.
Subjectivity is a kike psyop to sow seeds of doubt in the mind of the unwary.
Certainty is strong, uncertainty leads to being open to manipulation by (((outside sources)))
If you want to know Truth, look within, you have a direct connection to it, we all do.
If you interpret Truth falsely to suit yourself and then use it to manipulate others for your own ends, instead of purely expressing it, you are a jew in spirit.
There is one Truth and any deviation from it is a step towards an ever darker world.

Honestly, no proffessor no philosopher will take this seriously. It is not a mindset it is a tool to fool the weak willed or disrupt effective thought.

Its almost the definition of mental D+C, by dividing a person from the most obvious of truths, their culture, their heritage and so on they get one step closer to destroying them. (leftist batshit propaganda think by design).

Trying to argue something with someone who doesn't believe in anything or agree that "Cooperating in argument" is a single verifiable thing is pointless. But I will respond a little in case this is not pointless shilling and for the exercise.

Is almost certainly the right way to go about it. Remember we are not arguing with the intellectual equivalent of BAMN. We are conducting a spectacle for the benefit of our audience, and nothing will make the bullshit reek stronger then their hypocrisy.

Ok, but how you can determine what is true?

The scientific method is a great place to start.

That can be used for to certain degree, but most of people bitching about subjectivity talk about morals. And even scientific metod finally fail to determine "truth" because observer effect and indeterminacy principle.

One way to crush that line of reasoning it to apply the terms correctly.

Moral subjectivity, that moral perceptions can vary, is a objectively verifiable fact.

Moral relativism, the idea that different moral positions are equivalent is a verifiable falsehood.

Liberals don't have children, conservatives do hence their need to import shitskins as a voting bloc who themselves don't breed once they get here necessitating further importation.

Socially conservative, rightist, fascist, traditionally western moral norms result in affluent, fecund, and happy people. Liberal and leftist moral choices result in diseased, childless, unhappy people with high gross incomes but low disposable incomes as they live in expensive urban areas and are overpaid as a form of compensation that never really covers their cost.

Cities run with leftist ideals degenerate into shit as they invite muds and refuse to enforce the law, while even a hellhole like Jew York City can see drastic reductions in crime if laws are rigorously enforced and racial profiling used.

A Catholic Church whose "terrible" inquisition handed over 4,500 individuals to be killed by secular authorities in an 800 year period is objectively distinguishable from an Aztect city state which kills 1,000 captives a year to ensure the sun doesn't go out. Not only are the individuals killed for very different behaviors, the individuals are of different worth racially speaking, they are killed to achieve very different social ends, and the methods are different as well as the mindset of the authorities killing them.

The leftist, liberal, or kike will always hold whites to a mystically high standard of behavior, the terms of which they dictate, while excusing any behavior by shitskins with the argument that we cannot judge them for their behaviors because our values are subjective.

Kikes and libtards always argue in bad faith.

Solipsists are sociopaths by definition and should be purged not reasoned with.

Golden Rule/Natural Law, you know the fucking foundation of Western Civilization known since the god damn Greco Roman empire? Try not being a fucking spoon-fed plebian. Fucking sick of you shit eater newfags, we settled all this shit back in 2013 where the fuck were you?

Results speak for themselves, if liberals and shitskins wish to die because they engage in inferior moral behavior I fully support them, I want them all dead.

More so, they should be ineligible for medical treatments as can be supplied for such as Hepatitis or HIV/AIDS or any STI. They wish to conduct in such inferior moral behavior they should have to deal with the full consequences of their folly.

An individual or even group of individuals of a particular species in a particular vibrational form and form of time experience isn't subjective

Everything is subjective unless you are currently being everything.

The issue isn't that "nothing is subjective" its that things being subjective doesn't mean that you should "give up and just drink pepsi lol"

Same as the "free will" argument. It doesn't matter whether in meta-realms there is or isn't some extra impetus behind will, but if you voluntarily acknowledge you lack a will, then you will lose and power and influence on reality

HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men
cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/
cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/
Everyone who is not an exclusive heterosexual makes up about 2.1-2.7% of the population. With about 1% being homosexual. So the number of dudes that fuck dudes would be around 1.3% at most. So if they account for 56% of new infections they are 43 times more likely to be infected.

The total number of these dude-fuckers shall we call them who are infected each year is 28,200. Given that sexual activity occurs between 15 and 45 that means that in that time 846,000 of the sexually active dude fuckers will be infected. Their total population is about 4.095 million at the most. Of which 55% will be within that 15-45 age group. So about 2.25 million of them are sexually active in a given 30 year period of which 846,000 will be infected. So about 37.5% of their sexually active population will be infected in their lifetimes. Now before you say “but that is just niggers and spics”, look at the data, even when only accounting for whites the rate of infection is still 31%. Which is admittedly better than 37% but still not great.

Homosexual Men Have 50 Times Higher Rate of AIDS
cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#incidence

One in Five Gay, Bisexual Men in U.S. Cities Has HIV
reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923

Report Finds Black Gay Males in US Worst Hit By HIV-AIDS
ca.news.yahoo.com/report-finds-black-gay-males-us-worst-hit-161752246.html

STD Facts - Syphilis & MSM
cdc.gov/std/Syphilis/STDFact-MSM-Syphilis.htm

Viral Hepatitis Populations - Men Who Have Sex with Men
cdc.gov/hepatitis/Populations/msm.htm

Indeed.

Reply for those who didn't read linked dialogue.
Yes, somethings are. Beauty by all rights has an objective essence (even if defining this essence proves difficult)and all beautiful things would fall within this objective idea. However some things appear more beautiful than others to others and vice versa. Beauty is not subjective, rather our perception is. Feelings, emotions, senses. Subjective experiences based on objective stimuli. The point is not to say "nothing is subjective", rather it is to show the absurdity of asserting all things are subjective.

Not covered in dialogue. Simply, truth is a quality held by things that correlate to reality. "What is is and what is not is not." That is to say an idea or thing is true if its assertion or being corresponds with what is reflected in reality. Example: Jews are a plague and parasite upon Earth and mankind (idea/assertion); Jews are in fact a plague and parasite upon earth and mankind (reality/observation). The idea corresponds with the observation. Thus, the idea is true.

Rationalism and empiricism.

If subjectivity is the tool, then postmodernism is the mindset subjectivity seeks to establish. A key to open a lock. We know the purpose of postmodernism is to invalidate rationalism (logical thinking) then offer emotionalism (feels good is good, feels bad is bad) as the means to justify beliefs and knowledge. Dismantling subjectivity in our peers is but one means to subvert the postmodern agenda.

Fuck off, shill. Do we have an obligation towards our fellow man to lead them to the truth? Perhaps, perhaps not. But even if you can't get the horse to drink, you can still lead it to water, one way or another. As for those beyond help, who would refuse logical thinking, shutting their eyes ,plugging their ears, spurting cries of "reeeee", where nothing will sway them from their ways, ==gas 'em==

Had not Plato already BTFO'd the sophists back in 350BC or something?

Imported shitskins are outbreeding whites and have been for a long time.

I am really starting to think that my sanity is leaving me or that my brain is literally like a sender for Anons to receive ideas or some shit.

You chose a topic close to my heart, user, and I am glad to see someone push back against the cancer killing practically ALL of the western arts. However, you have forgotten one thing.

While the leftist and many a normalfag prop us subjectivism in the area of arts and foreign cultures, they are actually staunch "objectivists" (putting it in scare quotes because what they practice is a perversion of it) when it comes to western morals. Militant to enforce them, even. Just consider the notion of "equality" – the left refuses to even entertain the notion that egalitarianism may, in fact, be wrong, since all their many ideologies stand upon it. It acts as a dogma, that has to be unquestionably followed by all, lest they be immediatelly decalred an enemy by the left. Hell, all "undemocratic" (read: elitist rather than egalitarian) movements get immediatelly shut down for wrongthink, be they accused of racism or trying to subvert democracy. This notion is then extrapolated, along with some others, into politics at large. "We are all equal. The life of a nigger in subsaharan Africa is worth no less than that of an aryan white." Such (heavily promoted by (((them))) ) thoughts then seek to, in fact, combat and supress subjectivism in these areas. You are supposed to think about the collective (in this context meant as all of human race) and consider things that would benefit YOU as immoral if they would come at the cost to someone else. It's why Europe, heavily steeped by this shitty-ass ideology, accepted rapefugees so eagerly in the beginning. "The Pakistani refugee is my equal. Not letting him in would be immoral – he has as much a right to a happy life as I do, and those who would deny them that are evil, greedy, self-serving bigots!"

I believe nothing can illustrate this more than the so-called "effective altruism", an ideology pushed by jews and liberals alike that infests many a charity organization. The gist of effective altruism is "cost efficiency", where they consider all humans equal, and decalre that unless you spend your money most effectively (meaning save the largest amount of people at the lowest amount of money), you are, in fact, and immoral charity, as you could be saving more.

Well, guess what, the lowest cost of saving human life happens to be african shitholes, while first world countries have it highest. These charity organizations thus help niggers exclusively and rabidly oppose spending money on Europeans. To make sure this is not just my conjecture, I actually went and contacted a high rank in one of these groups (through a shared acquintance), and asked him about this. Pushed the notion that surely, people in Europe would give more money to charity if said charity helped the people they come into contact with, to the various homeless and beggars, to the sick, etc., that those people need just as much help as a starving nigger in Somalia.

He then went on a tirade about how I'm racist and how they need to be cost-effective which means helping only niggers and so on.

This sort of reasoning is absolute cancer, one that justifies most of the anti-white shit going on in the West and that is treated as dogma by the left and normalfags. Where the people need to learn to be objective when it comes to the realities of the world, they also need to learn to be subjective when it comes to things that affect them. A German seeing a Paki at the border must not go "He's a person just like me, equal to me, and thus has the same right to enjoy western luxuries as I do." He needs to think "I do not care one bit about whether he's equal to me or not, what matters is that he and his ilk will make my life worse, and as such I'd preffer him to be shot on the spot rather than allowed into my country." This is one of the foundations of individualism. The left, pushing collectivism, thus promotes the "objective" worldview, where one is supposed to see himself as but yet another ant, no different and no more deserving than all the others.

Not really. Plato wrote that Socrates proved that sophism is false according to the standards of Socratic dialectic. If you don't believe Socratic dialectic is the supreme arbiter of meaning, then Socrates is just another opinion. If you honestly care, first read _Zen in the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_, and then start a different board, because this discussion isn't very productive on Holla Forums

Thank you for your input, user. There's a few things I'd like to comment on.

I believe the pushing of altruism goes beyond only helping niggers in that whites ought to put themselves in detrimental situations for their "fellow man". For instance, the concept of white privilege. Because we whites have it so good (so (((they))) say) we ought to give up all that we possess in order to help the "less fortunate". Not only should we be seeking to help the needy, but we should be doing so at our own misfortune because "we owe them". But why would any sane (assuming there is a glimmer of rationality left in those who fall victim to altruism) person harm themselves to such an extent? For that sweet sweet virtue signalling. This became abundantly clear during the DNC primaries. Thousands of burn out's donating their last cents to a failing campaign. Why is it we saw so many boasting of their selflessness for the greater good? For that sweet social acceptance and consequent gratification. "Wow, look at how many people are telling me how great I am". To them, this temporary feel good reward was well worth the cost of their livelihood. In other words, "I'm broke as a joke but at least I'm a good goy". Essentially, the altruism movement we're observing is preying on the innate human desire to belong and be accepted by others.

I agree with the observation of "selective" objectivity. Consider the tolerance movement. "We HAVE to accept others behavior." These selected virtues become dogmas to left, just as you said. I believe another tactic is at play as well. That tactic being intentional vagueness. Ask the leftist to define equality and his definition (if he is able to define it at all) will fit whatever circumstances that enforce his behavior or beliefs. If you're able to show fault in his definition, then he will change it, or appeal to the idea of subjectivity. Subjectivity and intentional vagueness allows the left to push whatever virtue they deem acceptable at the time while avoiding any sense of accountability. I've noticed this to be extremely predominant in academia now, especially the soft sciences and humanities. destroying the fields. It truly is a cancer, spreading and destroying all that it infects.

Despite most of these methods being obvious to those aware of the active subversion of our culture, I believe it is good to discuss them. The more we identify and classify these tactics, the closer we come to the (((root cause))). By establishing connections between the symptoms and the disease, we can further the push for a cure through wider acknowledgement of the plague and its carriers. Lastly, by showing and defining the problem(s), a solution can be determined, something that I wish was more earnestly and widely discussed. However, to discuss the solution in such a way, we must emblazon the problem upon the masses such that they recognize the need for a solution to begin with. A person who does not recognize their illness will not seek treatment. Thus we most show them their sickness, then we may offer the cure into open hands.

Thank you for your input, user. There's a few things I'd like to comment on.

I believe the pushing of altruism goes beyond only helping niggers in that whites ought to put themselves in detrimental situations for their "fellow man". For instance, the concept of white privilege. Because we whites have it so good (so (((they))) say) we ought to give up all that we possess in order to help the "less fortunate". Not only should we be seeking to help the needy, but we should be doing so at our own misfortune because "we owe them". But why would any sane (assuming there is a glimmer of rationality left in those who fall victim to altruism) person harm themselves to such an extent? For that sweet sweet virtue signalling. This became abundantly clear during the DNC primaries. Thousands of burn out's donating their last cents to a failing campaign. Why is it we saw so many boasting of their selflessness for the greater good? For that sweet social acceptance and consequent gratification. "Wow, look at how many people are telling me how great I am". To them, this temporary feel good reward was well worth the cost of their livelihood. In other words, "I'm broke as a joke but at least I'm a good goy". Essentially, the altruism movement we're observing is preying on the innate human desire to belong and be accepted by others.

I agree with the observation of "selective" objectivity. Consider the tolerance movement. "We HAVE to accept others behavior." These selected virtues become dogmas to left, just as you said. I believe another tactic is at play as well. That tactic being intentional vagueness. Ask the leftist to define equality and his definition (if he is able to define it at all) will fit whatever circumstances that enforce his behavior or beliefs. If you're able to show fault in his definition, then he will change it, or appeal to the idea of subjectivity. Subjectivity and intentional vagueness allows the left to push whatever virtue they deem acceptable at the time while avoiding any sense of accountability. I've noticed this to be extremely predominant in academia now, especially the soft sciences and humanities. destroying the fields. It truly is a cancer, spreading and destroying all that it infects.

Despite most of these methods being obvious to those aware of the active subversion of our culture, I believe it is good to discuss them. The more we identify and classify these tactics, the closer we come to the (((root cause))). By establishing connections between the symptoms and the disease, we can further the push for a cure through wider acknowledgement of the plague and its carriers. Lastly, by showing and defining the problem(s), a solution can be determined, something that I wish was more earnestly and widely discussed. However, to discuss the solution in such a way, we must emblazon the problem upon the masses such that they recognize the need for a solution to begin with. A person who does not recognize their illness will not seek treatment. Thus we most show them their sickness, then we may offer the cure into open hands.

We must have different definition of the word collectivism. It's almost never used today. In fact, you'd have to be blind not to see that individualism in what the problem is today. It's everywhere.

Allow me.

The mind projects the seperation of subjective and objective reality, upon a connected and modal reality. Realise that they are compatible, and that when drawn to harmony or unison one cancels the other out and they can eventually be understood as parts of a whole.

We invent lingual systems and words to grasp reality through concepts (illusions, ideas, projections), disassociating our minds from reality which manifests as a disassociated worldview or disassociation from oneself. People who are staring at reality through the kaleidoscope of subject/object are operating upon the illusion or projection that they are happening to themselves or are at some level 'external' from anything. This is the absolute goal of the cultural marxist jew - to destroy the inherent ability to discern reality and illusion.

However, (((they))) are playing both sides and creating the external illusion that there is something real there. There is nothing, that is the essence of illusion. The whole thing is an invention of the mind. We may operate upon these illusions consciously or unconsciously (purposefully or inadvertently), but nonetheless we are equally bound to them. Normalfags who are living an a completely artificial environment and culture are by many degrees mindless or filtering their entire consciousness through artificial and often malicious tones, moods, wavelengths, dogmas, worldviews and egos. The mind eventually loses it's ability to hypothesize and theorize, therefore manifesting in disability and dependence on authority or codependents. This is what is known as 'society' - the great collection of ineptitude which is like rich soil for a farmer of human energy who traumatizes his victims with malicious psychological complexes.

In the english language, we often follow the algorithm of subject-predicate. Each language uses fundamental algorithms or 'logic/logos' to explain reality, which permeates a certain 'cultural' or 'social' attitude about reality within each fashion. Memes are a nebulous (or 'chromatic') language (like imagery or music), and are not bound to thought spheres such as culture and socializing. However, the very fact that there are normalfags and generic fashions amongst the population means that there is a great system of illusions operating, which may have its origins in either natural or artificial manifestation, but is obviously all the same nothingness with several layers of artificial 'truth' sustaining the illusion.

If you are wondering why you are caught up in a philosophical/ideological debate, trying to use other people's terms or even trying to use others as examples of 'how not to be', then your mind is enslaved. You may spend your entire life acting out a complex illusion without even realizing the voluntary nature of your detachment, when in reality you exist for your own sake and nothing else. Personally speaking, this is why we need to bury Holla Forums and branch out. The whole platform in which we discuss certain topics, the whole cannon from which we fire memes is based on a certain 'logic' that is now redundant. Do no fall for the illusion that this is a bad thing - it is a fundamental process of development. Why the hell are we discussing subjectivecucks and their silly mind games, when we understand the reality of their games and can apply our own principles in real situations? This timeline might be fun for you guys, but think about the potential; Not just of propaganda, but the installation or if necessary, the reversal of entire belief/value systems. The fact that the marxist jews are succeeding in 'planing out' and dulling the collective mind means that it is time to invent our own thoughts.

praise kek doe

welcomeyouarehereforever.webm

Objective truth is whatever remains after you stop believing in it.

Or you know, you could avoid mentally ill, overgrown children, OP.

That which has occurred. Oh am sorry, did you think you were going to stump us with that one?

It just read more like mental wanderings and some word games to me.

I'm very surprised to see an NLP image along with something so clearly written, not saying that I agree with all of the conclusion.

No they aren't, at least in the USA which is the only place I can find good racial data for. White conservatives in the US have a birthrate of 2.7. The demographic with the second highest birthrate is spics who sit at a mere 1.8. Liberal whites have a birthrate of 0.9 in the US and Jews have 0.8. Liberals and kikes are a bigger problem than shitskins, without them we wouldn't let shitskins in. Without them only wars would be imperialistic slaughters we could win in a week. Without them our society would be untainted. The white birthrate is low because liberals don't breed. And shitskins don't breed either, the bread and circuses are poisoned and are killing those who consume them, even mudslimes have birthrates far below replacement in Europe but they bring 4 kids with them for the first generation.

The only people immune to modernity are the conservative whites and if the US still had restricted immigration in the same fashion as it did prior to 1965 there would be no leftist power in this nation because the number of the liberal whites is tiny, that's why they need shitskin voting blocs, without them they have no power.

You use the term a lot in a manner implying you know precisely what reality is. What is your definition of reality? Not that I disagree wholly with your concepts, but clarification is always bueno. Is reality simply all that is real? Is it the program within the memory of some immaterial computer that is then projected as an illusion-ed material existence that we perceive as our world? Is the immaterial "real" and the material "illusion"? Further, does the concept of an illusion imply in-realness? Consider the ol' allegory of the cave. To the prisoners, the illusions presented as shadows, being all they knew, were very real to them, and it was only when they were exposed to the light beyond the cave they were able to understand the deceit they were under. If all we know are shadows, then what is the light, user?

Pretty hefty assertion here. Evidence or argument for plz. Again, I don't disagree with the idea completely. However I would like to see your rational for the concept. An illusion is "something". A projection has a base from which it shines from, a film projected on screen. How have you come to know the mind inventing this grand portrayal?

How is it redundant?

Is this a flourished way to say we need to think for ourselves? Or are you asserting new concepts can be invented? Perhaps discovered would be a more appropriate term. You seem to come from a rational perspective, that everything that can exist already does (The Forms). If so, nothing is created or invented, only discovered. Which would coincide with your perceived usage of reality, the realm in which things actually exist, then are projected and perceived by the mind as the "external illusion" you speak of.

I like your concepts, just desiring more clarity.

False. Example:
< I am right about everything, everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.
You would object: "But this person is making an absolute statement!" That's because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a so-called subjectivist thinks. So-called subjectivism is a rejection of objectivist modern thought, but doesn't put up a new pattern to replace the old one. It merely points out the contradictions in any individual who makes absolute assertions.

A subjectivist is really just a person who uses the Socratic method.

A common example is the question:
What is a sandwich?

Then things like morals, good, evil, vietue and depravity are indeed 100% subjective. Thanks user.

/thread

The two arguments laid out here are correct and illustrate the obvious, fatal problem with post-modern relativist ethics pretty clearly. But the caliber of person who is likely to deploy universal value relativism against you is also likely to say "that's just an *academic argument* blah blah blah…" or spout out some other similar non-argument owing to their fundamental failure to understand logic. There's a related argument that has a less "philosophical" feel to it and gets more directly at the motivational structure of the post-modernist. Post-modernists are all Cultural Marxist foot soldiers and therefore they have a lot of strong opinions. Inform them that their value structure invalidates all of their strongly held opinions.

It's a dumber argument getting at a dumber issue, but it's more on the level that will actually get the Post-modernist to rage and actually think about it instead of retreating to some hand waving bullshit and disengaging.

I'd stop there and say

I want to know something, not believe that it is so. To me, denial of the verity of reality is fundamental principle of this jewish marxist value system. I agree that the word 'reality' is not reality, and that reality is often confused as something that can be ex-plain-ed - that words and concepts can grasp. It is a word often used as the 'one and only' generalization, to imply reality through language. The word is therefore the most basic illusion in the form of the english language - something we all seem to consent to (con-sense) without really evaluating the logical and algorithmic nature of language. This is common in english though, almost to the point where context is more important than reality and most contextual words are synonymous (have the same meaning). Language is not an instrument for the literal transmission of reality but is a non-simultaneous event that we associate with reality because this is how the mind invents and develops it's logic naturally. However, if your brain is working on some kind of kabbalist psychology that slices everything up into little pieces and destroys the connections between everything (reality), the conclusion one can only reach is that reality is a figment of the imagination and that self is all that reality consists of. This is the ultimate illusion that one can cast upon themselves - the death of the mind.

The solution is not to turn off the mind, and deny reality under an illusory law or principle. This only creates a whole new set of projections for you to deal with. You may get so far, but this is the path to the death of your mind. When we agree and admit that language =/= reality and that most of what we percieve is the different languages of our physical organs that we call senses, we must relinquish attempts to think about reality in words, shapes, sounds, pain, pleasure, anything particular that implies. There is no room for one more word, so evaluation of the word 'reality' with concepts that are based or grounded upon our concept of reality is simply projecting.

Now look at the godforsaken mess that is the western intellectual. Tell me, is that creature going to generate life or destroy it? Is that creature going to thrive in an environment of growth, or desolation? He is completely dumbfounded by his own ability to think clearly that he frightens himself into some kind of noia and denial complex that distorts his experience. He forges the most complex systems of interpreting reality, because he mistakes complexity for reality. But the more he tries to define what is simple, what is god, what is just real or true', he encounters the same problem. Instead of giving up on the idea, he takes one hair, puts it next to the other and claims to have split a hair. Mess is the objective of trying to define subjective/objective, so we can say "look at this great complexity here, even though it's all one thing isn't it great to ponder the possibilities of it being complex?". So, subjectivism is a game about not playing games, and objectivism is a serious activity about games, but it cannot be simply so that it's all'' either a game or it (seriously) isn't.

All conflicts have their resolution in an underlying unity - Carl G. Jung

Wew. At the risk of people believing your shit let's deconstruct just the first part of this. Essentially in order to make your "example" you're assuming the premise you're seeking to falsify as true. Here's all the steps you left out:
1. If all things are subjective, then no one is wrong.
2. If no one is wrong, I can assert whatever bullshit I want to.
3. I'm right about everything.
4. If I'm right about everything, then all who disagree with me are wrong.
5. Therefore, all who disagree with me are wrong.
6. If I wasn't so full of shit, then I'd realize I just contradicted the premise (1) I used to drop my steaming pile of shit (5).
7. I did not realize this illogical fuckery.
8. Therefore, I'm full of shit. (6,7 modus tollens)

Bonus assumption:
9. I'm so full of shit because I eat shit sandwiches because I can't grasp the concept of what a fucking sandwich is through all my mental shit stained gymnastics.

That "virtue signaling" is only important to the female part of a mind, which is the only part of mind that the leftists have ever experienced.

I'm glad you know of this yet when one truly understands a complex point they should be able to communicate it simply. NLP is inherent in ALL language. Bandler and Grinder frame this in a way that is practical and marketable.

As for your idea of burying Holla Forums, I'm currently unable to grasp how you can fathom that this board isn't effective towards our mutual goal of awakening our cousins and promoting better genetic lineages within our own group.

You may have discovered this yet for posterity; the internal dialog is NOT the mind. The internal dialog is reactive, not active.

Interesting read, thanks for posting. I'm not sure I understand this claim, though. What does it mean for a thing, an object (not a personal experience) to be subjective? If there exists a rock on a hill, and no person is around to observe or otherwise experience that rock, what is that rock? What does it mean to say, "The rock is subjective"? I don't understand the claim.

When I think of "Subjectivity" as a worldview, I don't immediately see the leap to the conclusion that "All things are subjective." Acknowledging that human interaction with the world is subject to human experience and interpretation doesn't necessarily leave one with unavoidable conclusion that, "Objective reality doesn't exist."

You don't seem to understand that it's not an actual, wholesome worldview, but just a bunch parts of different (often contradictory) worldviews that are applied arbitrarily, when it benefits the left.

Leftists will not dispute a rock is a rock up until it seems advantageous to them. Then they will claim that it is merely your perception of it being a rock on a hill, and that what they're seeing is a gray spongecake. If you then go and pick up the rock, noting that it's nothing like a sponge cake, they will claim that it is merely a very old, hardened sponge cake covered by dirt. When you actually cut it open, they will claim that they have indeed been correct, since when they said "sponge cake", they meant an object that you know under the word "rock". Since all words have been assigned to objects by men, and language is subject to change, and words can have numerous meanings, they will state that their subjective interpretation of the word "sponge cake" led them to call the rock as such, and that it's your own fault for not defining what you mean by "rock" at the very beginning. They will accompany it with a media campaign painting the usage of the word "rock" as deeply offensive, and pushing "sponge cake" as the only polite and politically correct way to describe a rock. After they're done, when half the population won't ever dare utter the word "rock" as it will have lost its original meaning and only be known as a slur, and when they will only call a rock a "sponge cake", they will point back to the original argument, and say that clearly, you have been in the wrong, since you claimed that it was an indisputable, objective reality that the object on the hill was a rock, when it was, actually, a sponge cake.