High IQ Chinaman Asian Supremecist Philosopher = Moral absolutists BTFO

Also why is Western Buddhism mostly Liberal?

...

Taoism is pretty cool.

Post of the day.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingon_Buddhism

So is Nipponese Wizardry.

Taoist, Buddhist, and Confucian philosophy is excellent for homogeneous peoples.
They however lack logos, motion, and fire. You won't see much in the way of demands for _action_ from the big three. The Chinese would never find reason to ascend to Luna, save by our influence. Remember that they burned their treasure fleet.

The West lacks harmony. The East lacks motion.

Go back to the ricefield, Ling Ling.

My thoughts exactly. The biggest fracturing of our society today has been through increasing the numbers of immigrants and exploiting racial tensions. Before we became so multicultural we didn't have to worry about half of the petty bullshit that we do today.

The only downside to pushing any cultural shift is that as times goes on and its weaknesses appear, a counter-movement will spring up and modify or even replace the accomplishments of the previous movement. So any cultural shift that we push in the Trump Era has to be calculated with an eye to where its weaknesses will be and how they will be exploited by the next generation to come. The more we can control those weaknesses and the next generation's reactions, the better we can ensure a more long-term stability.

I was exposed to Eastern philosophy at around 12 through martial arts. At one school we had a reading list which had some mind-blowing books in it, for a young man raised in a Christian household, anyway. I enjoyed a lot of it, but in the end found it to be just another way of looking at things - and often entirely different things, too.

The core difference between Eastern and Western philosophies - truly all things Eastern and Western - is the time span being considered. 3 generations is a short time for them.

Arguably this is why being divided and not under one government is superior.

Divine Imperialism is best for ruling a diverse empire but one group, typically the ethnic group of the Imperial Family, must rule with great respect.

Can also make the argument Hinduism allowed them to be brutally conquered by the Religion of Cuck™ic hordes. Any philosophy that belongs to the material world that neglects violence of action to safeguard your people has very little overall value outside of adding spiritual depth to the person.

Men like Hermann Wieland were right in their assessment along with more recent esoteric teachers like Serrano that the mongrelized peoples entrusted with the ancient beliefs have largely undermined the knowledge in its original form. Buddhism and Hinduism for instance are mere fractions of whatever they were in the beginning.

Song Dynasty China was more advanced than Europe and could have started the Industrial Revolution if not for the Mongol Invasion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_dynasty#Southern_Song

This is why modern cuckianity will go the way of the dodo. It is a submissive religion with no ethnic affiliation or preference (save perhaps the jews) and will submit to the nigger and muslim hordes. Taoism preaches balance and to my mind is superior to Christianity in all respects except the promise that everything is perfect after you die.

When you think about basic things for too long and too indepth, you go loopy but at the same time think you've discovered some amazing insight. I've read a bit of Tao, and it all seemed like the shit I used to come up with when I was smoking weed all day and watching The Simpsons.

It interesting how the Imperial doctrine of practical Confucianism balanced the flow of spiritual Taoism, and this is also in tune with the Tao, 'the force is balanced.'

It's analogous to historical Europe's Church/State division.

Wrong is wrong and has no place in society

That's one way to look at things, sure. Allow me to illustrate the other:

We'll begin with good and evil. The theory of dualism states that one cannot exist without the other, and that they balance each other out in someway. The truth of the matter is, good can very well exist without evil. Human society can exist without murder, crime, treason, and other foul matters. Human society can exist without plagues or disease, without war and famine. Give enough resources, even death is not an absolute necessity. The Western ideal presented in Christianity is that the natural state of humanity is, in fact, like this - to be immortal, loving beings living under an immortal, loving God.

Evil is not a matter of balance - it's a matter of something which is off. When someone murders another person, this is a perversion of what furthers the species. It may have personal gain, or at least, gain for someone. Perhaps it's even for the greater good, because of some other evil perpetuated by the person who was murdered. But this is still, nevertheless, unnatural. Thus, while murder of an evil man is in a way a beneficial thing, the act itself is still a sin. Once again, this is where forgiveness is an important part in Christian ideals - the idea that one should be good, and ask forgiveness for what evils they have done.

The Yin-Yang represents dualism well. To represent moral absolutism properly, the better analogy is a solid wooden home which has been infiltrated by termites. The termites are not part of the system - they are something from beyond, which has broken in and begun to devour the home at its foundations. The termites do not help the house, they simply harm it. Removing them is the only ideal solution.

So what of other things, look "tall" or "short"? We do not define these things by relation to each other, but by relation to ourselves. We, humanity, are the defining factor. We say someone is tall if they are taller than us, we say that someone is short if they are shorter than us. When enough of us get together, we can use mathematics to establish averages as a base-line to make these judgements. In this case, we can very objectively say "this man is shorter than average" or "this man is taller than average", and for the sake of easy speech, simplify this to "he is short" or "he is tall", all based upon the accepted standard.

Even in this case, the point does still stand - both exist only because of the other. If all of the short people vanished, a new average would be set, and new lines drawn. The difference is the middle-ground - in this case, the absolute center, about which definitions are shaped.

Moral relativism is a weak philosophy born from weak society. There's a reason you see that sort of shit pushed so hard by weak, "spiritual" Christians: they lack the faith and stomach to tolerate the idea that some things are simply unacceptable. Lust? That's a good thing, because sexuality is good. Everything in balance. Except this ideology is a falsehood, for it fails to accept how, by definition, that which is deemed a sin is a sin by the very virtue that it is a perversion of what is the natural order (in this example, the urge to have a family and children).

In the simplest of words: Some things can absolutely not be tolerated.

Dávila is so underrated.

I agree with your sentiment that some things cannot be tolerated, but here is why your argument will not be successful in the end.

If you argue that some form of Christianity, for example, is the gold standard of our moral absolutes, and a Muslim wants to debate with you because he thinks his form of Religion of Cuck™ is the best, you may both end up using essentially the same arguments to argue different ideologies. You could say that you have a divinely inspired text, and so can he. It is a deadlocked situation.

The only intellectually honest approach to the situation is to admit that we have no logical argument and are simply asserting our will by force because we are reacting strongly against the alternative, which we do not prefer.

Opposites aren't poles you stupid mother fucker. And poles aren't dual. Smiley is trying to ruin another thread

wrong is decided by what you decide is right.

You can argue everything is subjective to one another, but objectivity does exist in the world.

That Doesn't follow at all and it's your central premise and the entire reason for this post. The fact that opposites are conceptually related does not mean there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not something is X or not-X. The fact that opposites are conceptually related does not imply that a platonic conception of values as objectively true (what you're calling "moral absolutism") is incorrect. Learn to make arguments nigger.

Philosophy posts are cringe 99% of the time because the vast majority of people do not have the basic logical skills and experience in careful reasoning to actually engage the topics at hand. Even very intelligent people mostly lack the ability to talk about philosophy for more than a couple sentences without making some major inferential error. Please undertake a serious study of philosophy and logic before talking about philosophy. It's not that you have to be a super genius to talk about philosophy coherently - it's that most people, including people who are very smart, and/or very educated in some field, are not used to actually reasoning in a logically valid way and being explicit about all their assumptions and inferences.

Absolute nonsense word salad. The fact that opposites are conceptually related has nothing to do with circular reasoning - an inferential pattern in which the conclusion is used as a premise.

Please stop using logical and philosophical terminology if you don't understand EXACTLY what it means.

We have similar thoughts in western traditions, like Gnostic stuff, hermeticism. As above, so below = western yon-yang.

I want to murder whatever pajeet jewgle hired to program autocorrect.

Literally every (good) eastern field of philosophy and esoteric thought originate with Aryans. Buddhists fully acknowledge that he was a white dude with green eyes and light hair, and even the poo-in-loos will straight up tell you, and will literally use the (cognate word) Aryan. At least the Japs came up with theirs independently thanks to ancient admixture (Which is why we can identify with and understand their minds better than the pre viral lifeforms that are continental asians)

The funny thing is, as always, when the chinks steal something, they manage to fuck it entirely up, dress it up in fancy looking bullshit that really doesn't do anything, etc. For example, that taoist practice of retaining your semen during an orgasm? It's literally just kegel exercises. There are entire books out there on the practice that are multiple chapters long full of pseudo-biologic babble, bullshit about "redirecting hot and cold chi", turning your semen into brain energy and having it travel up the spine to your brain, all that shit, and when you strip away all that frivolous "Hawww Ancient Kung-Fu Mastah" crap, it literally could be one page that says "Do a fuck ton of kegels"

NOPE

Your NEW AGE version of the Dao is wrong, hippie cunt.

Polarity is sympatico. It's not Christian Dualism (good vs evil). Yin and Yang is a dance, like space and matter/energy. It's not opposing or opposite, those are delusions, it's intergrated.

YIN YANG ARE COMPLIMENTARY AND REFLECTIVE, NOT KIKES VS. ARYANS

GOD DAMN IT I HATE PLEBS!

= Rabbi shit

Your definition / interpretation of Yin Yang is incorrect. It is not principled around "Good vs Evil", but simply in a cyclical balance / reactionary one.
As you can see neither are exclusionary to the other, but simply COMPLIMENTARY. Yin Yang is about COMPLIMENTS, NOT OPPOSITES.

Asshole, it isn't the water it is the hard particulates IN the water. You should have cheated from someone more intelligent.

Actually it IS the water, when water molecules freeze into ice they EXPAND, this is well known. You're thinking of erosion, but either way it works. Even water droplets hitting the ground at high speeds cause enough of an impact to degrade the soil.

this

"Gnosticism" is used to refer to a lot of different beliefs held by a lot of different groups of people. Some so called "gnostic" thought is blatantly jewish. Some is extremely anti-Jewish, e.g. the idea that the Jews made a pact with the demiurge.

Also, side note, didn't mean in my previous post to bash taoist thought in any way, just OP's misinterpretation/misapplication of it. The tao te ching has been the most illuminating work of ancient philosophy I've read in the last several years. Glad there are other anons here with an interest.

But then, what is justice? As a law fag, one of my biggest complaints about the modern basis of Law is how undefineable justice as a concept is.
In my view,the only way you can properly define justice is related to pagan theology, where it correlates to a principle similar to the eastern aryan dharma.

best post; logic is hard

You need more Dávila anons.

So OP, can you re-enunciate your argument?
Perhaps in; "IF -> THEN" format?
I'm honestly intrigued but we need a format to work on so that we can understand you.

Your flaw is in asserting that logic (logos) has any part in ethics (ethos). The two may have some relations, but logic is insufficient as a means for determining ethics. For logic to relate to morality, you can only have one result - utilitarianism. The idea that every situation can be summarized as a simple cost-benefit analysis.

The simple fact is, I have no obligation to care as to what another religion or person claims is correct. The moral code of another people is, by virtue of being different, something that must be deemed incorrect if absolutism is established. On the other hand, what argument can be made, is that human civilization has typically followed a few of the same codes and policies, across a global perspective. That certain things which are good or bad, can be easily defined. That from a simple evolutionary perspective, certain aspects are advantageous. With this, we can extrapolate the form to the absolute moral truth - or at least get close enough to find it.

Spiritual vs. Physical is 100% Jewish psychopathy. Before this nature and the heavens were one (see Plato and the real Demiurge). Gnositicsm is Jewish. The words they use like gnosis are not.

meh, Allan Watts is better.

Logos isn't logic retard. It's the flame of creation that lead to the light of reason. Learn to Heraclitus before you start pointing out "flaws".

No it doesn't. Truth yes, evil is a Jewish dualism meme.

Show me the face you had before you were born.

...

Not sure what you're saying there. But the idea that the physical is fundamentally evil is the core of most gnostic thought.

Tall and short are comparitives. If one of the concepts exist, then the other must exist also, you're right about that. But, you're completely fucked when you say we draw arbitrary lines between them.

Comparitives are used to compare 2 or more different things. If we compare a giraffe and a mouse, we can see, one is short, one is tall. There is no arbitrary line, its basic deduction. If there are more than 2 things, say an 8 ft ostriche, 7 ft horse, 3 in mouse and 2 ft dog, we would go directly in the middle, anything below the middle is short, anything above, is tall. Ostriches and horses are tall, dogs and mice are short. Snail vs turtle, turtle is fast. Turtle compared to a cat, turtle is slow. There's nothing arbitrary about it, its a comparitive term between 2 objects. Thats the entire purpose of comparatives.

You're alright user. Read some Dávila if you haven't. You'd like him.

Yeah that. That's Jewish.

Physical is life, life is heaven, heaven is good. Life is good. Kill yourself (kidding).

This post is funnier than it has any fucking right to be.

we all know what justice is, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.
Found your problem.

Here is justice, you're walking down the sidewalk and a faggot slaps you for no reason. You turn around and slap him equally as hard.

There you go, thats justice. Now your college-addled mind will twist and say;

Suppose we can only define truth by relation to lies. What happens then when lies disappear, and doubt goes with them?

Being.

The idea that evil is non-existent - or rather, that it is simply "whatever I do not like" - is a modern, Jewish-pushed ideology. Throughout recorded history, Western thought has recognized that there are actions which are evils, and people who are most certainly evil.

And that is an emotional appeal

Oh I see, yeah, I agree in a way.

This thread made me sad because it reminded me of what happened when I first visited Japan. Yeah, I went there as a weeb and shit was expecting unrealistic things, saw and admired the peacefulness of their society relative to the violent nigger infested urban shithole of my youth but there I didn't fall for any nip girl, it was a white girl.

But this white girl was different, she was the first girl in my entire life including all models and anything in media that made me actually go "holy shit". She was just that pretty. Went up to talk to her right away and we went to mcdonalds to get to know each other. She told me she was born and grew up in Japan because of her parents work and it was so fucking weird. She wasn't anything like white girls in the west, she looked, dressed, and acted like a girl like a really girly girl and spoke that way even though she had a weird accent in her english (from her growing up in Japan I guess) like her problem with "L's" but it was cute so fuck it. It was like she was one of those perfect blonde hair blue eyed girls out of an anime looked and acted this way I couldn't believe a girl like her existed IRL anywhere on earth and I wanted anything to get with her but then when we started talking about personal lives I found out she was married. Never been so bummed out in my life before but even then it didn't stop. When she texted her husband to pick her up I found out it was this Japanese guy but the worst part was that he wasn't even like those jrock or jpop good looking bisho Japanese guys he was this ugly manlet slightly overweight (which was rare in Japan as I saw, they really are the thinnest fittest people in the developed world) Jap and I just wanted to kill myself at that point… Life is unfair as shit but that's not why I'm telling you guys this.

What I'm wondering is, what if western culture is shit? Look what it did to our women. Imagine if we had Japan's culture in the West, it has problems sure but white women wouldn't be complete shit like they are now. What if we're wrong to protect western culture and civilisation? Either way, the women are going to go back to their place with the decline and death of western culture and I'd rather the Japs than fucking Muslims. What do other anons think? Am I wrong to think this?

ok

No it's not. It's pre-Christian. There was no "evil' In Zoroastrianism, Philosophy, or anything we know about. There was destructive forces, ignorance, lies, shadows/demons. But what is bad for the human is good for the ants. What is good for the ants is good for the soil. What is good for the soil is good for the plants… and farmers etc.

Evil is for slaves and babies. Right and Wrong is for educated adults.

No it's a historical reference. Try harder user.

By that I meant Death

Give me an example of a pair of opposites that aren't antipodal on some scale of measure to one another. In terms of morality in particular, if you have good and bad, and these are widely recognized as being "opposites" of one another, then you can very easily and appropriately describe them as being opposing positions on a linear scale (or "pole") of morality.

You know how an old school mercury thermometer works. When the mercury is low it means it's cold. When the mercury is high it means it's hot. Perfect visual illustration of "hot" and "cold" as two "polar opposites" along a straight line, but they are still arbitrary values. Even the freezing point is just the freezing point of water, and maybe some species don't give a fuck about the freezing point of water at all. It's another arbitrary decision to make that our reference point.

This is what lots of people keep saying and want to believe but it has to be a combination. Both subjective experiences and inviolable laws have measurable impact on real-life outcomes, so how do they not both shape reality? When scientists notice that observation alters the double-slit experiment they're only extending what we already know about reality on a macro scale to the quantum scale.

You verified that you're a professional philosopher with the way you posted a bunch of nonsense and left me absolutely none the wiser for it. Congratulations, you are still useless to society.

Give me an example that disproves what I say about the way we define opposites.

I didn't equate Western concepts of good and evil with Eastern philosophy. I'm just using the Taoist idea of duality to show that even the Asians understand that you can't logically argue religion without making some arbitrary decision by choice at some point. That's not New Age, it's a comparison of ideas across cultures.

Read above. I didn't equate the yin/yang itself to good and evil. Is a fruit an apple? Same situation. In the Tao te Ching good and evil are complementary, no matter how you want to define them. It makes it very clear that ALL dualistic definitions have this trait. You can't escape it, and that's what makes it duality.

Good = Justice is kicking the can down the road.

Now define justice.

"This is why you cannot apply the concept of "Yin Yang" to good vs evil. They are not joined together by definition." → You haven't come up with a logical definition of "good" or "evil" that actually means anything and you never will. They are decisions we make, not logical deductions.

You didn't make any coherent arguments so I can't give you counterexamples. All I can do it what I did - point out that your arguments don't follow.

We had something equivalent tailored to our race, about right up to, oh, let's say shortly before the Napoleonic wars, when things started to get reeeeaaaaal Jewy. It isn't that Western culture is shit, it's that it's sick with salmonella because it's been force fed shit.

Also…
Almost like there might be a taoist lesson about the value/purpose of philosophy in there user………. (hint: THERE IS).

sage for doublepost

Is he being an IP hopping faggot again?

Bingo.

The entire message I wanted to convey with this thread is to acknowledge that yes, defining what constitutes a crime and how to punish people for it IS fucking arbitrary, and if we are actually conscious of that we can make willful decisions by choice instead of pretending that some pseudo-intellectual bullshit "proved" that we are "moral."

dualistic worldviews are useless. Enjoy stagnation, fag.

Yeah, the part of the Tao te Ching where the author admits to his own stupidity with the point that knowledge will naturally come his way if he admits his own ignorance. So compare that to this situation with me admitting I have no idea what in the fuck you are talking about, and you being the philosophical genius that you, just keep shitposting. Last time I take the bait, highbrow.

no.
Opposites only exist as a memonic cultural langauge device.
If you're a child or shitskins slave then yeah… But Aryan adults see the world as a series of fluctuations. There is no linear scale. What is good for me can be bad for you if I thrive and end up fucking your life up with a simple action of direction. It's too complex to talk like a stupid nigger "oooga booga that be ebil!"

Again, opposites are a langauge device depending on human needs. In reality hot and cold and fluctuations of the same functions, as in polarity not dualism
It's conflating Christian mythos with bad translations of Eastern thought. Westerns have had a hard time with the idea of ying and yang because we gave up our Aryan traditions for Semitic ones. See Allan Watts.

He's either pushing the gnostic hermetics meme or he tricked some plebs into it. I can't tell. Smiley reveals himself in pretencious platitutdes and asking himself for "esoteric" books. He gets hooked on shit for like 12 months then gives it up and obsesses on the next degeneracy.

All world view is arbitrary, so you construct your own worldview based upon a philosophy of your choosing, where everything within is logically consistent. If you want sane worldview then you choose one which reflects the physical world and its logical, physical processes, and by doing so you reject all the useless horseshit which you have obviously swallowed.
I exist because of my biology, my biology exists because of my people and their biology, which exists because of the chemistry, physics and other laws of reality. My existence is good so I will seek to improve myself and that which sustains myself, which are my people. Anything which hurts me or my people I will destroy.

Will to power, faggot. Get stomped on.

FUCK "ARE fluctuations"

He's just trying to entrap people in his own schizophrenic thought processes, based on what I see he. What a fucking mental midget, a slave to his own vices. He'll never understand why he's a perennial failure, product of his jewish heritage.

Go ahead and flee, faggot. I can smell your fear from here.

(checked)

Culture comes from people user. Western culture is suited to us as white people. Our women are haughty and warlike, just like us. I think we lost control of them some time around WW1, and they decided to declare war on us and give us the ultimate shit test. Don't forget that the stereotype of the pure virgin princess is rooted in western stories, so at some level it's an ideal we keep. I don't have good news for us in our modern time though, sorry. You'll have to change yourself, work hard, and pray for a bit of divine providence.

This man is correct.

His entire argument gets BTFO by the existence of the Kelvin scale.

Haha. That's one I guess. The one I was talking about though was: philosophical thinking done clearly and without mistakes, immediately reveals to the person who does it or understands it, that it delivers no substantive conclusions. That's why so much well done professional philosophy has the feeling you're talking about - of having delivered nothing to you in the end.

Philosophy is a rite of passage. You go through a rite of passage, learn its lessons, and then leave it behind. In philosophy, you learn to think clearly, and in so doing, you learn that clear thinking will get you exactly nowhere along the path to whatever deep truths/beauty/good/etc. you're after. Professional philosophers are stubborn/immature folks who refuse to accept this, and would rather bash their head against the wall for eternity than accept that clear thinking won't get them what they're after. They're caught in the rite of passage, not realizing that's what it is.

How about you nut up, you manchild failure?

How the fuck is it hellenistic?

You know neuro-linguistic programming? It goes much deeper into the way we think than "just" the words coming out of our mouths.

Sounds like some kind of Ayn Rand shit. Has it already been proven that people can only get rich/be successful at the expense of others? Because I'm pretty sure economics since 1800 has disproven that idea. Marx believed it though, so you're in interesting company.

Again I would say it's more than just language but you are right that it's ARBITRARY to say "hot" or "cold" in the first place when we could simply say "it's 50 degrees," for example, or "it's 75 degrees." Should we stop saying "hot" and "cold" or maybe just be a little more mindful of what they actually "mean"? I find them to be useful concepts, I just recognize them to be arbitrary. They are tools.

I am very familiar wit Alan Watts. I've been into Eastern philosophy for over 15 years, which I'm sure is less than some geezers here but I'm not a total newb to the subject either. Vedas, Chinese Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, various martial arts philosophies. I'm grokking more than you're picking up on in your adversarial posture here.

The fact that you guys are getting conspiratorial paranoid about me being some boogeyman following you around is pretty sad too.

How about you fuck off, you IP hopping failure?
Next time you self-harm, mean it.

Wew it's a schizophrenic mind trap rofl

tall and short arent truths. measurements are truths. 6 foot 2 is a truth. 5 foot 2 is a truth.

wrong. something good for you can be bad for someone else. good does not rely on bad to exist. try looking up definitions before spewing your sophistry. good (being beneficial) is dependent on what outcome you desire not some objective "moral" truth.

all morality is are principles (truths) concerning the distinction (difference) between right (true) and wrong (false). when you say something is moral all you are saying is that you found out if what you are talking about is true or false. this makes deception automatically immoral. stop trying to equate societally beneficial dogma with "moral" truths in the way you use the world morality, which isnt based on the definition.

kek, I like this user.

You're over thinking it to prove your point.
I don't give a shit about some Zionist whore who copied others and pushed anti-tribalism for the goy.
And you can't understand that evil is a Jewish meme yet?

Because defining the starting point of the scale in a different place somehow proves that we aren't just arbitrarily defining standards of measurement, right?

Explain to me how what you are saying right now is in any way different than the argument a religious fundamentalist would make about their particular conversion.

you would argue that if a i threw 4 rocks into the lake that nobody could ever prove i actually threw 4 and not 5.

Were you the one who just brought up schizophrenia earlier? You realize every fucking person here is fucking "Anonymous" right? Even if I was some douchebag who you apparently believes follows you around, why the fuck would you give a shit? If I thought I had a stalker on Holla Forums I can guarantee you it would be at the bottom of my list of shit to give a fuck about.

SAGE FOR WASTE OF TIME

read

You really didn't make any arguments at all.
Where's the "IF THEN" syntax?
where is your logical basis?

Hell, at least I defined my terms, then all you do is semantic kabuki theater!
read above

If I have to teach you the definition of "Justice" then you're already lost.

Absolute waste of time faggot, you don't know philosophy and you can't even define yourself.

Those would be estimates, accurate enough for any practical purpose in life, but when we speak of philosophical absolutes, no one is going to argue that you have measured (or even COULD measure) down to the last nanometer. Engineers know this better than most. Every number has a "tolerance" associated with it, and nothing is accurate to some philosophical perfection.

Sorry, I'll try to under-think next time so I can be more on your level. Does that sound about right to you? What the fuck, I bring up NLP and the dumb nigger is wasted.

As someone here making a Taoist argument, do you really think I believe in any absolute definition of good and evil? Are you even reading the shit I'm saying to you, knuckledick? Why do I keep falling for this bait.

...

just because a measure isnt carried out to the most base level possible does not mean truths are relative. all it means is you didnt take it all the way (either because of lack of technology or will). you argue that measurement scales or arbitrary because you dont know why language was created in the first place….to convey truths. 2 people have to come together and agree that x word means this or conveys that. that is what definitions are so important otherwise (((people))) will use sophistry to push baseless garbage such as relativism because they are working with different meanings using the same word. of course truth seems relative if caveman A points at 4 rocks and says "four" and caveman Z from another tribe points at 4 rocks and says "6 million". just because you have never thought down to the base of definitions does not make everything relative. words have meaning and only because people agree to 1 meaning. that does not make it relative, it makes it the way it has to be to properly convey truths. this is why there are dozens of different dictionaries with multiple definitions for each word. to allow (((people))) to weasel and spew sophistry to convince you that nothing can be objectively proven.

Zoroastrianism does have a concept of evil. Hell, it even has sentient forces in play which act to oppose mankind. Regardless - you're throwing around words, ignoring the fact that all you're doing is simply trying to give other words rather than confronting the beast by its name. Destruction, ignorance, lies - this is evil. It is that which fundamentally opposes the human order.

Notably, the affairs of ants and the soil do not have a part to play in this definition. The ants, the soil, these are non-sentient factors of the world. More so, they are not us. The absolute moral good is what concerns mankind - Taking in a religious context, perhaps to find salvation for all men; Taken to a physical context, perhaps another goal, such as finding a way to move our civilization to another world before this one's inevitable death. That is the only question worth asking.

Relativist morality is for children unwilling to take a solid stance on anything outside of themselves. It is an inherently selfish ideology which causes the destruction of societies. The (((wealthy elite))) love it for a simple reason: It's a way to justify their actions. They, born into wealth and power, use it to further their own interests. They are no smarter or better than others, but instead turn their birthright into a self-justifying matter. This same ideology, pressed onto those few who work themselves up, births the idea that one has no obligation to aid his fellow man - if anything, in fact, the obligation is to take at the expense of others. If you're as intellectual as you claim to be, you'll understand that we're stepping here into the dialogue on master and slave morality.

I admit that there's something inherently appealing and sensible to the idea that we should simply look after ourselves. It's simple, and to the point. Much like the ideology of a friend of mine, which is simply "minimize suffering". But I find them inherently insufficient. They solve nothing. They leave the world broken, and encourage only corrupt men to seek power.

To give an analogy: Consider a republican government. Educated men are offered the chance to enter into politics, gaining power and influence. Or perhaps they can go into another profession, or pursue a passion in the arts. Selfless men will be inclined to take tasks which do good - becoming a doctor perhaps. Selfish men will seek to further themselves, which means power and money. As a result, selfish men of education will by and far flock to politics. Selfless men who choose to do so will be swept away, and taken advantage of. From the top down, the system is broken apart.

Such is the result of the ideology of the relativist. See the men who live it, and understand that they are not your allies. They are not our allies - indeed, the closest they come to being our allies, is being our (((greatest allies))).

As an aside, it's interesting seeing where people are agreeing or disagreeing in this thread. I tend to agree with you over 6fd4d3 on most points, for instance, but am fundamentally unwilling to accept either world view taken as a whole. Such is life.

The whole point of the Metric system of measurement is to make definitions off of non-arbitrary things, like how much energy is required to change this volume of this substance this amount. It's not arbitrary in the least - it's entirely self-supporting. With the exception of the fucking kilogram, which is rather amusing.

You could make that argument for Imperial units, but even those were done with the human body and commonly used quantities as the main basis. It's somewhat arbitrary, but only insomuch as it is made for the sake of day-to-day ease of use (though certainly not mathematical simplicity).

This thread is genuinely embarrassing. OP, please GO BACK.

Taking physical measurements is literally the most basic and fundamental thing about the scientific method. Observing and recording measurements is the most objective thing that should be the hardest to fuck up because measuring doesn't require any theorizing or philosophizing at all…. And yet even those measurements are only useful estimates and not absolute truths.

Notice that I am NOT saying that the measurements we take aren't USEFUL, I'm just using them to illustrate the point that the almost religious awe people have of materialistic science and the idea of "objective reality" is unrealistic. And that's why you people get so triggered too. Because this form of "scientific" thinking has replaced religion.

no
It's ignorance (Agra Manu) a derivative of anger. Lord of Wisdom vs. Agra Manu.
I'm not reading the rest of your stupid bullshit about "relativism" because that's not what I'm talking about. You're stuck in the good/evil kike meme and that's why you're struggling with it. Relativism arguments only work in the kike reality of good and evil, time to move "beyond good and evil" and be a big boy.

You're deliberately misinterpreting the Zoroastrian philosophy to defend your world view, while giving the same arguments as a petulant child masquerading as an intellectual.

Call yourself, and your ideology, what you want. A rose by any other name is just as sweet; a fool, no matter how he describes himself, is nevertheless a fool.

I get what you're saying and the standards used for the metric system are probably a lot more useful and honestly would probably save millions of dollars, but not everything is as scientifically-regulated as you want to think it is.

Time is a required dimension for many units in physics, so how is the basic unit of a second defined? It's defined today by NIST as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of the cesium 133 atom at 0 K.

Why 9 billion vibrations of a cesium atom? Is that defined strictly based on scientific criteria as well? No, it was defined like that to approximate the pre-existing definition of a second as one 60th of a minute, etc., on up to solar cycles.

That's just for the second, a very basic unit that we use in all of our time measurements. I could go on and on pointing out other examples of more obviously arbitrary definitions of units, etc., but I'm not even against the fact that people did this. I'm only saying, HEY! This isn't a fucking religion. These are tools and we invented these and it was a decision. God didn't hand us science and the rocks and trees don't breathe it out magically.

We have defined these things to help us and they are merely tools, not universal, religious truths. Does that make sense?

You're trying to turn everything into Christcucking. You want it all to be some total narrative so you can feel like you "get it". There was no "evil" in a fucking religion that worshiped Wisdom as the highest pricipal and had an enemy called ignorance.
Kill yourself Rabbi worshiper.

this is bullshit entirely. next you'll claim that a 6 inch hotdog isnt 6 inches because it wasnt measured infinity times and maybe on attempt 9329482348238423848284882824 it will be 6.00001992939293929391 inches.

now youll claim water isnt wet because fish live in water and they think wet is normal. ive argued with you entry level plebeians who are always on their way to become solipsists. why can you not comprehend that just because truths are based on effects relative to other truths does not make true itself relative. for example philosophically, if i desire control over others because it brings me joy, that makes me a slave to those i yearn to control because i rely on their existence for that desire. that is an objective truth. then youll be like "but wtf is joy anyway haha btfo" when you can measure joy by figuring out which happy neurons light up in someones brain during an act which they enjoy. "well how do they even know they enjoy it anyway" you'd have to set a measurable definition which does not exist currently. that is the problem, you are enslaved through lack of language and ability to express truth.

...

Kek, fuck off you nigger, I was addressing weebanon and his fears

If Q is not a complete LARP, then Trump may possibly be a sage.

This is the nature of the Tao.

How? Because we are Christian, lad. You see God created all things, and He saw that they were good. All created things are good. And all things were created by God. So how come there is evil?
Evil is the absence of good. Evil was never created, for evil is simply the misuse of the created. For God created all things with a purpose, or purposes - and He created Man with the ability to live according to these purposes, to accept the natural hierarchy of reality, to obey his Creator. He also gave Man the ability to disobey; why? Because the Man who chooses to obey when he has the option to disobey, shows a greater level of good - and as everything God created was and is good, it follows that Man is given the ability to be 'more good' by having the ability to choose not to be good – free will.
So everything that God created is good, and Man having free will is good; so evil then is when man misuses his free-will, and it is this misuse that is the evil. It is the misuse of the human genitalia, where a man defiles the anus of another in the act of sodomy, that is evil. It is the misuse of food, from a source of sustenance to an item to be coveted and devoured beyond its need; gluttony, and that is evil.
Hierarchy too. When Man disobeys his Creator, he does ill. So too when the young child disobeys its parent. When the dog disobeys its master. When the servant disobeys his lord. There is only good - evil is simply the misuse of the good, the perversion of the intended purpose, the denial of the natural hierarchy.
Holla Forums is a Christian board, and as such wishes to align all things with their purpose. The Man with his wife. The wages with the worker. The child with its family. The people with their nation. The devil with the lake of sulfur, and the jews burning there with their diabolic father forever-more.

But is it wrong though? lol. If you believe in a fucking "absolute truth" then tell me in fucking absolutes how much something measures. It's simple. If you can't do then that stop even fucking dreaming of your vague "scientific" ideas about reality being absolutely accurate too. You're deluding yourself just like all modern materialists who have been brainwashed into thinking that everything is simple nuts and bolts, up/down, left/right, yes/no, and that shit can't be more complicated than that.

You misunderstand the problem. You don't actually have "truths." THAT'S the problem. When you try to "prove" right from wrong with some pseudo-intellectual bullshit, for example, you end up sounding no different than muhomo'd the pedo goatfucker trying to explain why the Quran is definitely the word of Allah, or a Jew explaining why you are his footstool. If you have some absolute moral truth you can prove, or any other "absolutes," then go for it. I bet I can find a hole in it in two seconds.

You're taking translations of words and concepts as a means of simplifying down a religion, and then attempting to accuse me of doing the same thing. The exact details of morality are different - what is good, what is evil - but Zoroastrianism nevertheless maintains the concept of a proper order, and the outsider forces which intrude upon humanity. If you did even the briefest hint of studies into mythology, and comparative mythology in particular, you would understand this.
Kill yourself, Kike puppet. You boiled this discussion into shit-flinging out of your own ignorance.

Best answer.

I consider myself Christian too. There is a reason why the tree that got Adam and Eve banned was the tree of KNOWLEDGE. Because the more you learn the less rosy things get. Unfortunately modern theology is a forgery of history and it will continue to be slaughtered by philosophers until it adjusts to a position which is actually compatible with formal logic as we best understand it.

2+2=4

and i already explained in my first post that youre using the world "moral" incorrectly. you are confusing societally beneficial dogma with morality. i could list off hundreds of truths that would make society function with less death and destruction. those would be considered moral truths under the actual definition of the word but you'd still claim its all relative because some people dont want society to function with less death and destruction. it is not my fault you cant comprehend what i am saying. philosophical "morality" is based on desires which need to be stated before an act can be ascertained to be moral or not (if that act is in line in helping you achieve that desire). that is objectively provable. like how gassing kikes lowers usury. that would be moral if my desire was to prevent usury. once again you are confusing the world morality with societally beneficial dogma which is not what the definition means at its base.

Liquid Helium is the only one that buys this argument.

No lad, the Adam and Eve story in fact better explains my overall point. That evil is the absence of good, the misuse of the created, the denial of hierarchy, the perversion of purpose. Man was created to serve God, and God told Man that he must not eat from the one tree. That was His only rule, from everything else Man was allowed to eat. So what does Man do? Man disobeys God, Man goes against his purpose, against creation. And in that moment, where Man disobeyed God, misused his free will, went against his intended purpose - Man discovered what evil was. It was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because man's disobedience regarding it would reveal to man that evil was to go against his purpose.

And what was Man's punishment for going against his purpose? Death. And that my friend is why Holla Forums advocates death for the deviants and degenerates.

Joke: Christian traditionalist.

Woke: King Arthur-tier Jew-burning Christian traditionalist crusader

Bespoke: Elite SS-tier Arthurian Christian meme crusader knights are commanded by God Emperor Trump in the year 2054 to establish trade embassies and financial capitals in neighboring star systems so that we may pump alien worlds full of American-made goods.

I have come to the conclusion that what is "good" and what is "evil is, in fact, absolute. I will define "good" as what is a benefit to the Volk, or white people, or however you may want to say it, with "evil" being "harm" (not necessarily physical, but mental, spiritually, economically, etc) to said Volk. A proper system in my view would be one which would go through only a couple of stages;

1) Is this law/ordinance/rule too the benefactor of the Volk?
1a) If so, is it degenerate, hedonistic, or would otherwise hamper the productivity and wellness of the Volk in the longterm? (Think Soma from Brave New World. Although what may appear to be a benefactor is the complete opposite as it instills degeneracy).

2) If it doesn't serve the people, does it serve the Truth? (For example, a revelation of the fact that some looked-up-towards politician is found to be guilty of degeneracy, although him being forced out of office would perhaps hamper the Volk in one way, in the end, this service of the truth will bear fruit.)
2a) Would this revelation of the truth create an overall advantage to (((outside forces))) (A secret security service would still be necessary of course, and revealing truths that those services hold could gravely endanger the volk.)

Pictures semi-unrelated

OP FAILS AT THEOLOGY TOO
Negative OP, its called; "ORIGINAL SIN"
Sin is disobedience of God, so this means the original disobedience.

God could have told them TO EAT from the tree, and if they refused then THAT would be disobedience / "Sin" as well. and warrant expulsion from the Garden…

OP can't into philosophy OR theology.
OP BTFO

Actually no, those would be my exact same goals.

Only difference is I don't presume to have a logical argument to explain why I would want to do any of that, because like other people have pointed out, not everybody is going in the same "direction" when it comes to right and wrong. A kike for example might be really pissed that you want to cause less destruction. That's part of the problem but there's more to it than that.

Another example: I believe in God but I don't believe that the existence of God can be proven through formal logic. That doesn't stop me from believing in God, and doesn't stop the idea of God being incredibly useful and powerful.

I went to a big 4 year Christian university retard. I've heard more interpretations of the Bible than there are fucking shades on the gender spectrum.

As soon as you say "evil is the absence of good" you prove my OP perfectly by admitting that you are defining one term in terms of the other. Then you immediately go on to say they're totally separate. And you don't see how that definition you just gave already has you totally fucked up?

Here's a less inconsistent position: Sinful behavior is separation from God, and when you commit sinful behavior, God doesn't have to punish you. You are punishing yourself by distancing yourself from the Holy Spirit. /Theological hat off

You people stuck on the "original sin" shit are boring. You think Christian theologians study so many years just to parrot the same shit you simpleton pew-sitters do?

youre not comprehending any of the points that im making. i already addressed the fact that kikes having different desires than aryans does not make morality relative because you are not working with the correct base understanding of what morality actually is. morality functions through relative desires it is not relative in itself. it is simply a label (of truth) to stamp on an act if that act is in line with a desire.

once again for you since youre either not reading the posts you are replying to or you cant understand them.

morality - principles (truths) concerning the distinction (difference) between right (true) and wrong (false)

truths concerning the difference between true and false. meaning in an easier to understand way, morality simply seeks to find if something you are claiming to be true is in fact. which makes deception immoral. 99% of people use morality in a sense of determining if an act is beneficial to their ingroup rather than determining if an act is in line with the desires of their ingroup. this allows outgroup individuals to claim morality is relative because something beneficial to the formerly mentioned ingroup has the opposite effect on them. do you understand?

I didn't read the whole thread, but if you're claiming the gaining of knowledge itself is a sin, I'll have to disagree. God would be compromised of knowledge & eternal life (two trees referenced in the Bible) & some other powers. Man eating the fruit made him that much closer to God-hood & the knowledge which God himself would've already possessed was not evil. It would be the disobedience that would've been evil.
This can be further be understood by the fact that your memories wont be wiped after you "go" to Heaven & such and partake in the tree of eternal life. (Although, as a philosophical question I wonder if you retain free will. For if I know of evil, how would I not partake in it? I guess in the same way God, who is supposedly all things good would, but how He does so is the question, I guess.)

No, because all things are good. Everything as it was created, as used in its intended purpose, accepting of its position in creation - is good. Evil comes from denying these things.

Satan is evil because despite being less than God, he claims to be higher.
Sodomy is evil because it is the misuse of the genitalia and anus(the purpose of the anus is to excrete; the genitalia for urination and pro-creation).
Gluttony is evil because it is using food in ways other than sustenance.
Feminism is evil because it separates the man from the woman (they were intended to be together).
Immigration is evil because it separates the national from the nation (the family is intended to stay together).
Equality is evil because it denies the hierarchy of Creation.
Jews are evil because they push all of these things.

The truth of God is revealed to all Men, we know it instinctively. The atheist might balk at the phrase: "Disobedience unto God is the first evil", yet if one considers that all 'Good' flows from the Divine, and from no other place - then it must be realised that the statement is the obedience unto God is to do good, and all those things that you believe are good are so because God created a world that was good. If you believe something is good and it does not come from God, then you're in error. All that we know is good comes from God, all that we know as evil is the misuse or re-purposing of what God gave to us.

Good exists without evil. Evil is simply using what is good in ways it was not intended. As a final point Man was created to be a steward of Creation, we are to maintain God's creations and make sure they are all existing in accordance with their purpose. It is for this reason that we, as Holla Forums, do the work of God. We oppose those who would pervert creation.

Yield and overcome.

I am not. God is the font of all good, God created all things, and all things that were created were God. God's will is 'good'. Evil is to go against God, to misuse His creations, to deny your purpose and position in Creation.

The tree of good and evil bestows man with the knowledge of good and evil, because of man's action. The act of disobedience is 'evil'. That is all evil is. Evil does not exist outside of doing what God did not intend. In the Garden of Eden there are no rules for Man to follow, except the one regarding the Tree.

When Man eats from the Tree, he disobeys God. It is this act of disobedience that is the evil, and by doing it Man goes against his purpose - to serve God- and realises he has done evil. To do good would have been to have not eaten from the Tree. So Man learns the knowledge of good and evil - good is obedience unto God (who is the font of all goodness), and evil is disobedience unto God.

Zoroastrianism was one of the first worldviews to advocate an objective divide between cosmic good and evil, you fucking dweeb.

You appear to be reiterating what I stated (i.e. we agree). So, I merely am wondering as to why you decided to give such detail in your response despite the fact that we agree.
I presume you mean good. If we wanted to have fun we could descend into the: although the Devil being evil is of his own free will (which angels supposedly have, despite the fact that it seems non are "falling anymore" or will fall anymore after Revelations is completed), God would've known this. For what reason did He start this grand play? Is it for fun, a test, etc.? But even if it were any of these, is there a point when you know it all already? (all the more so if you're omnipresent and exist at every period of time, i.e. even if you watch a good show, you might rewatch it despite knowing how it'll go, but if you are watching it at the moment, what's the point in watching it again. That last sentence probably doesn't make sense, but I hope the overall idea does.)

I don't think its relevant but I just wanted to drop this off for curious anons.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_hot

I'm seeing some interesting views here on the act of disobedience itself being the problem, rather than the gaining of the knowledge.

Now, I don't want to derail, and I don't want to start shit flinging. I just want to make an observation. Why is it that God chose this particular tree with this particular enlightenment as the test for human obedience? To me, personally, this "It's the disobedience that's bad, not the obtaining knowledge" part really seems like some jewish lawyer bullshit. Maybe it isn't, and if you have specific reasons why not, I would be more than happy to be educated. I ask this question, because in every other Aryan religion, the god that grants knowledge to mankind (In various different ways) is regarded as a hero and a champion to mankind. It is viewed as positive. Often times it is a god of fire, the hearth, the sun, illumination, etc., which is interesting to me, seeing as in the Old Testament, this figure is the bad guy, a corruption that flips the Aryan tradition on it's head, which is an issue for me, since it's very in line with what kikes tend to do. This is one of the core problems I have with Christianity, and I'd like to see what you guys have to say about the subject.

It's the same thing as Adam and Eve getting the knowledge of both good and evil AND that they're naked, see? western philosophy went one step beyond the flimsy brainlets of simple duality, things are woven, like patterns, it's NEVER a multitude of of isolated dualities.

I thought one of the main complaints that Lucifer had was that humans were created in God's image (which covers free will), where angels were not.

That lao tzu quote aint shit. The point isn't hard or soft. Soft isn't what overcomes hard, what overcomes the hard in his examples is FORCE.

Also yea you need bad to give value to good, but that doesn't mean you strive to be bad.

As someone who actually trains, limits need to be understood, respected, and worked around.

How new are you?

I like that you're introducing people to this concept (it's really important in religious/philosophical thought), but what does this thread accomplish? Doesn't Kaczynsky talk about how leftists just use moral relativism as a tool; Holla Forums is mostly against moral relativism as a reaction to leftist dishonesty. If it weren't used as a scapegoat then in all likelyhood Holla Forums wouldn't care.

The enlightened man must know his place in the world. The wise man would not try to fight the lion with his bear hands. The story of the tree specifically shows the hierarchy of Creation, and Man is below God, and so Man must obey God.

None of this is to say that the pursuit of knowledge is bad. That is a twisted understanding pushed by many twisted individuals. It is to say that God, who Created all things, is the one that we learn from though. Whether we learn through His lessons that are observable in His creations, we learn from His Scriptures, or we learn from direct Revelation - it is from God that we learn. To learn from God we must be obedient, we must accept His creation, we must not try to attribute to it a new purpose, position or use. We must not make the unequal equal, we must not worship the creature, we must not defile creation. All of these things are implied in the story, we must be obedient to God to truly learn.

I think that this story that focuses on hierarchy and obedience in reference to knowledge may actually be a warning to those who would seek to learn from other sources. Look at how the idiots of the modern era squander their knowledge by creating all manner of perverse devices that enfeeble the mind and body. They were not ready for the knowledge, they should have been obedient to God - but instead they learned from Jews, who themselves learned from devils; and then they use all their intelligence to do evil, to extort their fellow man or create gadgets the enable further vice. That evil is the fruit of learning without obedience.

I feel it is also worth mentioning that many of the world's greatest minds claimed to have learned what they did because of their study of the Christian God. Tesla and Newton are two such examples.

Interesting. I'll take it. You're the first Christian on Holla Forums that's actually given me something to ponder over.

I will give my line of reasoning, for if one doesn't know the axioms of my belief, my statements will merely seem random. Although I wont claim Lucifer = Satan, I will claim the Devil was an angel. Whether you agree with this or not I leave to you. Supposing this is true, wouldn't an angel have to have free will in order to fall?
As for the "in his image", I would think it would have to be more than free will. For example, if you believe Christianity, God created his own vessel (a body) Jesus. Humans have their own vessels (bodies). However, a demon or devil/angel has no inherent body. It must steal/possess one. I feel as if there is one other attribute man has which an angel would not, but I'd have to reason it out more to figure it out what it is (maybe something that has to do with our evolutionary ability, i.e. our ability of "we can & will eventually comprehend that which is shown to us" were as angels are final products).

I don't think you can completely reconcile Aryan outlooks with a Jewish religion. For example, Aryan belief would be one of striving towards God-hood & puts stock in pride. However, Christianity and such denounce pride, although I'll claim they don't deny that one should continually improve themselves (to live like Christ & such). Even if we distinguish arrogance from pride (both religions would denounce arrogance), I still believe that Christianity would at least warp this type of pride, for even your ability as, say, a painter would be attributed to God (not unto yourself).
However, if you decide to persue Christianity, never forget, even if God is a god of grace, He is also a God of judgement. E.g., I would say, even if it says "turn the other cheek", I would state that this is made on the basis that not only will God bring justice, but the powers that be will be constructed in such a manner that justice is given. After all, if a pedophile is to be sent to the execution, I should just forgive (for the punishment will occur & your personal dwelling on it will only have anger fester within you, consuming you. See "let the sun not set on your wrath". Rightous anger is good, but once justice is carried out that anger shouldn't bog you down.)

It should be noted, moral relativism itself isn't evil, it's merely that people don't engage in true relativism. True relativism is that everything is relative, but it wouldn't deny that certain things help attain and end goal. E.g., gay sex may not be good or bad, but if I mark it as bad what are the implications? A decrease in stds for the overall populace, a reduction in child abuse, a creation of more stable households due to the nuclear family being the norm. I.e., by marking it as mad I have these conditions fulfilled which I deem good (and most others would as well). So even in the confines of relativism, there are rules & implications which cannot be denied.

I'm not.

Good point I heard from a Stefan Molyneux interview though (Stefan himself didn't make this point, the other guy did): When Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they already knew good, because they knew God. And if you want to get into Baptist-levels of zealotry claiming the literal truth of the Bible, then the Bible itself says that God is good. So Adam and Eve knew God, and they knew good. The only thing Adam and Eve really learned by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the knowledge of evil. Only then did they even have a conception that they could be doing something wrong, and then they were kicked out.

If…

1) Disobedience is evil, as you say, and

2) the Bible states that kings rule by the authority of God (which it does),

then the United States rebelling from Great Britain was a sin and our whole nation is evil by its very existence.

Stopped reading there

I saw what was happening during the Bush years, which also involved Christianity (remember that Bush claimed some bullshit like God told him to invade Iraq). I trust Trump, but after Trump's political generation is going to come another reaction, and a lot of the "alt right" is already developing a weakness by deciding to become unflexibly bond to the idea of absolute morality despite the fact that there are real problems with defending any ideas that are ultimately justified by traditional religion.

If it were not for all of the blatant degeneracy going on today, the trend of youths toward atheism would no doubt be continuing as it was before. Atheism is a boon to communists and authoritarians, not people who enjoy freedom and acknowledge a higher authority than any government.

Completely true, but when does it start? The first kingdoms created would've been created naturally (say, individuals gather on open land). However, eventually, all subsequent nations will be built as the result of conquest, morphing from conquest (e.g. take in peoples of foreign lands), or division from within. So, one could claim all except for the original kingdoms were falsehoods. But, I believe there is a part that is said "To obey the law as long as it's right with God" (I'm paraphrasing, but the concept is, you need only obey the earthly law if it aligns with God). So, if one could form an argument that a type of government is forcing you into a position that you'd have to go against God if you remained in it, then it would be necessary to break away from it to remain right with God. (A clear example of this would be the religious splits in Europe).
As an aside, but a relevant one, it does state that slaves should obey their masters, but this is under the idea (-idea, not necessarily followed) that they are treated sufficiently well & possibly freed at some point.
Again, I will continually believe that there are two rulesets (although overlapping) in the Bible. One for the common class & one for the ruling class. E.g., the common man should not kill, but it is the ruling class's duty to make sure justice is done. A country can own another, but it is the owner's duty to no desecrate that land & to handle it wisely. I.e., noblesse oblige.

fag.

The founding fathers were the original occupy wall street-ers. Do you expect anything good to come from a bunch of liberal freemasons rioting over muh rights?

Does National Socialism have to be a system of Fascism or visa versa? Indeed we are at the end of a cycle and need fascism to make steel of men who barely are kilned clay and reinvigorate the western world AGAIN, but that aside I wonder if Socialism for the sake of a set people can exist without national (a peoples' land) authoritarianism.

The Bible says that Kings rule with the permission of God, not that Kings rule because God desires them to. Satan also tormented Job with the permission of God, because without God's permission no one can do anything. This is specifically supposed to show how the devil is nothing compared to God, how a King is nothing compared to God, how they are both so lowly that they need God's permission to even exist - for God could snuff them out in an instant.

It is possible that an authority is doing the will of God, but in many cases we know that they are not. Those that do we should cherish as rulers who bring justice, but we should also remember that the devil is the prince of this world, and that there is spiritual wickedness in many high places - all the places that Holla Forums likes to point out.

God allows wickedness to take place because free will allows for us to be more good, as having the option to do what is right and doing it is better than simply being forced to do what is right. We are supposed to oppose all evil, and who knows; that may mean rebelling against a nation.

Forget about the founding fathers. The colonists themselves, a lot of them anyway, came here specifically to get away from the Anglican Church in England. And then they only declared independence a year after the king committed the worst violation of their rights as Englishmen by sending an army to virtually conquer them, his own subjects, in 1775.

NatSoc and Fascism are not mutually inclusive. Fascism is going to be different in every country by virtue of the fact that it is a nationalist ideology. It can even be different with the same people but under a different nation - Roman fascism (Rome was fascist at one point, fight me), and Italian Fascism from the 40's was different, but they were the same race of people.

NatSoc simply won't work in the US, or really anywhere else. You could have a similar system, but NatSoc is specifically tailored to a smaller nation of teutonic racial homogeneity, and relies on the specific, wonderful brand of autism that the germanic/nordic races posses. Fascism in the US would look very similar to the Confederate States of America in terms of law, probably divvied up into macro regions of states with similar cultures. Given the political traditions that are ingrained into the American identity, anyway. It would almost have to be a confederate fascist republic. Even if the US were racially purified, Texas is too different from Pennsylvania is too different from California, etc.

Hello edgychan.

Can water really mend mountains? Sure water can mend stones if the tide or waves keep moving them against the layer of sand or rock beneath them, but then it's really a case of rock moving against sand or rock…

...

Romans 13

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?

The noble lie of the republic comes in here. It is fundamental to the exercise of strong morality that morality is if not solid then at least a non-newtonian fluid in that it hardens when stepped on. People require rule and that rule must be strong and stable or else it leads to where we are today. 2000 years of cultural usage of virtue ethics and platonism which while solid maintained and generated the greatest technological and cultural groups in history.

This. You quote from a great source. There is no hot or cold, only varying amounts of heat.

There is only frozen or not frozen. Boiling or not boiling. Good, or not good. Heat is a only a way to measure where we are on the spectrum of temperature, we might say the low peak is frozen and the high peak is boiling.

When we talk about morality there is only good, or not good. We can say that a man who sins infrequently is higher on the spectrum of morality than than one who sins regularly, the first man is closer to the analogous boiling point peak, but he is not 'boiling'. He is not good. He is still flawed. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Fuck off Wang.

It was cucked by kikes to pacify liberals that cultural Marxism couldn't trick into atheism.

checked
Fucking Kek

I admit I understood nothing itt making me the opposite of the worst Toaist itt. The IChing says NOW is the most auspicious time for OP; the Christcucks, and the philosophers arguing semetically/semantically about units of measurement to gas themselves.

36
DARKENING OF THE LIGHT
Disengage from negative feelings and
maintain your inner light.

SECOND LINE

FIFTH LINE

SIXTH LINE

9
THE TAMING POWER OF THE SMALL
It is a time for taking small steps.

"It means conflict is natural and good. It means domination is natural and good. It means what you have to do in order to survive is natural and good. It means that we should not begin every sentence by apologising for our past or apologising for who we are."
Jonothan Bowden
Also: Liberalism is moral syphillis. JB

good point

The sign of a true scholar tbh.

You're not reading me accurately if you think your post has anything to do with any point I made. Religious fundamentalists do not regard their religions as rites of passage to be gotten through and forgotten. You're conflating a bunch of issues and unrelated topics together because you're not used to doing philosophy. If you want to learn to think clearly about philosophical issues (and go through the rite that is western philosophy), study formal logic, and read the history of western philosophy from Plato onward.

Huh? I didn't make any arguments because what I'm saying is logically evident to anyone who can reason. My point was - you didn't make any arguments - you threw a bunch of confused language together. What kind of argument do you want me to make? Do you really want an account in propositional logic of why a non-sequitur is not an argument?

We— we were shooting for the stars at one point before it happened.
Before the immigrants came because of (((them)))

easy.
The universe is physical. Truth is in congruence with the laws of physics, Falsehood is not.
From these two poles, which can be defined solely in relationship to reality itself, all other dualities can be pegged.
Sorry, Lao Tzu.

No there's solid, and liquid, and gaseous, and plasma. you dumb fagot. There's nothing subjective about it.

how to define tall/short:

you are welcome

浅学非才

No it wasn't Jew. You're a stupid faggot who compares everything to Christianity. Even your Pepe is Jewy

my nigga

No.
The whole water thing is about process not morality.
Tao is in no way moral relativism. Tao is Stoic Logos/the basic structure of reality/natural law. Its a very simple idea that still requires a lot of thought. Natural law is self evident and irrefutable. Such things as gravity, and physics, chemical reactions and most pertinent to us evoloution etc are natural law and form the only basis for any world view. If you ignore natural law you are dismissing reality and are delusional.
We have divorced ourselves from natural law with our cleverness and as such we no longer have a basis for morality. Such perversions as 'as long as they arnt hurting anyone' or 'its their choice' along with insipid sentiment pass for morality now and can only exist in the abscence of hard uncompromising natural law. Because Natural law is hard and ruthless, it is capable of great beauty and uglines but at no point does it have any jugement. It doesnt care and will simply steamroll right over us. Your version of good and evil is exactly the opposite: Soft, emotional, timid, weak, negotiable and doomed.
The only people who argue for this moral relativist filth are jews, perverts and fools. Pick one.
Here is a simple example of natural law: If a people wont fight when invaders rape their children and murder them in the streets that people will die.

Another simple example:
When a fox chases a rabbit. If the rabbit is too slow it dies, when the fox is too slow it starves.
This is natural law.

Good = what advances your Volk. Evil = what works to destroy your Volk.

It is as simple as that.

I have a question:
Why does arguing with the latter (morality is beneficial to the desires of the ingroup) protect you from the "morality is relative" counterargument?

It is an analogy, and we are talking about specific states of being. 'Good' is a state, not a spectrum. We talk about things being more or less good, as if it were a spectrum - but this wrong, and is similar to how we might talk about how there is more heat or less heat. Yet it does not matter if you're lower on the heat spectrum if you are not actually frozen, it does not matter if you're higher on the spectrum if you're not boiling. You have not reached the new state regardless of whether you're closer to it than someone else, you are either frozen or you are not - either boiling or you are not. So too it is with being 'good'; you are either good, or you are not. And all fall short of the glory of God.

As you rightly pointed out, there is nothing subjective about it.

Well done.

Buddhism and Taoism share similarities with Ancient Greek Philosophies such as Stoicism.

Buddhism and Taoism share similarities with Ancient Greek Philosophies such as Stoicism.

Was Lao Tzu an unemployed bum like Confucius?

It implies you need evil to have good. You can't have an omelet without breaking some eggs. Consequently there is an indifference to evil or worse people tell themselves "evil" is necessary. This promotes "ends justify the means". Litterally it promotes BAM by all means etc. Look at what drove Hillary. She and some of her followers felt having a first woman president was so good and necessary that any and all means were being used. That's how moral relativism plays out. All they need is some "ends" to justify their "means".

It's a really good question.
All politicians should be asked if they are "moral relativists" or if they believe the "ends justifty the means"? The left/sjw's seem largely consumed by it.

The problem with moral relativism is that it is used as a justification for things that are harmful to the individual or to the society. While moral relativists are correct in that our mores and values are relative to our own culture and upbringing, they are incorrect to assume everyone has the agency to act on that knowledge correctly. The capacity for logical thought is something many people lack because it is something unnatural to the layman, and even extremely bright people must be schooled on it as pointed out. Philosophy is similar to mathematics, in that at the very basic levels you have 2+2=4, Yin and Yang, karma, etc. Just because you understand basic addition doesn't mean you understand the zeta function without proper training. And just because you understand dualistic systems of thinking doesn't mean you can grasp and understand complex philosophical systems. Too many people are trying to be armchair philosophers, and too few even have a basic understanding of logic. The fallout of presenting moral relativism to the masses is something that we are seeing played out today. We have things like pop-nihilism, where in nihilism isn't necessarily being used as a philosophy so much as a justification of other behaviors, usually hedonistic. The masses should be given moral absolutism, conviction is a lost virtue. Relativism should be reserved for those who have been trained to think logically, and who have grounded themselves firmly in a system so they don't spiral downwards into degeneracy.

This is what happened with post-modernism. In and of itself it is quite useful because it allows the person to observe a subject holistically. However it has been perverted and used as a tool for the destruction of the values that allowed it to be created in the first place. Ultimately this all stems from the lack of rigorous individuals being let in and exposed to these schools of thought

This is why Jesus will win.
Nothing to do with these godless nirvana cookies from lotusland.

I've been toying with the idea of moral relativism and how on it's face it seems like a flimsy (and kinda gay tbh) stance to take. I would agree that moral relativism is shit if we are assuming morality comes from a source that is absolute in itself. If we take God as the source of morality then we must assume an absolute morality, unless God designed different people to have different moralities, but I don't think that's seen in scripture. However we can look at morality as an evolutionary construct, we develop morality because it allows a coherent social structure to develop. If we never developed morality in our minds (empathy is a part of this) then we would slaughter eachother at a whim and tribes would collapse. Taking morality as an evolutionary construct also allows us to effectively explain the differences between conceptions of morality between different peoples. There seem to be very fundamental differences in the morality constructed by the races in how they deal with other people and animals, for example Asians and Africans seem to have complete disregard for the well being of animals in contrast to Europeans and we all see how Africans will commit murder for seemingly no reason with brutality the European or Asian cannot imagine. It does seem that the less African a people gets, the more developed it's sense of morality is, coinciding with it's intelligence. This conception of morality also has the implication that morality only applies to the group in which it is constructed, we have morality to hold our tribe together, we have no need to be moral to people who are not our own. The "refugees" are not of our tribe, nor are the legal immigrants, we have no reason to treat them as we would treat our own and there is no hypocrisy in it. This further explains in-group preference and may play on the more honest liberals sense of the importance of science and general godlessness. Moral relativism is relative based on the objective evolutionary differences between peoples and isn't flimsy because it is based on the eternal principle of survival for the tribe and individual, which cannot succeed without each other.

This man understands.

STOP POL CENSORSHIP
Remove the Holla Forums mod
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL
FIX POL

They also fail to understand that the values it produces are not always harmonized with the natural order. Moral relativism is a tool one can use to understand the natural order just like the scientific method is. The problem comes when people begin to fetishize it and treat it as an end in and of itself. It is not and can not act as a moral system despite people's attempt to make it one.

= Kike slave morality

what i am saying is that 99% of people use morality in a way that is not based on the words definition. when the 99% use it they are equating the meaning to be beneficial to the desires of their ingroup RATHER than the actual meaning (where you stamp the word morality on an act that helps you achieve your ingroups desired will). there is a big difference in those 2 usages of the word. it makes desires relative between different ingroups, not morality. morality is once again just a label to stamp on an act (if that act truthfully helps you closer to the desire you based that act on). you can claim an act moral and beneficial to your end desire but it may not actually benefit you. that just means youre wrong and used the word incorrectly. sometimes it takes time to figure out if an act was truly moral or not because the consequences dont fully manifest until later.

Think about this for a while. I hope you come to the right conclusion and delete your post.

Things having comparative relations to each other has nothing to do with morals.

You gotta read more dude. Maybe even just think more.

Aryans understood this idea of dualism long before lao tzu. It is clear in the Vedas.

Taoism is an offshoot of Hinduism, a on Aryan philosophy.

Good is absolute, even if our ability to see or embody it is not. Taking 'revelation' of the Good as an absolute for those to whom it has been disclosed (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aletheia) , we can then define evil as simply that which opposes Good.

So you can take Good as a starting point, and then use the given to define evil. The same way you can take health as a starting point, then use it to define disease. But you can't do the reverse . "Taoist duality" does not apply here. You can't define health starting from disease, or good starting from evil. "Evil" and "disease" are always derivative definitions, they make no sense without prior knowing of Good and health.

There are many diseases, but the state of health is one, as there are many evils, but the Good is one.

Taoism works in "gradients" , where you "perceive" a whole spectrum and name colors, or where you perceive length and name "shortness" or "tallness" . But Truth does not come as an arbitrary mark in a gradient. It is a Whole in an of itself.

You should look into Confucius, or perhaps some greek philosophers : Heraclitus, Aristotle, Plato.

Democracy is a sham and you know it. People's choices are by-an-large manufactured or meaningless. I can't think of a single increase in 'freedom' this age that has had positive consequence. Freedom is something men prove themselves as worthy of. Some can handle it, most fall into nihilistic despair. Has feminism made women happier? People were happier when they were 'less free', when society had structure. They were sold the empty promises of leftism, "we can make it better", and now we're reaping the results.

The whole idea of "Good" and "Evil" is an unnecessary complication. Just do what your nature tells you to in the way that's most acceptable to you and destroy anyone who offends your nature or gets in the way of you acting it out.

Unless of course your nature leads you to destroy yourself, in that case it would be wise to acquire some sort of "objective" moral guidelines merely for your own survival and happiness.

Only if you value those two things however. If not then one can feel free go wild in my book, they'll be cut down in short order anyway.

To a National Socialist, your people collectively and their future is sacred. What is good for your people is good and what is not is not.

The first question then is, who are your people? Once this is answered the next matter of importance is the fact that even among National Socialist's there will be division on exactly what is good and bad for one's people for example bisexuality may actually be good- Alexander the Great was bisexual but shrinking in number and quality is not good.

Good is defined by what you thing is evil.
Evil is defined by what you think is good.

Love is defined by what you Hate.
Hate is defined by what you Love

When you love something, you could be said to hate what you do not love.

When you hate something, you could be said to love what you do not hate.

Obviously there are gradients but this is also an expression of the Tao.

One thing is defined by it's comparison to another. One's perspective is 'enlightened' when they have greater understanding of the world and therefore have better and more finely tuned judgement.

Everyone on this board can agree that the shrinking white percentage of global population is evil… and therefore than an increase in the share of global white population is righteous

So is anyone considering going to Mt. Koya to learn the way of the Honorary Aryan wizards?

Besides that it makes a cube/hexagram, can you tell me why there are 18 spokes in the middle of your pic? Pic possibly related.

You should know that most Taoist gods and immortals died fighting tyranny then were deified. Anyone who says evil is a kike meme and not real should go be friends with pediphile cannibal rabbis.

Very true. Some PIA went west, some went east. After learning of Tao while working in the government archives, Lao Tzu mounted a donkey and headed back to India to learn more from the source. At the Chinese boarder he transmitted the TTC to a guard who then went on to teach the Chinese. Taoism is a fractured puzzle piece like Buddhism and the western esoteric teachings the kikes have desperately been trying to destroy.

Bit off topic but does anyone know how Epicurean friendship mansions worked or were designed? And could it be applied to multigenerational living in the future?

Because it was popularized in the west by jews to sell a product.

Confucius was a state official.

Truth.

Perhaps it's not that our culture is shit but that, over time changes in the environment have made it such that our culture isn't an accurate reflection of the west as it stands today (lag affect with regards to change). For example we are at land capacity with no where for anons to fuck off to and make a new nation free of the inefficiencies of the old ones. (like that pic with apes climbing up ladder for food and getting squirted with water).

Alcohol too was efficient to consume historically since it wouldn't make you ill like water would. Today we have clean water (minus plastics and fluoride…..better of getting water from fruit juices instead) but still consume alcohol merely because it's part of our traditions and is important for making friends/integrating signalling part of group etc.
it's called "THE EFFECT OF VITAMIN DEFICIENCY ON ESTRADIOL INACTIVATION BY LIVER"
b1 deffeciency gives fat gut etc etc beri beri….
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11505030

Thus as the environment changes over time new better things became possible but human culture supreses uptake of these new ideas. Since we have higher life expectancies too expect that status quo crap will be even harder to overcome (more lag with regards to changing culture). The old men who care about all these ppl who died in the world wars etc constantly advertising their experiences to socialise the new into their paradigms. This primes them for exploitation. eg guilting new german organisms after WW2…

Our environment is very poisoned
there's more!!!!!!!!!
net result the rate of decay of the health of males is speeding up…. since these things are constantly on the increase in the envirnment. Since are culture more open easier for ppl to screw up normal socialisation of new organsims… thus open to slippery slope homo pedos… maybe ?

Ganbatte user!!!!!

Because nobody believes in the Bible anymore, pushing your "view" as subjective interpretation is easier, than use the Bible to explain itself and possible more likelyreckt your "interpretation" with its objectivity.
All ignore "The man has crooked ways, the serpent too, but the ways of th Lord are straight. Be God true and every man a lier. Dont add or remove. God isnt the master of confusion" part.Its a side effect of late XIX and proto-CY from 50 years ago
Thats why its the stone rejected by the builder, cant be changed by mans hand to fit a desire or ideaunless you use corrupted scripture full of holes and contradiction or restrict access or use a type of barrier to prevent understanding.

holy fuck go back to cuckchan you retarded pseudo intellectual faggots

Varg was right. Cuckstianity and all other Abrahamic religions are purely Jewish. Only if we see our Earth as heaven will we actively fight for it.

Christians and Europeans are God's chosen children, the sons of Japheth, chosen to inherit the Kingdom of God. (((Jews))) are the sons of Shem, and will be cursed for their avarice and pride.

What weaknesses can there be in gassing kikes? Seems like a timeless plan of action.

damn, this guy was pretty cool. reading up on him and other connected persons now.

but this is a relative measure so there are at least two ways to change it. some of the elites seem to favor option B: reducing the number of "everyone else", where I suspect "everyone else" differs depending on which globalist mega-oligarch you ask. some would say, save the intelligent, others would say save some of all types like a noah's arc scenario, and then there's those standing up for each race / ethnicity (assuming there are some for each, I would guess the ethnic preferences would lean towards white or asian or jewish since that's the actual demographics of the super rich).

...

...

As above so below.

Taoism is good but you need to appreciate the Aryan roots in the philosophies and why so called 'eastern' practices are important to learn especially with the prevalence of christ cuckery in the west. Organised religion is a cancer.

Basically the same thing, only with better pay.

I thought one of Nietzsche's core arguments was that master moralists were primarily concerned with what they loved and left what they hated to be an afterthought whereas slave moralists were primarily concerned with what they hated and left what they loved as an afterthought.

Good isn't defined by what's believed to be evil for the master moralist but rather, evil is defined by what's thought to not be good. Conversely, for the slave moralist, good is defined by what's thought to not be evil.

Yes I prefer to think in positivist terms as well.
Dwell on the light not the Darkness.

8ch.net/lilia/res/51.html#q70

Good posts

Well said. A great explanation of the concepts that give our lives meaning.

"Hard times make good men."
However, this "trend towards (((Atheism)))" isn't as real as it may seem.
Atheists are much less likely to marry and have less children on average.

I have to… neither disagree nor agree, since many things are indeed bipolar, but at the same time many of our social structures are actually multipolared. Although the more you go into detail on why what is happening politics for example, you will always end up on a bipolar question, which builds up this whole reasoning…
Although in the end there is no good nor evil, both these terms have to be defined by someone, otherwise without anyone defining them they are just empty words. Same goes with tall and short.
But since these words are established and its meaning changing over time, it can mean anything. Today you might say that this is bad, the next day you will say that this exact same thing is good. Both are perfectly reasonable views… Well for yourself, not for outsiders, since outsiders have yet again their own definition, but in the end there is some kind of reasoning why we support the people we support and oppose those we oppose.

More ignorant children bandying around concepts beyond their comprehension.
This place is so tedious, at times. Stick to the digging. You have to minds for philosophy.

I was away, and by reading this thread I can safely assure that Holla Forums is dead.
Maybe due to pic related? Absolutely.

to minds for philosophy? wut
stop the pretentiousness and explain yourself kike

...